Looks like Civ 6 is done: Kevin called April "final game update"

[aieeegrunt]

I think the real world gives a good baseline for a strong plague mechanic.

First, it's tied to population density (more likely to spawn in a larger city). Second, it's more likely to develop in a city the more active the city is in trade (number of trade routes running through the city, either as starting point, destination, or trading post on the route). Third, populations develop immunity after a reasonable cool off. Fourth, it can spread through trade routes or increased diplomatic contact. Fifth, it spreads most actively when active, but can spread from an immune civ to one without immunity. Sixth, multiple can spread at once from a civ or civs that have had many to one that had few. Seventh, the negatives stack when when multiple are active. Eighth, greater health infrastructure can limit some affects (mainly housing infrastructure until medical sciences are discovered). Ninth, it can mutate post immunity to recur, likely with lower negatives.

A few more aspects and you've got a robust and interesting system.

Certain government types and policies should either make it easier or harder to contain as well

 

[Kwami]

No, no more updates.

Screw updates.

We want DLL.

Why not both? I'm far more interested in updates than in whatever modders come up with once they get the DLL.

 

[pokiehl]

I’d like to see a rework of Dramatic Ages that was less all or nothing, that would be a good solution, and the same goes for loyalty

The entire point of Dramatic Ages was to make it more dramatic, no? If you want the normal ages there’s the regular gameplay system.

I do agree that I wish Loyalty had more nuance though.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm pretty sure the pandemic has gone past the point of other people's problems and is now something that should have touched nearly everyone. If it hasn't touched you at this point, you are extremely privileged

While it's true I don't know anyone personally whose died of the virus (and known only a handful who have had it) but I have lost family members who were denied healthcare on account of the virus, know a lot of people who have lost their jobs because of the lockdowns, know two people who have committed suicide because of mental health problems related to the pandemic, and watched my own mental health deteriorate during the lockdowns so not to put too fine a point on it but you can stuff your accusations of privilege.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would be surprised if the developers had not originally planned the zombie mode as a pandemic mode, then walked back on the idea and turned it into zombies. They did promise after all that the game modes after Secret Societies would be more historically-based and less fantastical, and they must have known the backlash a zombie mode would bring after the complaints about Apocalypse and especially Secret Societies.

I mean they did say that most of them would be more historical, and they were right. They didn't say all of them would be historical.

The entire point of Dramatic Ages was to make it more dramatic, no? If you want the normal ages there’s the regular gameplay system.

I do agree that I wish Loyalty had more nuance though.

Agree that normal ages wouldn't be considered very dramatic in a game mode about Dramatic Ages. I do wish the Golden Age cards would be in the regular game though without enabling the game mode.

 

[Menocchio]

Unfortunately, from my experience with the mode, the most dramatic aspect of Dramatic Ages is how poorly the AI manages to handle it. Turning the mode on all too often leads to AI civilisations shedding cities like they're out of fashion, opening up the player to unrivalled (more so than usual) domination. I usually keep it off, even though I love having Golden Age abilities as policy cards and the threat of losing cities. In multiplayer it becomes more fun, though.

 

[darkace77450]

Ah, the classic "this traumatic event isn't that traumatic to me therefore everyone else is overreacting" response.

In real life, no one hopes for war to be declared or natural disasters to strike. But in a historically-themed 4X game, both offer unique challenges with interesting counterplays. Plagues should be no different. The bubonic plague is one of the most impactful events in human history and emergencies offer a natural way to implement pandemics into the game. The modular nature of NFP also means those who find pandemics hitting too close to home could opt out.

 

[InsidiousMage]

In real life, no one hopes for war to be declared or natural disasters to strike.

Yes, but most people will never be in a war zone or severely effected by a natural disaster. That's not true of a pandemic anymore. What do you find so offensive about the idea that maybe waiting until dealing with Covid isn't an everyday concern before putting a plague mode in a video game?

 

[Guynemer]

Then maybe they shouldn't have added hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and wildfires, which kill people every year. Maybe they should cut war because people die in war every single day. You can't expect the world to stop spinning because of trauma.

while true, we've had at least 500,000--probably substantially higher--deaths in the US alone, which is obviously quite a bit higher than all those other things.

I have a bit of a different perspective on this, having been living in the thick of the pandemic every day for the past year-plus, but I definitely don't want to have a plague mode right now. I get enough of it at the office.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The entire point of Dramatic Ages was to make it more dramatic, no? If you want the normal ages there’s the regular gameplay system.

Either you have the threshold and you are literally golden or you don’t and you are screwed.

Either way it’s for an entire age too

I do agree that I wish Loyalty had more nuance though.

Certain loyalty thresholds should have a chance to generate revolts, like spawning barbarians adjacent to the city centre or something.

Also there should be a distinction between cities you founded and ones you captured.

I mean they did say that most of them would be more historical, and they were right. They didn't say all of them would be historical.


Agree that normal ages wouldn't be considered very dramatic in a game mode about Dramatic Ages. I do wish the Golden Age cards would be in the regular game though without enabling the game mode.

OH GOD ME TOO

Unfortunately, from my experience with the mode, the most dramatic aspect of Dramatic Ages is how poorly the AI manages to handle it. Turning the mode on all too often leads to AI civilisations shedding cities like they're out of fashion, opening up the player to unrivalled (more so than usual) domination. I usually keep it off, even though I love having Golden Age abilities as policy cards and the threat of losing cities. In multiplayer it becomes more fun, though.

