Official announcement: Hot off the presses. Next Civ game in development!!!!!!!

[Sync]

Please, for the love of God, be more like Civ IV than V or VI.

Those guys have had their fun now. Just throw the Civ IV fans a bone. Please.

I've still not forgotten the debacle that was the initial release of Shafer V. A lot of good people on here were ran off in 2010.

 

[MrRadar]

Gilgamesh failed to invite me into a bear hug. Also, is not even a little bit diesel. Literally unplayable.

No. He used to lean really close into your face and scare you off the keyboard. And then he used to send his Vultures to raid your fridge. It was no games with him.

 

[AntSou]

I mean, those are both Board games, played at a table with other humans, and from a Google search (not played them myself) take about or less than 2 hours. I don't think most people would object to continuing to sit at a table shooting horsehocky with friends after being eliminated from a game, especially if that game is likely to end within an hour. I can't speak for everyone, but I sure as horsehocky am not watching the AI play a game of Civ with itself for as long as that might take to see if I might win. Even in a multiplayer context, Civ already has a massive problem with people quitting early if they fall behind, you'd have to do quite a bit of work to realistically expect them to stick around after being eliminated

In those games you can re-enter the board. But bottom line of my argument was that the VP counted at the end of the game do not require territorial presence at the end of the game. In Scythe specifically you'll have accrued VP through completing objectives, popularity, winning battles, and a bunch of other stuff. Owning territory at the end of the game is only one of a bunch of different ways to score.

This isn't an inconceivable design in Civ. We already have revolutions and liberations, they're just no terribly well fleshed out. Considering this:

- The game could provide simple options if a player loses all cities, such as: a) watch game, b) resign. Something similar already exists in the form of "play one more turn". And watching Civ AI has been a sub-genre on Youtube for a while.

I must stress that this only makes sense in the context of a game design that allows for a multitude of ways to score not tied to owning territory/cities. Being "revived" for the sake of it wouldn't make sense. And preferably, there should be a couple other ways to play, such as the commented below.

I want to comment on this because I think it's interesting, in general I find that adding different effects to the elimination of a Civ is unexplored design space in this genre, so color me intrigued, but I see two distinct problems potentially arising:

1. Will these sort of "post-mortem mechanics" be also available to a player before they get killed off? If so, we might excaberate Civ's existing problem of "click bloat" where turns just take too long, because if those mechanics are complex/interesting enough to engage a player on their own, they'd likely add a lot of turn time for a player who's still on the board. If not, we run into a second problem to resolve.

Yes, you could be right here. But it's an often voiced opinion that the religion game isn't great in the current iteration. Making it interesting might make turns take longer, but I'm not sure if that's a problem if the end result is that it's actually more fun. And maybe it can be made fun without taking much longer?

I obviously haven't thought hard about the implications of the example I gave. I was just considering that it could be possible to separate the "Holy City" from the "City" in which it is located.

I can immediately think of some issues (could make religion even less integrated with the rest of the game) but also possible interesting results (multiplayer games in which "eliminated" players keep manipulating outcomes through religion, with paths to victory still remaining).

This is all very basic and abstract. It took Humankind failing at the Neolithic stage to make me sceptical (and many others) about it. I'm not a game designer, so the day professional designers try and fail at something like this, then my hopes will change in accordance to it.

Finally: this whole point started as an extreme example I was giving. That Score Victory should be possible even in the event of elimination from the board. And that territorial expansion shouldn't be so closely tied to Score, as it currently is. The main thing here is that in many situations you might accrue such a lead in VP, that not even elimination through conquest could overturn that lead. I think this would often be the case for Civs/Leaders focused on wonder construction, or great achievements, etc. It shouldn't mean that every time you're eliminated from the board, paths to victory will always remain open. More often than not, there will not. On top of that there's space to explore ways to play despite having no territory, in the form of one or two mechanics (religion being the more obvious one).

