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

[PiR]

I disappear a bit and this thread is not about Kevin at all anymore?

I think the main Things that should be interconnected are Technologies, Civics and Governments (also Tech/Civic Trees and Diplomacy Actions). Governments should have an impact on what a Civ is researching, while also affecting the Social System (Civics to unlock - The Government Specific Policies are a step in the right direction). Civics could affect Tech research, like having Exploration Civic Unlocked could rush the research of Carography and Square Rigging Techs (a Boost or +xx research modifier for those Techs). Also, having met Civs that have some Techs/Civics unlocked that you haven't yet, and having trade routes to those Civs may give those Techs/Civics a boost and be faster to research. Civs could also buy certain Techs from other Civs that have them...etc.

That would be awesome yes!

I think that is too bothersome and annoying. Say you want to transport a builder+a settler+a military unit to a new land. You have to train a transport+ get them in+ drag them to new lands.
All for what?

For making water matter in military conflicts as much as mountains or other terrains!
However... with 1UPT I still think no transport was a good choice. Disembarkment of the units from the transport could get really ugly.
To add more realism, I would welcome that land units (except worker) can only embark from a harbor district.

-Why is there unit pathfinding? Players should move all their units manually hex by hex. Is that how you'd prefer to play?

That's how I have to mostly play, given the current pathfinding and 1UPT.

And for the other topics mentionned:

• Improvements in city queue: OK for me, but Civ 4 mechanic for hamlets could be nice too, with improvements getting better when the tile is worked
  
• OR improvements are built by the city just like districts, the difference between both could be that improvements can only get 1 pop assigned, districts could get multiple pop assigned, and that would increase bonuses from that district (and that would reward tall cities better than now)
  
• Instant buying I don't like, in any case... yes, it can save you sometimes, but it's totally not realistic (unless you are buying from a pool of mercenary, who are you buying the unit/the building from??), almost a cheat/exploit to me
  
• Queuing orders for units: YES we desperately need this
  
• Builders building roads: YES please please please

 

[Abaxial]

Why so many people want an economic victory? I remember people complaining about DipV in Civ V because it was just an economic victory already.
Also, if we have to keep different winning conditions, we need to keep them distinct enough, and not only in flavor, and an economic victory would feel, for me, too close to any other else.
Would an Economic Victory be simply ammassing gold? Too simple, and no victoy condition should rely on one of the main currency of the game (the other one being faith). Faith for CulV is OK, I guess, because faith would be useless otherwise and is way useful than gold. Mali and Portugal would simply be autowin in this situation.
Extending the Monop&Corp mode, so that if you control enough resources/corporations you win? That's too similar to the Religious Victory.
Some "Economic Proeminence" towards other civ, where your economy control it? That's just Cultural Victory with another name.
I don't think we need an economic victory.

Has anyone actually suggested what an economic victory should look like? To my mind winning a CV because of monopolies IS an economic victory, it's just that "tourism" in Civ 6 is not literally guys wandering around with Hawaiian shirts and shorts.

The other question in my mind is do we need to distinguish victory types at all? Isn't winning the main thing? I just don't get the complaint about "Oh, I wanted to win a science victory and I got some other win instead". You won, dammit!

 

[MrRadar]

An interesting discussion about builders, sorry to barge in in the middle

While I agree in principle that the tasks they do can be integrated into the build queue, having a physical unit on the map does add some extra thrill and avenues. What about all those builders you take from the barbs or enemies? Back then when they were immortal, spotting an unprotected builder did lead to quite a number of early wars, I'm sure, so that was one of the factors that could define the direction your game would take. Even with limited charges as they are now, it is always satisfying to source some builders from outside for free, isn't it? Aztecs can almost run their entire empire on "guest" workers only. How would you integrate this aspect into the build queue model? Build a raiding party project with an rng chance?

Making improvements dependent on the technologies you research was a master stroke for CivRev, but it was developed as a much faster paced game for consoles and fumbling with the controller - the less units you have to move with it the better, hence another neat idea of grouping 3 units into armies, borrowed so efficiently into Civ 6

On the whole, I like builders best as they are now, with limited charges and instant improvements and present on the map. But yes, give them ability to build roads after some tech is researched. The current charge price and limitation to the ME is outrageous, even more so, as after a while you can lay railroads at will, free of any charges, just using some resources.

 

[pokiehl]

What about all those builders you take from the barbs or enemies? Back then when they were immortal, spotting an unprotected builder did lead to quite a number of early wars, I'm sure, so that was one of the factors that could define the direction your game would take.

An excellent point in favor of Builders.

 

[Gedemon]

An interesting discussion about builders, sorry to barge in in the middle

While I agree in principle that the tasks they do can be integrated into the build queue, having a physical unit on the map does add some extra thrill and avenues. What about all those builders you take from the barbs or enemies? Back then when they were immortal, spotting an unprotected builder did lead to quite a number of early wars, I'm sure, so that was one of the factors that could define the direction your game would take. Even with limited charges as they are now, it is always satisfying to source some builders from outside for free, isn't it? Aztecs can almost run their entire empire on "guest" workers only. How would you integrate this aspect into the build queue model? Build a raiding party project with an rng chance?

in my project you can capture population when raiding/pillaging and create workers unit from that population that you can put on a tile to raise its output. they can be captured back.

 

[Kwami]

All the folks arguing against builders still haven't answered the question about resource harvesting. How does that work without builders?

 

[TreVor_ish]

All the folks arguing against builders still haven't answered the question about resource harvesting. How does that work without builders?

Drop bonus resources, You can't harvest luxuries or strategics. (without a mod)
Woods can give additional boost to production when district is placed on them. (simplified chopping mechanism)
I'm not saying I'm against builders, but there are options to do it.

