New Expansion Speculation Thread

[JFD]

Well hello there rose colored glasses, fancy meeting you here.

The Civ5 AI was awful, too. It didn't understand 1UPT at all. AT. ALL.

You're thinking of after the final expansion, the last patch, the dll source release, AND the vox populi mod which was co-opted by the game devs.

Don't pretend like the Civ5 AI was capable of playing the game while the game was actively being marketed, because it was not. It's one of the reasons Civ5 was hated and a large portion of us stayed with Civ4.

It was Whoward's various mod components that was co-opted, not VP.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

While I do agree on most parts, still there are random spawned barbarians in civ6 that have a huge effect on any unprepared players AND all AIs that will loose settlers and builders to them (which give the human another advantage over them)

And yet a lot of people consider that playing civ6 without Barbarians is not playing civ6.

IMO any random event that is not completely random and you can prepare for in a way or another can be put in the game.

Yes, but there is still a question is it good or bad? And do we need more RNG at all? I wouldn't say that randomly spawning barbarians you have mentioned are a necessary evil. I would rather say they are a proper pinch of salt in a dish. Sure they can randomly screw your game in early stage but restarting in turn 50 is not so possibly frustrating as restarting in turn 180 New disaster mechanic based on RNG is not a pinch of salt, but a whole jar. I just don't think Civilization VI need it. The game is already deep, we have a tone of micromanagement, more or less impactful decisions. It's ok to deepen things and rushing meta with some cool new mechanics, but to we need random events? Even a pinch of randomness more? IMHO it would be pacing thin ice and a very bad direction. This is why I don't beleve Firaxis would go that way.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Random thought, please forgive me if it’s already been suggested.

What if the blonde medieval queen is a redesigned Isabella of Spain that isn’t accidentally based on Isabella of Portugal?

The blonde "Eleanor of Aquitaine" lady is wearing 12th/13th-century European fashions (that sleeveless tunic with the dress underneath is a particular giveaway). Isabella's outfit would be more 15th-century. A bit like this:

 

[Rup]

Tbh I want DLL source code , better modding tools and environment 1000 times more than patches and expansion.My finger will be crossed after the second expansion.Most fun I have had with Civilization games are with mods, not to say official game is bland but it is when comparing with modded game.

 

[Leyrann]

1. Civilization VI is a strategy game. It is not a historical simulation!

Oh sure. Let's just throw out historical civilizations, leaders, and the tech tree then. After all, it has nothing to do with history.

What? That's not what you meant? Well, why can't other historic things happen then?

If they are not impactful why bother them anyway?

One word: Flavor.

3. Crusader Kings II is not Civilization VI. There is plenty of RNG in Hearthstone for example.

Nor was I implying it was. But it is another strategical history based game. And even though it has major differences with Civilization, it shows that you can reliably execute strategies even if there are severe random events. Much more influential than what I would suggest for Civilization VI.

And yes, Hearthstone has a lot of randomness. That's why it sucks so hard as a PvP game like most people play it.

4. Civilization is a snowball effect game. It means every random effect will affect your process from x food x hammer, in turn one to your win in turn x with x*n hammers and foods (sorry for huge simplifying). That means random effect will add x turns to your win. Try to win a game in Immortal where the game itself makes victory harder because it helps AI snowball effect with the additional settler, workers etc. Do you want another similar effect in a game?

And that's why events aren't "you lose a city" or "you get an additional unit in turn 5" (it would be very different if it would happen in turn 150, of course). Events need to scale with the game, and making them relatively small allows you as developer to let them occur often, which in turn means that the law of big numbers will even out the advantage or disadvantage you get.

5. There is no fun in losing strategy game because of RNG, and it would be very easy to create such RNG outcome in Civilization. Too easy to risk.

At the point where a random event loses you the game, the developer has made the random event too influential. Once again, small events, no "get a free spaceship part" or whatever.

And let me come with some developer theory on my own (paraphrased from League of Legends developers):

There are two kinds of randomness. Good and bad randomness. Bad randomness occurs and you just have to deal with it. An example in League of Legends was innate dodge chance. Perhaps an example of something like that in Civilization VI would be a unit dying because he found no food in the desert (compare with what I proposed earlier; losing 25 HP). It happens, and you just get screwed.