2. Can these sorts of mechanics result in a perverse incentive structure? If they're only available to a player after they're eliminated, can a player reach a point where the player is better off being wiped off the board then staying on a couple small cities? If these mechanics are enough to win the game with, almost certainly, and this would create a situation where a player tries to get themselves killed. Beyond being "unrealistic", in this context I think that's largely immaterial, I think it would compromise the game for other players. It would cheapen the experience for a conqueror to know that they're victim is trying to lose the war because they find it materially advantageous, it would frustrate uninvolved third parties to watch the conqueror easily further their snowball because the "victim" decided they're better off as a ghost, and it would warp the entire logic of military vs. economic investment if being conquered has material benefits that can help you win, rather than being a failstate to avoid.

I think they can. But the core of it shouldn't be available to the player only if they are eliminated, even if some elements could become available only in that circumstance, as a sort of "catch up" mechanic.

For instance, Dark Ages in Civ 6. It's not the best part of the game, but it's useful as an example. Some players seek those ages in Civ 6, and some times it will be favourable to force Dark Ages. So you can "cheese" the game, no doubt. But you'll generally want to avoid them, and Dark Age policies become available as a catch up mechanism.

In the example I gave, if you found a religion, you control that religion. It's available to you always. Perhaps elimination from the board gives you access to a few mechanisms which weren't available before. But preferably this should be designed in such a way that you'll want to retain presence on the board, not purposely seek to fail.

If these mechanics are enough to win the game with, almost certainly, and this would create a situation where a player tries to get themselves killed.

I don't think they should be "enough" to win the game, especially if they occur in the early game, or you're towards the bottom of the score ladder. Perhaps some Civs/Leaders could have specific abilities that make it possible. But I think of it more as "momentum". Perhaps you'll have gained enough VP by the time you're eliminated in the mid to late game, so that being able to play keeps a path to victory open and a way for the player to have fun. Among the available mechanisms would be ways to regain control of the board.

 

[AntSou]

Please, for the love of God, be more like Civ IV than V or VI.

Those guys have had their fun now. Just throw the Civ IV fans a bone. Please.

I've still not forgotten the debacle that was the initial release of Shafer V. A lot of good people on here were ran off in 2010.

Could you be more specific in regards to what in Civ IV is it that you hope to return?

 

[InsidiousMage]

Where's the expansion when playing with Maya? Or the extermination when playing Canada? What's with the all One City Challenges or Civs (Venice) designed with OCC in mind? How often do you read users saying they avoid wars entirely?

1) Variety is the spice of life and offering different and even sub-optimal ways to play is common in a variety of game. 2) Playing Tall as the Maya is nowhere near as good as playing wide with a normal civ. You need to generate one to two thousand science in the late game, which is really, really hard to do as the Maya. 3) You can still exterminate people as Canada, just not with surprise wars. 4) People play games outside the intended manner all of the time, its why the Nuzlocke Challenge in Pokemon exists. People, again, like to play games in ways that are sub-optimal because they find them more enjoyable. It doesn't change the intended manner the game is meant to be played in.

Case in point, Old World detaches movement points from quantity of units. Your approach, applied here, would be something like: "the end game becomes tiresome because more units and cities implies the need for more decisions. Attempting to change this would be an arbitrary limit."

No, not really. Orders are great because they limit what players can do so players are therefore required to actually stop and think about what they need to do each turn. Restrictions are good when they force the player to actually think about what they are doing. Not to mention, eliminating the tediousness of the late is a good thing! It solves a really problem in the genre and in way that improves the game. Like, "domination is overpowered" is something that everyone considers is a problem or something that needs to be fixed.

More resources doesn't/shouldn't automatically imply the need for more cities, even if that is the most straightforward path.

I mean, it does at some point. You can only stack so many modifiers before you run out of modifiers to stack, its the exact problem the Maya have in the late game. If I'm stuck at 1,500 science, using all available modifiers, then I need more cities if I want more science.

Could you please define "culture high point". I'm curious as to what you consider to be objective variables of cultural superiority.

One, cultural high point is not cultural superiority, which is an incredibly stupid idea. Two, when people think of Rome what do they think of - the changes in the early Republic or the Colosseum? Its the Colosseum, Trajan's forum, all of the stuff the Romans left behind, not the details of their political system. Same thing with Athens. People who are not interested in history don't know anything about its democracy but they do probably know something about some of the buildings and various writers and philosophers from the period. I'm talking a specific moment in time that people remember long after the fact because of the things (buildings, writings, art, etc.) that was created during that time, not the broad culture, hence the phrase "high point."

