Limiting Exploration

[Patine]

If the retort is "Well yes but they can be different" then you can just say that about anything.

So, what's your enlighted viewpoint that transcends ordinary, banal tropes of discussion, there?

 

[pokiehl]

If I try to imagine a game without Barbs, I think that I would be quite bored when my military has basically nothing to do, and I don't want to have to declare wars on City-States and risk diplomatic problems or something.
Also basically nothing will really get in the way of me doing anything, there would be no real minor obstacles or mini-scenarios.
I do understand that they're annoying though. Maybe they just get old after dozens and dozens of games.


I haven't played HK enough to really comment. I played it on release and I thought Influence was... interesting.
Sidetrack: I'm not a huge fan of amounts of things that don't really mean anything.

For example, for Millenia, they have all these 'Points' like 'Improvement Points'
For another example, Dune (the 4X RTS hybrid one) has stuff like 'Authority'

I know they're supposed to represent things, but in my mind it's not really as concrete.

Some people deride these things as "mana". I don't think it's all that different from what Civ has with its spendable points like Faith, Influence Points, etc. I think a game at some level needs to have buckets of currencies to fill up to spend to accomplish stuff.

EDIT: I don't think a Territory system will ever come to Civ. Because: it artificially pre-divides the map, which takes away from player expression to 'Found an empire whatever way you like'.

I think we're already halfway there with named continents and mechanics that revolve around them. The territory system isn't really as limiting as it sounds. I thought I'd hate the idea, but playing it was actually simultaneously freeing and exciting. The tension to rush a new territory is really exciting, and the territory system facilitates this mechanic of combining cities from adjacent territories into mega cities. There are a lot of interesting decisions to make beyond what Civ 6 has, which is basically "Let me settle on a river near a luxury or two and the strategic resources I can see"

 

[Patine]

I think we're already halfway there with named continents and mechanics that revolve around them. The territory system isn't really as limiting as it sounds

I think territories, and some other major mistakes they could make, in my opinion, would make me give such an iteration a miss and stick to the ones I currently played and enjoyed.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Some people deride these things as "mana". I don't think it's all that different from what Civ has with its spendable points like Faith, Influence Points, etc. I think a game at some level needs to have buckets of currencies to fill up to spend to accomplish stuff.

I think we're already halfway there with named continents and mechanics that revolve around them. The territory system isn't really as limiting as it sounds. I thought I'd hate the idea, but playing it was actually simultaneously freeing and exciting. The tension to rush a new territory is really exciting, and the territory system facilitates this mechanic of combining cities from adjacent territories into mega cities. There are a lot of interesting decisions to make beyond what Civ 6 has, which is basically "Let me settle on a river near a luxury or two and the strategic resources I can see"

Some of these things are sort of like "mana" when they become ambiguous enough to be honest. Out of the ones that Civ has, Culture, Faith can be considered to be arbitrary. But they're still more rooted in something tangible than something like Authority or Influence (in my opinion)

Yes while I like mechanics that split the world into regions, I'm not thinking they will make the leap towards total territories.
It's maybe alright for that game, but Civ is something else. I would say.

But is it really that good? I should replay HK if you recommend it.

I do see the benefits of this system and drawbacks of the existing. And I would say you can have your cake and eat it too - I think sprawling megaCities could be possible if they designed the game for it.
And I also think that the decision making for the original system could be more interesting if the tiles were more balanced.

 

[pokiehl]

Yes while I like mechanics that split the world into regions, I'm not thinking they will make the leap towards total territories.
It's maybe alright for that game, but Civ is something else. I would say.

But is it really that good? I should replay HK if you recommend it.

I do see the benefits of this system and drawbacks of the existing. And I would say you can have your cake and eat it too - I think sprawling megaCities could be possible if they designed the game for it.
And I also think that the decision making for the original system could be more interesting if the tiles were more balanced.

