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

[pokiehl]

I on the other hand, will be happy with whatever because I love the series (okay, if they bring in territories and humankind style combat I will be sad)

Don’t be so sure. While it seems farfetched that Civ 7 would be a bad game, even the most storied franchises can have disasters, like Sim City, as @SammyKhalifa astutely noted.

I would greatly dislike Humankind combat as well, but I’d love the territory system.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Don’t be so sure. While it seems farfetched that Civ 7 would be a bad game, even the most storied franchises can have disasters, like Sim City, as @SammyKhalifa astutely noted.

I would greatly dislike Humankind combat as well, but I’d love the territory system.

Firaxis has yet to disappoint me. SimCity failed because EA was there at the helm.

Sure, Leader Pass left a bit to desire, as did NFP after it wrapped up, but considering that I think they made the bad decision to do monthly updates I honestly don't think the inherent designs were ever a bad choice. (Except World Congress).

 

[pokiehl]

Firaxis has yet to disappoint me. SimCity failed because EA was there at the helm.

Sure, Leader Pass left a bit to desire, as did NFP after it wrapped up, but considering that I think they made the bad decision to do monthly updates I honestly don't think the inherent designs were ever a bad choice. (Except World Congress).

Sure but that's not my point. I didn't say Firaxis has done anything that disappointed you. I'm just saying there's always the possibility that Civ 7 could be a total flop.

 

[Melkus]

They would have to make two systems then. One that makes memorable mistakes and one that makes no mistakes.

It's not that hard in principle - higher difficulties always choose the best option, while easier difficulties randomly take one of the best three options. Like a chess AI that doesn't (always) take the highest rated move. Vox Populi did it that way for a long time (though they got rid of it in newer releases, don't know why).

Of course you need to build a strong AI first to degrade it then. But Vox Populi is so far ahead of the job Firaxis did with the Civ6 AI that there are no really good excuses - these guys are right here at this forum. At least they deserve better modding tools.

But my main gripe with the current AI is the missing immersion, because Civ6 fails to give the leaders distinctive playstyles / personalities - it relies on the agenda system too much - which is not bad as an idea but quite ineffective because it only affects relations. So a culture-loving civ may attack you because you fail to develop culture (the dreaded Kristina surprise attack) - it doesn't make a lot of sense.
I think they could improve a lot there, but the current system seems to be too inflexible for different priorities. (At least Real Strategy brings out the character of the different leaders a bit better.)

 

[tedhebert]

They would have to make two systems then. One that makes memorable mistakes and one that makes no mistakes.

Disagree… They could use one system but use it more and more efficiently as the difficulty level goes up… In fact, that’s the
way it SHOULD be… not some stupid way of cheating by giving the AI eay better ressources than the player… Of course that would imply building an efficient AI in the first place… Do they want to bother with it ? I wonder…

It's not that hard in principle - higher difficulties always choose the best option, while easier difficulties randomly take one of the best three options. Like a chess AI that doesn't (always) take the highest rated move. Vox Populi did it that way for a long time (though they got rid of it in newer releases, don't know why).

Exactly !

 

[AntSou]

@InsidiousMage I think we've debated that long enough and we reached a point we'd just be repeating the same arguments . Bottom line we both find Score Victory desirable, but you'd rather see some tweaks made to it where I'd rather it be rewritten from the ground up.

And yet, there are countless posts here on the forums complaining that the AI is bad because it can't win games fast enough and because it doesn't always make the best decisions.

Because the AI is pretty bad. You're creating a false dichotomy. The overall incompetence in regards to even the most basic aspects of the game, like when the AI goes the entire game not fixing pillaged tiles which occurred in the Ancient Era, both makes the game less challenging and less immersive.

Disagree… They could use one system but use it more and more efficiently as the difficulty level goes up… In fact, that’s they
way it SHOULD be… not some stupid way of cheating by giving the AI eay better ressources than the player

But they can't even design one type of AI adequately, you want them to make several AI designs?

 

[pokiehl]

But my main gripe with the current AI is the missing immersion, because Civ6 fails to give the leaders distinctive playstyles / personalities - it relies on the agenda system too much - which is not bad as an idea but quite ineffective because it only affects relations.

I love Civ 6, but I think the agenda system is the game's biggest failure. Civ 5 personality flavor scores did so much more to create memorable, coherent AI personalities. Agendas seemed like a good idea, but in execution just result in AI that all appear to have the same general personality except for different sets of triggers that make them throw inane tantrums.

 

[Leucarum]

I've never properly understood the board game argument. As a turn based strategy game, the main thing barring it from being something you could reasonably play as a board game is its complexity. But I don't think people mean that, it seems more that people don't want it to feel like a board game even if under the hood it's difficult for civ not to be?

 

[pokiehl]

I've never properly understood the board game argument. As a turn based strategy game, the main thing barring it from being something you could reasonably play as a board game is its complexity. But I don't think people mean that, it seems more that people don't want it to feel like a board game even if under the hood it's difficult for civ not to be?

The “board game” complaint is a common trope that has been repeated so often I think the meaning has been lost.

What they mean to say is “I think Civ should be a simulation game”.

 

[AntSou]

Agendas seemed like a good idea, but in execution just result in AI that all appear to have the same general personality except for different sets of triggers that make them throw inane tantrums.

I think Agendas were a good introduction in principle and I would rather see it reworked.

They don't feel to me like they all have the same personality, but it's difficult to me to figure out how much of a role Agendas play in that, and how much is just down to the written text and the expressiveness of the models.

 

[Leucarum]

The “board game” complaint is a common trope that has been repeated so often I think the meaning has been lost.