Uh? Why did Hadrian decide to abandon Parthia? Do you think the game reflects the difficulties which arise from an ever increasing empire effectively?

I never said the game was perfect and no, it doesn't. I would certainly like see more limits and complications from larger empires but would mean eliminating the domination victory so I doubt it will happen. We'll see what we get when Civ7 comes out.

The wealth of the monarch was often less dependent on territorial extension and more on the quality and extension of the bureaucracy, the cultural norms and the technological innovations.

Still doesn't change the fact that if you rule more territory you can extract more resources from that territory, which is the point.

Historically speaking, the wealthier individuals to ever exist ruled over no territory at all.

I am not, and never was, talking about individuals, only nations/empires/etc because that's who you play as in Civ.

And how do you account for South Korea, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc having some of the highest GDPs in the world (total, not per capita)?

Seriously? The industrial revolution, an event so significant in human history that is maybe only matched by the agricultural revolution because it fundamentally altered almost everything about human society and civilization. An event, that should be pointed out, isn't even 400 years old at this point, out of something like 6,000 years of human civilization. The past couple of hundred years are extreme outliers in regards to historical norms.

You're not questioning that cultural high points are funded by conquest and large empires, even as you concede that defining a cultural high point is a matter of opinion and maybe not even a valid concept?

You're conflating to very different things here. Someone can appreciate and admire the cultural output (buildings, literature, philosophy, etc) of, say, the Ottoman Empire while still thinking the Ottoman Empire itself can be considered "great" given that it was created through acts of violent conquest. Like, I would to see Samarkand at its height during the reign of the Timurids but that doesn't mean I think Timur or his successors are great people.

I said "eliminated through conquest", clearly meaning being left with no cities on the board.

So was I. How else would you be eliminated in a game of Civ?

Small World is a very popular game where civilizational decline and being erased from the board is turned into a game mechanic. It's possible, and not even uncommon, to win the game even after nothing is left on the board. Many "Civs" are focused on expanding, Others on holding on to small territories, etc.

It sounds like you should just play games that aren't Civ because it seems like you want Civ to be something it isn't.

The easiest option is: nothing at all.

So, I would literally just sit at my computer, watching the turns pass or letting the game run while I did something else until the game ends and hope I win? Why would I do that when I could just start a new game?

Which is why I keep suggesting that victory points should be granted for actions which "add to the city" (such as building Wonders) rather than simply "owning".

Lets say I conquer a city and it has a Granary, Commercial Hub, Market, and Theater Square. Even if I never get points for those things, I should still get points for everything I build after I took control of the city, correct? If that's the case, why shouldn't I conquer a bunch of cities to expand my empire so I can build more buildings? Because, if you get points for doing things, whatever they are, then the opportunity to do more of those things is always going to be better than not. Which, in the case of Civ, means having more cities so you build more wonders, buildings, etc and therefore wide play, settling as much as you can and conquer when feasible, is the optimal strategy.

You're the one saying there should be no such thing as "legacy" and that the conqueror takes all. Literally just above you argue that the only thing that matters is ownership.

Not really but I image most people who visited Istanbul in the 1600s didn't really think of it as a Greek or Christian city, they probably thoughts of it as a Turkish and Islamic city. Like, nowadays people mostly associate Rome with the Papacy, not the Roman Republic and Empire. What cities are considered to be changes over the centuries and I see no reason why that shouldn't be reflected in the game.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

I see the light in Boris' point that imagining the potential for the Neolithic is also a choice to look beyond some Amplitude monopoly over the concept. Not that I would sign an NDA, but I would be very curious to see a Firaxis build.

The gist of the Neolithic would have to derive from the design process, probably tailored to other design considerations for the game. I could see unfamiliar concepts introduced or teased in a way that would not make sense with Civilization's current early game. I can also think of several other mechanisms that could influence the Neolithic without driving it.