 

[Gedemon]

All the folks arguing against builders still haven't answered the question about resource harvesting. How does that work without builders?

an improvement could harvest, no need for builder.

or the same mechanism/currency you use for placing improvements could be used to harvest a resource.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Has anyone actually suggested what an economic victory should look like? To my mind winning a CV because of monopolies IS an economic victory, it's just that "tourism" in Civ 6 is not literally guys wandering around with Hawaiian shirts and shorts.

what IS tourism then? don't tourist visit historical sites any more?

 

[Abaxial]

what IS tourism then?

Tourism in Civ 6 seems to be a sort of catch-all for cultural influence, hence the references in both Civ 5 and 6 to blue jeans and rock music. This is why you get tourism from industries in the economic mode. It doesn't mean actual tourists are queuing up to see the factories. Of course, Civ 6 tourism does include actual tourists visiting museums as well, which is why the ambiguous use of the word has caused confusion in the minds of some people.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Tourism in Civ 6 seems to be a sort of catch-all for cultural influence, hence the references in both Civ 5 and 6 to blue jeans and rock music. This is why you get tourism from industries in the economic mode. It doesn't mean actual tourists are queuing up to see the factories. Of course, Civ 6 tourism does include actual tourists visiting museums as well, which is why the ambiguous use of the word has caused confusion in the minds of some people.

but don't people come to countries to get local luxuries? I know Koreans traditionally loved to go to Paris to get Paris brand... I don't know about now but at least in 1990's Korean people loved to visit Paris to get Paris brand perfumes and stuff. I believe this sort of tourism is what Industries mod is MEANT to represent. It isn't just old factories that they are visiting but famous brand.

 

[PiR]

in my project you can capture population when raiding/pillaging and create workers unit from that population that you can put on a tile to raise its output. they can be captured back.

But that's impossible if you're running democraty, right?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

But that's impossible if you're running democraty, right?

IRL, maybe, IC6, no. Unless I'm missing something here that has to relate to @Gedemon's Total Conversion Mod.

 

[Abaxial]

but don't people come to countries to get local luxuries?

And people have to travel to the US every time they want a new pair of Levi's? Or a bottle of Coca-cola? Markets don't work that way.

 

[Zegangani]

The other question in my mind is do we need to distinguish victory types at all? Isn't winning the main thing? I just don't get the complaint about "Oh, I wanted to win a science victory and I got some other win instead". You won, dammit!

Because it's not always about winning. Some Players like to play longer Games so they can focus on Empire/Cities Management more, micro manage everything, and see turn after turn how your decisions affect your Empire. It's such a noisance to Win a Game early, where you put so much effort in your Empire, but still want to keep doing so to see the end result. Because all that micromanagement was planned for longterm. It's not fun to win a Game where all that planning was for nothing, because of a random culture victory.

And Economic Victory would perfectly work for this Type of Players (I'm one of those), because it's not only about Gold and Tourism. An Economic Victory, as I already stated in a Thread, is about managing your Empire effectivelly and effeciently on all kind of resources, Gold, Food/Resources, Human Resources (Production/Specialists), Happiness of Citizens, International Trades/Deals...etc. Tourism is one of many results of a good Economy, but it can't be a represenation of it in a Culture Victory.

 

[Kwami]

an improvement could harvest, no need for builder.

or the same mechanism/currency you use for placing improvements could be used to harvest a resource.

But that's just weird. You'd spend a turn in the production queue to harvest a forest, then get bonus production on the next turn? Ick.

I like the idea of districts on bonus resources getting bonuses, maybe. But that doesn't really work thematically. Do I get a bonus if I put a campus on cattle? Or do I only get the bonus if I put a food district there? What kind of district goes on woods or rainforest? Is the bonus just +1 Production/Food/Gold, as if I'd improve the resource instead of harvesting it? That's kind of boring. It removes the choice between harvesting for some yields now or getting more yields eventually. What about chopping woods to build wonders more quickly, or to rush an army when you're caught unprepared, etc.? All of that is gone now, too?

 

[Abaxial]

Because it's not always about winning. Some Players like to play longer Games so they can focus on Empire/Cities Management more, micro manage everything, and see turn after turn how your decisions affect your Empire.

No problem. After the victory screen, there is a button marked "One more turn ...". Click that and you can continue playing as long as you like. You can also disable all victory types except Score when the game starts.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

And people have to travel to the US every time they want a new pair of Levi's? Or a bottle of Coca-cola? Markets don't work that way.

it isn't that sort of luxury you know but a world class premium brand- like Louis Vuitton Even three years ago when I went to paris my dad and his friends visited Louis Vuitton shopping mall to get a good look at it and people lined up to see it. This is what "Corporation/Industry" is representing. Heck even in Korea people often visit Samsung shopping mall to get latest Samung cellphone.

 

[Zegangani]

No problem. After the victory screen, there is a button marked "One more turn ...". Click that and you can continue playing as long as you like. You can also disable all victory types except Score when the game starts.

I know, but that's only in favor of the Human Player, because AI is always chasing a Victory durring a Game, and a Game already Won wouldn't encourage AI to outcome/take other Civs. And with the lack of an Economic Victory, the AI wouldn't focus on it's economy. So "One More Turn" wouldn't be fun.

 

[Gedemon]

But that's just weird. You'd spend a turn in the production queue to harvest a forest, then get bonus production on the next turn? Ick.

why harvesting should by tied to getting production only ? why not getting resources from harvesting ?

and even if it is, then no one as said that you absolutely have to put improvements in the city build queue, it's a possibility amongst others.