I hear you. To be clear, I’m not recommending Humankind I’d rather play Civ any day. I don’t really like the game for a ton of reasons, but I do think it had a couple good ideas:

1. Territory system
2. Logical streamlining of the district system. There are no tile improvements, just districts and buildings. This makes way more sense to me. In Civ, improvements and districts are at odds with each other conceptually and at physical scale. It never made sense to me to have both. I also think we could do away with builders and other civilian units like Humankind does.

But other than those ideas I like, the game has a ton of problems and isn’t fun to me. I think the balance of the core gameplay loop is just way off, I don’t like changing cultures every turns, I don’t find the game as immersive, etc…

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

and some more semi-regular, hello

For another example, Dune (the 4X RTS hybrid one) has stuff like 'Authority'

As someone who uses these more vague conceptual resources a lot in their own 4X(ish) game concepts...

• note: I can understand how quantifying a concept can come off as strange to some people, but really I think it's a matter of familiarity. Civ has been quantifying all the disciplines of "science" from the very beginning to suit its model- to me it makes a lot of sense to apply that logic to Influence, Leverage, or Logistics (as opposed to making singular, detached systems at every semi-justifiable opportunity... i'm sorry Civ Vi but you are guilty). If you just make it a resource, you can have its gameplay applications be broad (players see that both diplomats and soldiers can generate Leverage and don't question it because it suits the theming of the mechanic) while not overcomplicating the system. What is Leverage? At its core, just another thing you can accumulate and spend.

Also, the topic of merging barbarians, tribal huts, and city-states has been brought up... multiple times within this "exploration" thread. Curious... but anyway, I'd be on board so long as the best of each of the systems carries over. We can have puppets/vassals, we can receive tribal hut style gifts from new powers as delegations (i honestly forget about the flat 25 Gold sometimes, maybe this could help?), and we can hire units from each other. Merge them all, sure, but incorporate the lost features into the new comprehensive diplomacy system so that it's a net gain.

And, just as a reminder, I am only spitballing here. This is the Ideas and Suggestions sub-forum, after all. After reading through this thread, I feel like that needs restating or else the sharks will smell blood in the water and come after me.

We're all smart here. We all have ideas and opinions we want to express. We all want to make our game better and to experiment. Isn't that why we're here? Aren't we CivFanatics?

Please don't forget that. I know, I know, it's the internet, a debate colosseum where we fight for victory and its glory, or whatever. But you all are smart adults, smart enough to probably correct me on that historical reference (seriously, you guys could- and some of you do [Hi, Boris ]- write books with all of your knowledge). Please have some respect for each other, and please don't read into these pixels on a screen too much.

Actually, who am I kidding? We're Civ Fanatics. Obsessing over pixels is kind of our job

okay, now that world peace is achieved (not), let's talk about exploration. Because isn't that what this thread is about, or something?

From what I can tell we've mostly been approaching this from the angle of our cheap-to-produce Scouts staying cheap to produce, but throwing in some other restriction on top of that. What if earnest attempts at exploration didn't have such a low startup cost?

I thought about how military pushes work in Civ VI- you have to build up an excess of units and then commit when the time is right. I've always found that to be very satisfying when you get the balance and timing down. What if we brought at least some of that over for exploration?

Whether or not this would be fun, I have no idea. But I like the idea, or at least the story of assembling a crew of explorers and sending them out on an expedition once they're properly stocked and manned, and charting whole continents as a reward. Instead of just a trickle of recon units and boats, why not reward/incentivize/require exploration pushes? Idk, think it could be fun.

 

[aieeegrunt]

On defence of the barbarians, I think, opposing Civs cannot physically 'check' expansions without declaring war (which won't happen too frequently or it would annoy the player)

The real purpose of Barbarians is two-fold:
Giving the player a little bit of combat to do before they get to face the real thing (other 'players') - teaching them and/or busywork.
Scaring the player away from mindless fast expansion - you can't move a Settler into the 'Unknown' without risking a random Barbarian sleep walking into them.