For instance, there could be events in two decks of cards, scarcity and surplus, that offer choices with temporary to semi-permanent modifiers. The first deck would explore how the player navigates questions of survival, possibly yielding tech, but more likely modifying group stats, early relations, and civics. The second deck would offer more choices about how to allocate the surplus, with a more advantageous selection of stats and relations but also potentially permanent wonders or civic/cultural progress. The player would draw from the surplus deck when ending the turn in ritual/cultural sites, otherwise drawing from scarcity while exploring the map.

Another mechanism would be population pressure. Ritual/cultural sites could be found on optimal city sites, i.e. rivers, deltas, coast with ample food sources for early growth. The influx of groups to these common centers would offer a chance to alter modifiers the player has chosen, representing the melting pot of tribes everywhere making these choices. The chance of these changes would increase the longer a player stayed at a site, and the size of their tribe relative to the population of the site.

While scarcity, surplus, and population pressure are informed by The Dawn of Everything, the idea of fixed choices for the decks I would attribute to Old World, specifically the education events. Just these two mechanisms above could easily come together to deepen the Neolithic: Population pressure and cultural changes would push the player to explore the map in search of somewhere to settle and retain their choices. At the same time, scarcity events from exploring would "harden" the tribe and push the player back to ritual sites to potentially swap out some of their modifiers or take the opportunity to build an early monument they could pick up in the next phase.

While these mechanisms would not necessarily be the ethos of the Neolithic, I hope they show how you could incorporate a number of different concepts and tailor them to whatever driving goal you would assign the era, whether civics, cultural identity, or anything else.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Ahh, I see. I appreciate the clarification, though I think I still disagree! But that's best saved for a completely different thread


Why stop there? Let's go further back in the Stone Age! Let's take the game right back to just past the edge of the prehistoric. Let's really get nitty-gritty.

To be clear: I don't think this would be at all a popular design, but I'm not suggesting it to be sarcastic. I'm pointing out that abstractions are necessary. You said you understand my point, but you simply disagree with it. That's fair. But your claim that abstracting the Neolithic Era (and only the Neolithic) is abstracting to the point of fantasy is nothing more than your preference. It's not games design. It's rooted in your desire to see a specific part of history modeled within the game.

You're right, I should've phrased it better. I did read the post though, in its entirety.

You say you accept fantasy as an inherent part of a lot of games, but you object to fantasy here when specific things are abstracted beyond a personal threshold (for you, personally). This is what I meant when I said "fantasy is bad", and that wasn't clear. My bad.

And I call that unrealistic expectations.

It's okay to say "there was a flawed concept in another strategy game I'd like to see Civ attempt at do better at". It's less okay to reverse-engineer a definition of "bad game design" because you don't like how Civ abstracts history, and has always abstracted history. If your issue with abstractions in Civ are this severe, they'll have always been there. So what attracts you to the franchise, and why is this "bad game design" now suddenly an issue where it wasn't before? Is there a progression from I to VI that you fear will get worse in VII?

Thank you for your response.
I confess, after I posted I felt that I had perhaps over-reacted and the post itself was a bit Over The Top. Thanx for bringing the discussion back to a Discussion and less of a Rant.

The reason (Okay, My Reason) for more acknowledgement of the Neolithic and not further back in Pre-History derives entirely from my reading in the past few years. My historical specialty in college was Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic period, but for most of my adult life it has been the Great Patriotic War (WWII in the Soviet Union), on which I have written several books, articles, and provided background research for several board and miniatures games. I only got interested in the broader scope of history in the prehistorical eras more recently, and that interest has been prodded by Civ's Start of Game and Humankind's Neolithic Start and the way they depicted (or failed to depict, in my personal view) the period in question.

This is also, as I look back on it, why I have become more critical of Civ's (and other game systems') version of these histories, one more instance that Ignorance Is Bliss when it comes to accepting someone else's idea of what is acceptable in 'abstracting' elements - for the same reason, I find it difficult to read any popular histories of the Eastern Front in WWII: I can see where they are getting it wrong, and it starts my teeth to grinding when I see it.