Good randomness, on the other hand, allows you as player to react. For example, if you lose 25 HP due to no food, you can decide to carry on or perhaps heal up; it's still a strictly negative event, but there's something you can do about it. Beyond that, you could even present the player with several options, depending on the event. To take an example from the Civ IV: Colonization mod Religion and Revolution, shortly after founding a colony you could get an event where leftover building materials were found. You then get the option to 1. Build a chapel 2. Build a tavern or 3. Sell the materials for gold.

And that is the kind of randomness you need. Either you give the player different options, or you give them setbacks that can reliably be overcome. You don't make them lose cities, you don't randomly kill off units, you don't burn down districts. No, you damage the unit, you grant a minor production boost, you give an extra population to a city. A good example of good randomness already in the game, in fact, is tribal villages: You know you'll get something out of it, but until you pop it you don't know what. Another example is barbarian camps: When a camp spawns, you know that you need to clear it fast or it'll start spawning units. So you have a potential major setback, but if you play around it, it's only a minor setback (because of diverting attention).

TL;DR: Randomness shouldn't be game deciding, it should add flavor to this history-based strategy game.

 

[nzcamel]

Civilization: Sea and Sky (or vice versa)

If they get the AI using planes more often - sure. If not it would be an unfortunate name.

Is it?
Why randomness is a bad idea
1. Civilization VI is a strategy game. It is not a historical simulation! It means the complexity of the game you can earn by deep mechanics, not by randomness.
2. You are writing: "As long as events don't decide the game by themselves ". Well, that's a theory. Or even more: That's a "but in perfect world" condition. Realistically it is very hard to balance catch up mechanics and make them not impactful. And yet again. If they are not impactful why bother them anyway? Is this a good way of making the game deeper and more interesting?
3. Crusader Kings II is not Civilization VI. There is plenty of RNG in Hearthstone for example. (by the way very good example for RNG in games discussion). Even more in a poker game. But this is not a proof RNG is good for Civ and it is not a proof that RNG effect will not be hated in Civ game. (see 5.)
3. You can't play around RNG and build any strategy, that is why RNG effects are building false depth in the game. You don't need that false depth in a Civilization!
4. Civilization is a snowball effect game. It means every random effect will affect your process from x food x hammer, in turn one to your win in turn x with x*n hammers and foods (sorry for huge simplifying). That means random effect will add x turns to your win. Try to win a game in Immortal where the game itself makes victory harder because it helps AI snowball effect with the additional settler, workers etc. Do you want another similar effect in a game? Even worse because you can play around "difficult level" factor. It is just a boring way to make game harder.
last but not least
5. There is no fun in losing strategy game because of RNG, and it would be very easy to create such RNG outcome in Civilization. Too easy to risk.

If you want more arguments why RNG is bad in strategy games here is a link: http://keithburgun.net/randomness-and-game-design/
And few good arguments from Keith Burgun.

Adjusting to the unexpected is a part of the experience many players want. And yes, some others want a very dry experience with nothing they cannot calculate ever coming in.

There is too much going on in Civ to say that one lost most games cos of RNG. I'm sick of that being thrown around. Civ is not and never has been a game which is symmetrical to provide an even challenge. I'm glad that things are added (like the multiplayer maps) to provide more of that experience for those who want it...but it's not a core part of Civ; simulation or not. Likewise I'm happy for any random events they add to be able to be opted out of. But to not add them to appease a small group of players who want their Civ playing to be sanitised rather than messy? No.

 

[Rup]

1. Event is a consequence of the current state of the game (riots more likely with high unhappiness, diplomatic weddings more likely with good relations, etc)
   
   
2. Options available is a reflection of your resources (you can pay 1 wheat to resolve it one way or you can make people unhappy, etc)
   
   
3. Meaningful consequences. Something signficant that might change your current plan. A "hmm" moment.
   
   
4. Bad outcomes should be (mostly) avoidable with planning and preparation. Nothing annoys me more than a random "Screw you!".

With all the points above checked I can get in board with optional random events.