I mean at least it changes things up a bit, and it’s amusing when you get more advanced ships, cross an ocean, and find an entire continent of Free Cities

I always rp that as being the actual American civ

Also, how do Leader pools work? Great job there Fireaxis, not even a tooltip, and a game setting that should be immediatly self evident isn’t.

 

[darkace77450]

What do you find so offensive about the idea that maybe waiting until dealing with Covid isn't an everyday concern before putting a plague mode in a video game?

I don't know why you think I'm offended. I thought we were having a civil discussion about the merits of including or eschewing a plague mechanic in a historical 4X video game?

 

[InsidiousMage]

I don't know why you think I'm offended. I thought we were having a civil discussion about the merits of including or eschewing a plague mechanic in a historical 4X video game?

I don't think anyone is saying there shouldn't be a pandemic or plague mode but, you know, not right now when it's something people are dealing with on a daily basis.

 

[WillowBrook]

The game needs two things to make it feel somewhat complete for me:
1) some acceptable way to deal with or prevent friends/allies attacking my city states.
2) map replay at the end of the game.

But I'd definitely purchase and enjoy another season pass if offered. So many new civ and alt leader possibilities have been discussed, and there are plenty of things that could make the game, especially the later game, more interesting. As others have said:

cluewithout said, the game really does feel like it loses steam after the mid-game. That goes both for gameplay but also visually! Not every civ needs to look exactly the same once the game hits the Modern Era or whatever; I've suggested this before, but I wish the art team had taken some creative liberties with imagining how the distinctive cultural styles could look today

But, the late game could be interesting - in fact, it could be downright fascinating:

• Revolutions - cities break away as blocks and form new civilizations entirely, or previously conquered lands could declare independence and reform their old civilization...this should be more and more likely the larger you are
• Puppet or vassal states - instead of total domination, a state could submit to being a vassal state, with no direct control but provides tribute, support, etc...and of course could revolt if not treated well
• Global alliances - somewhat like ideologies, diplomacy should become complicated and global conflicts should emerge
• Global crises - pandemics, climate change, etc...all of these are "late game" challenges that could require much more effort to address
• New frontiers (heh) - open up new avenues for exploration, with underwater and space layers, which also would set off a new colonization boom

I'd prefer a health mechanic to replace housing rather than a plague mechanic, but I'm not expecting such an overhaul even if there is another season pass with new modes.

 

[The googles do nothing]

But in a historically-themed 4X game, both offer unique challenges with interesting counterplays.

Hopefully Civ 7 has victory conditions other then the end-of-game kind like Civ 6 has. Overcoming any challenges in Civ 6 just means you are behind where you were if you didn't have the challenge.

 

[Arianrhod]

Yes, but most people will never be in a war zone or severely effected by a natural disaster.

Both of those statements feel pretty optimistic. There has historically been a lot of warfare. There is warfare going on now. What relative peace the most privileged on this Earth enjoy is not so secure to say without a doubt that there will not be warfare in an eventual future.

We know now that we are not safe from pandemics, but would we have thought that ten years ago? A pandemic probably never even crossed most people's minds (and most minds it did cross probably had zombies involved somewhere), with the hubris granted to us by modern medicine. There's no guarantee that that won't be true of other things. Perhaps ten years from now, your house will be the site of a legendary battlefield... or perhaps it will have been set ablaze in a wildfire. Or, you know, nuclear armageddon because a strong country gets a bad leader - that's always an option too.

On that note, natural disasters aren't even particularly common. As an example: pretty much no matter where you go in the US, you're under threat of something at any given time. What that "something" is might vary - perhaps a hurricane in the southeast, perhaps a volcano in the northwest, perhaps earthquakes in the west, or perhaps tornadoes in the midwest. But it's a very real threat nonetheless, just as much as a pandemic is. You're definitely more likely to encounter one than not at some point, and while you may not die from it, it's pretty easy to suffer property damage, emotional trauma, or injury - or you might know someone who does. This threat is only going to increase as time goes on, with the threat of climate change potentially causing major changes in how weather behaves... oh, and look, climate change is in the game too. Hopefully nobody here's from Florida, they're not important!

 

[Zaarin]

Hopefully nobody here's from Florida, they're not important!

We know.

 

[blok]

Hopefully Civ 7 has victory conditions other then the end-of-game kind like Civ 6 has. Overcoming any challenges in Civ 6 just means you are behind where you were if you didn't have the challenge.

Definitely. On a slightly unrelated I really want victory conditions in civ that just let you play the game instead of intense planning throughout the campaign.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Did we think that Firaxis was going to update civ6 forever? We can debate whether we like the content of NFP or not but I don't think it is debatable that Firaxis put a lot into civ6. We got 2 major expansions (Rise & Fall and Gathering Storm) and a year long series of mini-expansions with a lot of new content. I'd say that's pretty good. So I am not surprised if April is the final update. Hopefully, the April update will be good. It's probably time for Firaxis to move on to civ7 or something else.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Did we think that Firaxis was going to update civ6 forever? We can debate whether we like the content of NFP or not but I don't think it is debatable that Firaxis put a lot into civ6. We got 2 major expansions (Rise & Fall and Gathering Storm) and a year long series of mini-expansions with a lot of new content. I'd say that's pretty good. So I am not surprised if April is the final update. Hopefully, the April update will be good. It's probably time for Firaxis to move on to civ7 or something else.

Nobody is expecting infinite updates

It is reasonable however to expect fixes

 

[Haig]

In the official civ facebook they mentioned today how portugal/april patch is the last content of New Frontier Pass.

They never mention "last content of Civ 6" so that gives me feeling we get more stuff eventually.