IF Civilization is the story of cities, then I think it should start the game with the founding of cities, and that started in the early Neolithic (9000 - 7500 BCE) not the end of the Neolithic (4000 - 3000 BCE). Civ's traditional lack of interest in the earlier period is, frankly, just no longer acceptable. Unfortunately, Humankind/Amplitude's version of a Neolithic Start completely missed most of what was actually happening in the Neolithic, so it reinforced the mistaken belief that "There's nothing to see here, let's just move along". There was lots happening, technologically, culturally, socially, and in regard to increasing concentration of the human population in city-like groups, which was happening in far more numerous and various parts of the world than was taught back when I was in school (which, admittedly, was right after the Neolithic). Back then, it was the "Fertile Crescent", Egypt, China, and a vast empty landscape everywhere else until magically, the Greeks appeared (I'm simplifying only slightly: at the university I attended in the mid-1960s, there was exactly one professor teaching anything before Enlightenment Europe in the history department, and he was a specialist in Classical Greece and Alexander and his Successors).
Now, we know that there were major cities being built also in India, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Americas, and agricultural technologies were being developed in all those places and also the Pacific Islands, and that most of the technologies relegated to the Ancient Era in both Civ and Humankind were actually developed and in use long before 4000 BCE.

I guess in a broader sense, and staying true to my roots as a self-identified Historian, I think it behooves the game design to constantly re-look to make sure they are still getting the history they are trying (however abstractly or imperfectly) to represent Right. What we 'know' keeps changing, sometimes radically. What was adequate and even laudatory 20 years ago is, frankly, Obsolete now in many respects: history is always changing, because we keep bringing new knowledge to its study. Any game that bills itself as Historical 4X will have to Keep Up to avoid a Fantasy label - which, I admit, 40 years of reading fantasy may make me too quick to apply.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Thank you for your response.
I confess, after I posted I felt that I had perhaps over-reacted and the post itself was a bit Over The Top. Thanx for bringing the discussion back to a Discussion and less of a Rant.

The reason (Okay, My Reason) for more acknowledgement of the Neolithic and not further back in Pre-History derives entirely from my reading in the past few years. My historical specialty in college was Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic period, but for most of my adult life it has been the Great Patriotic War (WWII in the Soviet Union), on which I have written several books, articles, and provided background research for several board and miniatures games. I only got interested in the broader scope of history in the prehistorical eras more recently, and that interest has been prodded by Civ's Start of Game and Humankind's Neolithic Start and the way they depicted (or failed to depict, in my personal view) the period in question.

This is also, as I look back on it, why I have become more critical of Civ's (and other game systems') version of these histories, one more instance that Ignorance Is Bliss when it comes to accepting someone else's idea of what is acceptable in 'abstracting' elements - for the same reason, I find it difficult to read any popular histories of the Eastern Front in WWII: I can see where they are getting it wrong, and it starts my teeth to grinding when I see it.

IF Civilization is the story of cities, then I think it should start the game with the founding of cities, and that started in the early Neolithic (9000 - 7500 BCE) not the end of the Neolithic (4000 - 3000 BCE). Civ's traditional lack of interest in the earlier period is, frankly, just no longer acceptable. Unfortunately, Humankind/Amplitude's version of a Neolithic Start completely missed most of what was actually happening in the Neolithic, so it reinforced the mistaken belief that "There's nothing to see here, let's just move along". There was lots happening, technologically, culturally, socially, and in regard to increasing concentration of the human population in city-like groups, which was happening in far more numerous and various parts of the world than was taught back when I was in school (which, admittedly, was right after the Neolithic). Back then, it was the "Fertile Crescent", Egypt, China, and a vast empty landscape everywhere else until magically, the Greeks appeared (I'm simplifying only slightly: at the university I attended in the mid-1960s, there was exactly one professor teaching anything before Enlightenment Europe in the history department, and he was a specialist in Classical Greece and Alexander and his Successors).
Now, we know that there was major cities being built also in India, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Americas, and agricultural technologies were being developed in all those places and also the Pacific Islands, and that most of the technologies relegated to the Ancient Era in both Civ and Humankind were actually developed and in use long before 4000 BCE.

I guess in a broader sense, and staying true to my roots as a self-identified Historian, I think it behooves the game design to constantly re-look to make sure they are still getting the history they are trying (however abstractly or imperfectly) to represent Right. What we 'know' keeps changing, sometimes radically. What was adequate and even laudatory 20 years ago is, frankly, Obsolete now in many respects: history is always changing, because we keep bringing new knowledge to its study. Any game that bills itself as Historical 4X will have to Keep Up to avoid a Fantasy label - which, I admit, 40 years of reading fantasy may make me too quick to apply.