Humankind actually has replacements for both of these systems.
For teaching combat, they use the wild animals.
For curbing mindless player expansion, they have that 'Stability' mechanic.

(Sorry was it called Stability or something else? That currency that you need to pay to build a city on a territory)

Opposing civs check expansion by literally existing. A civ existing where you wanted to expand is a check. A barb camp is a speed bump.

Busywork is a TERRIBLE reason to include anything in anything.

This part is relevant also.
Players learn and get small gratificacion doses from the "little wars" against the "minor factions" and the easier achivement of influence and control City States.

What is the difference between a one city civ and a City State?

The forner has a lot of more interesting ways it can be interacted with.

What’s fhe between a “little war” betwern a one city civ and a city state?

You can make have outcomes via peace treaty more complicated than just conquest

 

[Evie]

A civ existing is a hard check: something that prevent any settling whatsoever unless you utterly destroy it. A barbarian presence is a soft check, forcing you to be more prudent but not actively blocking you. Entirely different with entirely different roles.

I don't see the former as a better alternative. Forward-settling is a painfully frustrating problem with the game, not something that need to be put on steroids,

 

[GeneralZIft]

Busywork is not the only aspect of Barbs. Like I said they're a tool for teaching and an obstacle for expansion.

If you get rid of them, you do need an effective alternative.

And yes, you can hate busywork but it is gameplay. (Old fashioned type of gameplay but still)



Commonly, in RTS games, eco management can be considered busywork (eg. Aoe2 eco management)

But that is literally gameplay (which some people don't enjoy so it's not in every RTS)



Now Barbs for Civ are not nearly as inconvenient or demanding busywork as some others in other games.

To me they lie in the indifferent pile. They exist for a particular purpose.



If Civ designers could see new potential for them they would change it up. So maybe it's better to wait and see than crusade to remove them entirely.



Also: opponent cities are hard walls yes. But opponents themselves hardly block you from naturally expanding into an empty space, they hardly grab your settler on the way, that would be inconvenient. So that's why Barbs have to exist, so you can feel accomplished in expansion.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I mentioned this in another thread about how I would implement limited stacking. I think using this criterion along with my idea could work.

In the Classical Era you can learn Phalanx formation which would let you combine either melee or Anticavalry with cavalry units, up to 2 units per tile.

In the Renaissance/Early modern you can learn Pike and Shot in which you can now have both melee and Anticavalry also on the same tile, up to 3 units per tile.

In the Industrial Era you would learn Corps formation and can add ranged/artillery units, up to 4 units per tile.

In the Atomic Era by learning Combined Arms you could finally add support/recon units, with up to 5 units per tile.

That's probably me who is autistic but I really struggle with the idea to make of it a hard limit. That feels very "board gamey" to me, forcing the player to play in a certain way without telling him why. For the same purpose, I would rather go with a soft limit represented by attrition, meaning that after a certain threshold (maybe indeed 2 in the early game), then the extra-stacked unit starts losing HP at each turn, therefore making them useless in combat. To me it leads to the same result but in giving an easy to understand reason for the player to accept it.

I like though the idea that stacking size can be increased depending on things. The only risk in making them depends on how developed you are is that it could potentially give an excessive advantage to a more advanced faction compared to less advanced ones. Maybe the idea to make it depend on any form of support would be another way to represent that (as long as the AI would know how to use it and it doesn't turn tedious). Also to limit the stacking advantage a faction would have against another, we would need efficient "counter-stacking" strategy, such as range attacks harming all units in stack or flank attacks dispersing the stack. To each combat mechanic, there should be a counter-mechanic.