 

[RagnorIronpants]

If they want to include Italy I'd rather they introduced a specific city-state with cool mechanics (like Venice in V) rather than a generic 'Italy' civ...the generic approach is bad for so many reasons (e.g. 'Native Americans', ). I also doubt Vesuvius is a clear reference to an 'Italy' civilisation, Vesuvius = Pompeii = Rome, after all. I think it's just because its a famous example of a natural disaster.

I infer from 'Vesuvius' that along with a focus on mechanics for various types of natural disasters (earthquake, disease, flooding, drought) and man-made climate change volcanoes will be a new class of natural wonders, that function independently of and with different mechanics from the normal ones e.g. only appear along continental boundaries, have more intense real-world derived bonuses that increase with the city's proximity, the eruptions of some being more devastating than others, etc. Would be really fun weighing up the plusses and minuses of settling. And, of course, there would be religion, science, tourist and appeal bonuses as the game progresses, perhaps with cities ruined by volcanoes having a special status later in the game (like Pompeii), so that it doesn't feel a complete waste...archeological finds could be more valuable for instance, or the city ruins could operate similar to a built wonder.

Volcanoes were fun in III but completely generic. There's a large number of mechanics in VI that they could interact with in a way that continues the opening the map philosophy, so I wouldn't be surprised if they led with it as one of the core features of an expansion.

 

[RagnorIronpants]

Also I'd add that random events in IV were annoying because you just got a text box that said 'your mine has collapsed, pay 10 gold to fix it?' repeatedly from 3750 BC to 2020 AD. I liked it but I could see it was a shallow system. To echo what other people have said, random events are fun when they require balancing positive and negatives, when you understand why they happened and how to stop them (or for positive events, encourage them), when you know you've undertaken a risk, when initially negative events will perhaps have positive outcomes later on, etc.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

You're thinking of after the final expansion, the last patch, the dll source release, AND the vox populi mod which was co-opted by the game devs.

Don't pretend like the Civ5 AI was capable of playing the game while the game was actively being marketed, because it was not.

Yes, it was. The Civ 5 AI after the first Civ 5 expansion was in better shape that the Civ 6 AI is now. It was more inclined to attack and could achieve it's own victory faster (relatively to top players) than Civ 6 can now. The challenge came from the bonuses it received rather than any tactical subtlety, but the end result was still a more challenging game as of expansion 1.

The problems with the tactical side of 1 UPT were more excusable for Civ 5 than Civ 6, as it was new. So as you mentioned, they released the DLL source and they incorporated community improvements into later versions of the game. There's nothing preventing Firaxis from doing the same now, to have a better Civ 6 product down the road.

In the end, the only AI quality that matters to me is the quality after the final patch of the final expansion is released.

 

[Xur]

In order for random events to be funny, I think it needs a lot of work. Volcanoes, flooding, etc all need some kind of changing tiles from mountain to volcano, land to coast. If random events turn out just to be text in a box that removes an improvement on a tile, or adds 10 gold, then I'd rather have no random events.

It should not be 100% random - you should be able to predict that a smoking/rumbling mountain might blow up or that a coast line might be at risk. TLDR: random events needs an element of gameplay so you can prevent/predict/react to a given event. Civ6 already has too much click-no-consequence BS.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If they want to include Italy I'd rather they introduced a specific city-state with cool mechanics (like Venice in V) rather than a generic 'Italy' civ...the generic approach is bad for so many reasons (e.g. 'Native Americans', ). I also doubt Vesuvius is a clear reference to an 'Italy' civilisation, Vesuvius = Pompeii = Rome, after all. I think it's just because its a famous example of a natural disaster.

I'm not sure how it would be as generic as Native Americans, and definitely wouldn't consider it a 'blob' civ. It would be the same thing as the Greeks where you choose the leader from a specific city-state, like Florence or Milan as the capital, and then subsequently found more cities. The Native Americans were also never fully united at any point, and to me seems different than what eventually became a united Italy.
Of course it may be my bias, but I don't necessarily want to play as a single-city state in the game.

 

[Disgustipated]

Exactly, and make the leader Mussolini, I'm sure everyone will be happy with that choice of leader.

 

[The Kingmaker]

The blonde "Eleanor of Aquitaine" lady is wearing 12th/13th-century European fashions (that sleeveless tunic with the dress underneath is a particular giveaway). Isabella's outfit would be more 15th-century. A bit like this:

I was thinking more like this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Castile#/media/File:Isabel_la_Católica-2.jpg

Though I’m trying to figure out how they could implement Eleanor of Aquitaine in a way that would actually make sense.