I agree with almost everything here. I would also like to see the Neolithic addressed with some degree of authenticity.

But at the same time, I have to recognize that Civ is a game, and a game with particular limits on its self-seriousness. I don't think it "has to" have a Neolithic Era. That's just my preference. I won't resist playing 7 for that reason alone. I'm not going to become some kind of Never-Seven holdout if they don't have it. It's just another crack in the veneer that could be exploited by another company, if done properly.

 

[Nikolai II]

I like the idea of a neolithic age. I don't think it fits with Civ though, especially balancing wise it would be a nightmare. And I didn't like the HK implementation much.

 

[Nikolai II]

What I would like though, is for the major civs to be like the founding civs for agriculture in gameplay terms, like Indus, Mesopotamia, Egypt etc. And for the world around to be populated by minor civs, tribes etc in various stages of development. But that is probably also another game than Civ in the end.

 

[Thormodr]

Please, for the love of God, be more like Civ IV than V or VI.

Those guys have had their fun now. Just throw the Civ IV fans a bone. Please.

I've still not forgotten the debacle that was the initial release of Shafer V. A lot of good people on here were ran off in 2010.

While I totally agree about the unmitigated disaster that was Civilization 5, Civ VI was definitely a step back in the right direction.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And for the world around to be populated by minor civs, tribes etc in various stages of development. But that is probably also another game than Civ in the end.

Not if they expand on the idea of Barbarian clans to include non aggressive or neutral groups too, which I'm hoping they do.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Not if they expand on the idea of different Barbarian clans to include non aggressive or neutral groups too, which I'm hoping they do.

I think at that point we need to look for a new name, because Barbarian starts to look even more offensive when you begin to include peoples who didn't actively resist established polities and were just existing, minding their own business in the environment.

 

[TempusFugit]

1) Variety is the spice of life and offering different and even sub-optimal ways to play is common in a variety of game

I haven't followed your discussion, but I this is a very important part of strategy games for me. Obviously you want to try to balance things somewhat when you make a game, but if balance is taken too far, like in some games balanced for multiplayer, it makes the games less interesting as single player games.

I love how imbalanced Civ 5 and Civ 6 has been, giving you a ton of options to play around with and the choice to play as optimal or sub-optimal as you want. Or leave it up to the random dice of chance. The great strategy games by New Wold Computing were designed this way and the original Master of Magic even more so. Obviously it can be taken too far in an imbalanced direction also. If players keeps choosing the same option every time, instead of any of the others, then it is a fault of the game, at least to some degree, but it is a lot up to player choice and reflection as well. Some players just follow guides or youtube videos, blindly choosing what some people tells them are the optimal choices, which I would argue is the wrong way to play these kinds of games if you want to get the most fun out of them. At least for most players.

When it comes to balancing, it seems like imbalances are less problematic for choices you make before a game starts, like factions, because players are used to pick things like difficulty there already. But for choices that happen after the game has started, like picking social policies in Civ 5, it seems like players are more conditioned to pick the most optimal choice, so bigger imbalances here may cause many players to not to pick "sub-optimal" choices. But it can also change over time.

For Heroes of Might and Magic 3 for example it seems like more players do pick water and fire magic these days, even if earth and air magic are a lot stronger. If people are conscious about the fact that choosing "sub-optimal" choices can be fun, they will do it more.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think at that point we need to look for a new name, because Barbarian starts to look even more offensive when you begin to include peoples who didn't actively resist established polities and were just existing, minding their own business in the environment.

Yeah, I at least like the idea of calling them tribes. I was just using the name Barbarian clans to tie that concept with the current game mode. The peaceful tribes would be similar to the tribal villages we have now while more aggressive tribes would be similar to the current version of barbarians. The idea is that even the peaceful tribes could also eventually reach city-state or minor nation status.

 

[TempusFugit]

Yeah, I at least like the idea of calling them tribes. I was just using the name Barbarian clans to tie that concept with the current game mode. The peaceful tribes would be similar to the tribal villages we have now while more aggressive tribes would be similar to the current version of barbarians. The idea is that even the peaceful tribes could also eventually reach city-state or minor nation status.