What they mean to say is “I think Civ should be a simulation game”.

I'm also pretty sure that everyone here has a different interpretation of what the difference between the two is!

Not trying to deride either side of the argument, I am curious what features people think of when they are saying something is more "board-gamey" or more "simulationy".

 

[tedhebert]

@InsidiousMage But they can't even design one type of AI adequately, you want them to make several AI designs?

No… I want them to make ONE design and tamper with the efficiency of it’s usage depending on difficulty level, that’s all

 

[Gedemon]

I've never properly understood the board game argument. As a turn based strategy game, the main thing barring it from being something you could reasonably play as a board game is its complexity. But I don't think people mean that, it seems more that people don't want it to feel like a board game even if under the hood it's difficult for civ not to be?

The “board game” complaint is a common trope that has been repeated so often I think the meaning has been lost.

What they mean to say is “I think Civ should be a simulation game”.

I've tried to explain multiple time the concept of empire building on top of board game rules, but if that's not something easy to understand, let's just say I'd love more of civ3-4 and less of civ5-6 in civ7.

 

[AntSou]

No… I want them to make ONE design and tamper with the efficiency of it’s usage depending on difficulty level, that’s all

That would be good, I just think that's putting the cart before the horse.

I would like to see them dedicating enough resources towards making a good AI in the first place. We've been waiting for it since Civ 5, over a decade. (previous games were less complex and AI issues less noticeable).

I've tried to explain multiple time the concept of empire building on top of board game rules, but if that's not something easy to understand, let's just say I'd love more of civ3-4 and less of civ5-6 in civ7.

That makes it more difficult to understand.

I've probably read some of these points before. Could you just write some bullet points? I mean, I associate size and empire building with Civ 4 more than with Civ 6, because unpacking the cities makes me more focused on each city in Civ 6 (and managing a large empire eventuall becomes dull imo). But I don't think that's what you mean, or at least not just that.

 

[pokiehl]

That makes it more difficult to understand.

I've probably read some of these points before. Could you just write some bullet points? I mean, I associate size and empire building with Civ 4 more than with Civ 6, because unpacking the cities makes me more focused on each city in Civ 6 (and managing a large empire eventuall becomes dull imo). But I don't think that's what you mean, or at least not just that.

The only thing I can really think of that makes Civ 4 less "gamey" than Civ 5 or 6 is the AI ostensibly is designed not to "win" the game. Other than that, I don't see how any Civ game can be credibly viewed as anything close to a simulation.

 

[AntSou]

Not trying to deride either side of the argument, I am curious what features people think of when they are saying something is more "board-gamey" or more "simulationy".

I've seen arguments where by "board game" it was meant literally just the presentation in aspects such as the policy cards, whereas a list to select from would not have been considered "board gamey".

I'm not saying all arguments are of this type, but I've read some that were.

 

[pokiehl]

I've seen arguments where by "board game" it was meant literally just the presentation in aspects such as the policy cards, whereas a list to select from would not have been considered "board gamey".

I'm not saying all arguments are of this type, but I've read some that were.

Right. And taking that a step further with this example:

Civ 5 social policy tree vs Governors/Policy Cards.

I greatly prefer the social policy tree because choices felt more impactful in their permanence. Governors and Policy Cards are meant to be constantly switched around and optimized, which I find tedious. Just doesn't appeal to me.

But the social policy tree certainly doesn't strike me as more of a "simulation" experience than Policy Cards.

 

[Leucarum]

Honestly, even if a lot of it is down to presentation or feel, that is still a valid comment from people... It can have a big impact on how people enjoy the game. And if disguising/hiding the board game elements helps people enjoy it I'd be all ok board that for civ7...

 

[seasnake]

AS far as AI goes, the key detail is focus: is the AI trying to "Build an Empire" or "Win the Game". This philosophy determines all underlying decisions about how the game is played, especially the diplomacy aspect.

If the AI is trying to win, it should disregard all past beneficial relations/agreements once it is clear you are in a position to pull ahead (which happens in board game sessions, btw.) Even if it means a mostly hopeless attack or severing mutually beneficial trade ties, they should all dogpile on the score leader at a certain point. This means there can never be long-term friendships, the AI will betray you once it is clear you have a strong likelihood of winning. It would be stupid AI to do anything else. At the same time, it can be miserably frustrating to be buddies with someone for 2,000 years and then out of the blue they hate your guts and all your peaceful play goes into the crapper and you're just grinding out military units.

In a simulation of building an empire, the calculus changes dramatically. There, the AI can be your buddy for life if you invest the time and energy in reaching that level. However, with proper planning you can get everyone to like you so much that you can just cruise on to a peaceful victory with little endgame drama. In Civ V the easiest win is to play a small, mostly peaceful empire with strong defensive positions, then let science/culture/gold flow in. By the time the game is winding down victory is a foregone conclusion.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sure, Leader Pass left a bit to desire, as did NFP after it wrapped up, but considering that I think they made the bad decision to do monthly updates I honestly don't think the inherent designs were ever a bad choice. (Except World Congress).

It's hard for me to fully judge the Leaders Pass considering we still have two more packs left though. Though my most anticipated pack is coming up so that might be the reason.

Right. And taking that a step further with this example:

Civ 5 social policy tree vs Governors/Policy Cards.

I greatly prefer the social policy tree because choices felt more impactful in their permanence. Governors and Policy Cards are meant to be constantly switched around and optimized, which I find tedious. Just doesn't appeal to me.

But the social policy tree certainly doesn't strike me as more of a "simulation" experience than Policy Cards.

Solution: Combine the two to make everyone happy.