 

[pokiehl]

That's probably me who is autistic but I really struggle with the idea to make of it a hard limit. That feels very "board gamey" to me, forcing the player to play in a certain way without telling him why. For the same purpose, I would rather go with a soft limit represented by attrition, meaning that after a certain threshold (maybe indeed 2 in the early game), then the extra-stacked unit starts losing HP at each turn, therefore making them useless in combat. To me it leads to the same result but in giving an easy to understand reason for the player to accept it.

I don't understand how limited stacking solves the problem at all -- instead of single units flooding tiles, now we'll have limited stack units flooding tiles. But that aside, I agree with you that if we are gonna have limited stacking, some sort of attrition system is a more sensible way to progress it. That could make sense even in an unlimited stacking system.

 

[Evie]

The difficulty with an attrition system comes from the programing side - it's *hard* to make the AI properly calculate attrition and when it's worth taking it, to what level, and when it's not worth taking it, so in practice attrition systems usually translate to "AI ignores attrition limits, take ghastly losses as a result" or "AI treat attrition limits like law, player can exploit the system" (or "AI is immune to attrition, build doomstacks"). Paradox has been struggling with attrition programing forever, without notable success.

(In addition to which, even with humans, as Boris pointed out from his board game design experience ; if attrition is strong enough to make you feel the pain of overstacking, people treat it as a hard limit ; and if attrition is weak enough to permit overstacking; people ignore it altogether).

On paper, I agree, I would prefer attrition, but the difficulties of the system are very significant, and a hard limit is much simpler to code in, and ensure that everyone plays by the same rules.

 

[pokiehl]

The difficulty with an attrition system comes from the programing side - it's *hard* to make the AI properly calculate attrition and when it's worth taking it, to what level, and when it's not worth taking it, so in practice attrition systems usually translate to "AI ignores attrition limits, take ghastly losses as a result" or "AI treat attrition limits like law, player can exploit the system" (or "AI is immune to attrition, build doomstacks").

A hard limit has the significant advantage of putting AI and players on even footing.

I would otherwise generally prefer it, but having seen many games that tried to make it work and struggled with it, it's a lot less easy than it seems.

I don't know, attrition is a feature in Paradox games like Imperator and EU4 and it seems to work just fine for the AI?

 

[Evie]

In most Paradox games I can think of attrition ends up being lowered into "easily ignored" territory because the AI can't handle it otherwise. AI concentrating all their armies into one giant stack is a common outcome.

They've been trying to solve it for twenty years, and it still generally end up with the mega-stack being the outcome.

 

[pokiehl]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The only Paradox games I've played more than a few hours in are EU4 and Imperator, and attrition isn't easily ignored in either of those games...maybe I'm just a bad player but I always find it a constant challenge to manage.

 

[Evie]

I haven't played EU4 in a couple years, so they may have finally balanced it (keep in mind, they've been trying to for twenty-plus years!), but the last I played, I don't recall being *too* too attentive to attrition, and I distinctly recall the AI being less than and requiring me to ignore attrition in order to counter its attrition-ignoring ways.

 

[pokiehl]

The AI doesn’t cheat or ignore attrition in EU4 though. I don’t think it does in any Paradox game.

Are there any other games you can think of that have AI cheating attrition? I can’t even think of any other strategy games that have it period besides Paradox grand strategy ones.

 

[Evie]

I believe older Paradox games did have the AI taking much more limited attrition impact (though I could be wrong) ; though I think in more recent games (at least as of the last time I played), I think it "ignores" it in the sense that the AI does not give much weight if at all to attrition in its calculations (and attrition is accordingly toned down for everybody so the AI does not suicide by attrition).

And the AI was just plain immune to naval attrition at least in early EU IV.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Am I the only person who thinks attrition from stacks doesn't quite make logical sense?

 

[Evie]

Probably?

The idea that a given area of land can only support so many extra (temporary) inhabitants before its resources are stretched (especially before modern supply chains logistics) ; and that you can only crowd so many people together in encampment of dubious hygiene levels before diseases flare up and propagate, is pretty much as logical as it gets.