The name will probably be ditched at some point, whereupon there will be some angry discussions here and elsewhere where people protest the name change.

I think tribe is better, because it is a better description of whom it represents. But barbarian is more colorful and evocative, so some people will probably take offense at Firaxis, when and if they change it.

 

[AntSou]

1) Variety is the spice of life and offering different and even sub-optimal ways to play is common in a variety of game. 2) Playing Tall as the Maya is nowhere near as good as playing wide with a normal civ. You need to generate one to two thousand science in the late game, which is really, really hard to do as the Maya. 3) You can still exterminate people as Canada, just not with surprise wars. 4) People play games outside the intended manner all of the time, its why the Nuzlocke Challenge in Pokemon exists. People, again, like to play games in ways that are sub-optimal because they find them more enjoyable. It doesn't change the intended manner the game is meant to be played in.

I fundamentally disagree with your insistence on an "intended manner" and natural way to design 4x games, as if these concepts were pre-established. The game could be designed in such a way that Maya wouldn't be at a disadvantage. But it isn't.

Just off the top of my head, without thinking too much about it:
1. Tie science output to specialists, thus originating mainly in large (and larger) urban centres;
2. Exponential rather than linear output of science per citizen. The 15th citizen grants more science than the 10th, and the 30th grants more science than the 15th;
3. Lock tier of building to City size.

No, not really. Orders are great because they limit what players can do so players are therefore required to actually stop and think about what they need to do each turn. Restrictions are good when they force the player to actually think about what they are doing. Not to mention, eliminating the tediousness of the late is a good thing! It solves a really problem in the genre and in way that improves the game. Like, "domination is overpowered" is something that everyone considers is a problem or something that needs to be fixed.

Great! You agree that restrictions can be a good thing, not automatically an "arbitrary limit", or that at least being defined as "arbitrary limit" is meaningless since what matters are the gameplay implications.

We are therefore only disagreeing on what constitutes a "real problem". I'm not sure if you made a typo there in your final sentence. I'm of the opinion that "domination is OP" and that it is a problem, especially in the context of Score Victory (which is the starting point of this entire back and forth).

Crucially, as I've pointed out before: my position is not to restrict expansion. That's what Civ 5 did, while still designing victory paths around the need for territory. My position is that territory should be a factor, but not the overwhelmingly defining one as it is presently. Thus granting VP for the completion of wonders, rather than owning wonders, would be an example of such redesign.

One, cultural high point is not cultural superiority, which is an incredibly stupid idea. Two, when people think of Rome what do they think of - the changes in the early Republic or the Colosseum? Its the Colosseum, Trajan's forum, all of the stuff the Romans left behind, not the details of their political system. Same thing with Athens. People who are not interested in history don't know anything about its democracy but they do probably know something about some of the buildings and various writers and philosophers from the period. I'm talking a specific moment in time that people remember long after the fact because of the things (buildings, writings, art, etc.) that was created during that time, not the broad culture, hence the phrase "high point."

I'm a bit confused because you seem to often disagree with me by agreeing with me. Reminder that this particular argument started with you saying "culture high points were historically achieved after a process of territorial expansion", and that therefore territorial expansion should remain to be dominant in the game, specifically in the manner of "ownership".

But here you conclude by first equating "high point" with what happens to be popular and arbitrarily focusing on what "people not interested in history" think, and then concede that "I'm talking a specific moment in time that people remember long after the fact because of the things (buildings, writings, art, etc.) that was created during that time".

But this is my entire position. That Civs should gain VP based on their achievements. The examples you give still do not support your position. I'm the one arguing that the builder of the Colosseum should be the one to gain VP from it, not whomever happens to own it after. The owner will inherit the Wonder effect, not the VP from constructing it. I'm the one arguing that "Athens" should gain VP from its philosophers, regardless if the city is controlled by some uncivilised brute from up north.

Still doesn't change the fact that if you rule more territory you can extract more resources from that territory, which is the point.

Granted. Territory is undoubtedly a factor.