 

[ggalindo001]

I love the idea of a doom clock as a mechanic. A couple of thoughts to add to it:

1. Agree that as the "clock" increases toward midnight, it is uncertain as to when it will tick over. So random increases per event moving you closer to "doom"

2. There is an "epicenter" event -- ground zero, patient zero, etc. that is triggered by the Civ that caused the clock to tick over.

3. The outcome when it ticks over is not pre-determined, but random across several different choices, some of which are actually POSITIVE for the game vs. a Negative event.

For example -- let's say you are in the middle ages, population increases might trigger a doom clock for a plague. What if instead of a plague (where I believe the mechanic might be population decreases spreading thru trade routes), what if the increased population inspires and accelerates public sanitation, and there is a slight increase in science, or farm production radiating from trade routes.

This would provide for a strategic tension of -- do I attempt to trigger the event with a small chance of benefit, or do I stay away from triggering.

You would probably need somewhere in the neighborhood for 3 bad events and 1 or 2 good events per doom clock -- and potentially 1-2 doom scenarios per era.

I could see this mechanic also being deliberately employed by Civs in the late game to deliberately handicap the leading civ. So, for example, maybe the number of spaceports being built leads to a worldwide concern about what might be found in space and a backlash on space exploration (there was a Star Trek Next Generation episode that premised this). Or where the number of faith generated by a non-majority religion causes a majority religion to be challenged. Or excessive science leads to concerns and a desire for a more agrarian society.

I personally like the risk/reward opportunity around this. Civs that go too deep in one dimension run the risk of a worse situation developing. But could also launch an even positive reward as well.

I also like a mechanic where a laggard Civ can strike back in a very deliberate way to derail the leader. This mechanic has many historical examples that have resulted in positive and negative outcomes.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I was thinking more like this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Castile#/media/File:Isabel_la_Católica-2.jpg

Though I’m trying to figure out how they could implement Eleanor of Aquitaine in a way that would actually make sense.

None of those pictures remind me of Isabella, unfortunately. There is a possibility it could be Aethelflaed, the warrior queen of Mercia, as an English alt leader.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

None of those pictures remind me of Isabella, unfortunately. There is a possibility it could be Aethelflaed, the warrior queen of Mercia, as an English alt leader.

While I would prefer that case, I doubt it. It would be hard to find another Medieval Great General of the female persuasion to replace her in that capacity. And being that there are so few female Great Generals to begin with, it would not do to replace her with a man.

 

[RagnorIronpants]

The main thing that makes me think it's Eleanor of Aquitaine as a new alt leader is that she fits with the devs stated desire to represent more female leaders, and illustrate the way that they held power without being formal leaders (they stated this on the website advertising R & F). More things don't make sense, however - I can't imagine them doing this with an alt leader for France, since France's other leader already represents this type of figure. She doesn't really fit well enough to be a second leader for England, and also England could unquestionably have a very popular second female leader, Elizabeth I. Also if they made her a leader for two Civs (a cool idea), that would be weird as there are stronger potential alt-leaders with whom to use this feature, like James I & VI (Eng & Scotland) or Cnut (Norway & England). It would also open the can of worms about whether Victoria should also be a leader for Scotland (which she obviously should, and more arguably Australia too). So I think it'd be a weird thing to do overall.

 

[AmazonQueen]

While I would prefer that case, I doubt it. It would be hard to find another Medieval Great General of the female persuasion to replace her in that capacity. And being that there are so few female Great Generals to begin with, it would not do to replace her with a man.

Sichelgaita of Salerno, wife of Robert Guiscard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikelgaita

There was also a Welsh princess who led the troops to war whilst her husband went to ask his father-in-law for help, but I can't recall her name, and she lost!

 

[Zdarg]

Exactly, and make the leader Mussolini, I'm sure everyone will be happy with that choice of leader.

Well, if we agree with having Fashism as 3-tier goverment (some actually choose this?), it would be hypocrite to be indignant about Musssolini as leader.
He wasn't that great enough,, though.