Seriously? The industrial revolution, an event so significant in human history that is maybe only matched by the agricultural revolution because it fundamentally altered almost everything about human society and civilization. An event, that should be pointed out, isn't even 400 years old at this point, out of something like 4,000 years of human civilization. The past couple of hundred years are extreme outliers in regards to historical norms.

Not sure what your counter argument is here? "The industrial revolution, an event only matched by the agricultural revolution because it fundamentally altered almost everything about human society and civilization", should be dismissed as an "extreme" outlier?

I'm not sure this path is worth pursuing though, it's already way too off track. It was just part of my argument that territory is only one factor when accounting for national wealth.

You're conflating to very different things here. Someone can appreciate and admire the cultural output (buildings, literature, philosophy, etc) of, say, the Ottoman Empire while still thinking the Ottoman Empire itself can be considered "great" given that it was created through acts of violent conquest. Like, I would to see Samarkand at its height during the reign of the Timurids but that doesn't mean I think Timur or his successors are great people.

I don't think I am?

There's the expression "agree to disagree" but I'm coming to the realization we need a "disagree to agree" to describe what's going on here.

So we disagree to agree that one should put greater emphasis on the literature, monuments, etc, of the Ottoman Empire, even those which were made possible thanks to its military conquests, rather than whoever happens to own that cultural output later on.

It sounds like you should just play games that aren't Civ because it seems like you want Civ to be something it isn't.

This is not a new argument. Many Civ III, and Civ IV, and Civ V have tried to convince everyone else of what Civ should or should not be. You have examples of all of them in this thread.

So, I would literally just sit at my computer, watching the turns pass or letting the game run while I did something else until the game ends and hope I win? Why would I do that when I could just start a new game?

The same reason you can play one more turn rather than start a new game. Do whatever you want. You don't need to sit at your computer. AI moves pretty fast. This would mostly work in edge cases where you're ahead in points and you happen to lose the last city while sitting in first place, without many turns left. Assuming AI is even strong enough to achieve this. In multiplayer you could just leave and then access the game history to check the game score.

Lets say I conquer a city and it has a Granary, Commercial Hub, Market, and Theater Square. Even if I never get points for those things, I should still get points for everything I build after I took control of the city, correct?

Not necessarily. Wonders certainly. I'm not sure how to feel about points from districts and buildings. Could be a specific "Architect/Builder" archetype which grants points from those things.

If that's the case, why shouldn't I conquer a bunch of cities to expand my empire so I can build more buildings? Because, if you get points for doing things, whatever they are, then the opportunity to do more of those things is always going to be better than not. Which, in the case of Civ, means having more cities so you build more wonders, buildings, etc and therefore wide play, settling as much as you can and conquer when feasible, is the optimal strategy.

Sure, in the scenario that wonders, buildings and districts grant points, building things in conquered cities would grant points. It does not follow that expansion is the "one best way" and that all others are sub-optimal. They're suboptimal if they are made to be suboptimal, which is the case at present.

Conquer all you want, I don't want to limit territorial expansion.

 

[AntSou]

...which was happening in far more numerous and various parts of the world than was taught back when I was in school (which, admittedly, was right after the Neolithic)

Why do I worry about maintaining my health if I'll end up dead from choking on food after reading some off-handed humorous remark on an online discussion board?

 

[UWHabs]

The name will probably be ditched at some point, whereupon there will be some angry discussions here and elsewhere where people protest the name change.

I think tribe is better, because it is a better description of whom it represents. But barbarian is more colorful and evocative, so some people will probably take offense at Firaxis, when and if they change it.

Yeah, if they make the Barbarian Clans mode more as the default way that city-states develop, then I think it would make sense to re-name them to Tribes or Clans or something. I'd definitely love a (balanced) game mode where there's no city-states on the map, but the various "barbarian" camps that litter the map may or may not develop into city-states.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Yeah, if they make the Barbarian Clans mode more as the default way that city-states develop, then I think it would make sense to re-name them to Tribes or Clans or something. I'd definitely love a (balanced) game mode where there's no city-states on the map, but the various "barbarian" camps that litter the map may or may not develop into city-states.

That would definitely be preferable to finding a city-state occupying some critical location early in the game.