Overview of Mechanics

[Leyrann]

Espionage (and dipylomacy) in civ VI always gave me the feeling that the game is supposed to be played on tiny and duel maps. The horrors of late game with 12+ civs sending spies to all your towns constantly… I hope they find a much, much better way to do this.

I'm gonna be honest.

I never had this issue with espionage?

I usually played on Standard maps, occasionally larger, with the default amount of civs. And sure, most games I'd put a Counterspy on the biggest collection of districts I had in my capital area, but that'd be about it. Something would occasionally happen, but it was very rare. Maybe two or three times per game on average, if that much. Deity, for the record.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm gonna be honest.

I never had this issue with espionage?

I usually played on Standard maps, occasionally larger, with the default amount of civs. And sure, most games I'd put a Counterspy on the biggest collection of districts I had in my capital area, but that'd be about it. Something would occasionally happen, but it was very rare. Maybe two or three times per game on average, if that much. Deity, for the record.

It varied by patch cycle. My last few games, the AI seemed very passive about espionage, but there have been cycles where the AI was very aggressive with raising partisans (sooooo glad they patched that out) and sabotaging industrial zones.

 

[Siptah]

I'm gonna be honest.

I never had this issue with espionage?

I usually played on Standard maps, occasionally larger, with the default amount of civs. And sure, most games I'd put a Counterspy on the biggest collection of districts I had in my capital area, but that'd be about it. Something would occasionally happen, but it was very rare. Maybe two or three times per game on average, if that much. Deity, for the record.

Hm, maybe I‘m doing something wrong then. Of course I have a counter spy in my capital and I am protecting my spaceports. Yet, I keep losing governors in whatever cities, have industrial zones pillaged, and partisan all the time. Maybe you are just a better player and are so far ahead of the AI that not everyone of them has multiple Spies at hand before the game ends?

 

[aieeegrunt]

I did not love espionage in Civ5 or Civ6.

One of the many, many benefits of the mod Customization VI is the ability to remove Espionage

 

[luca 83]

What puzzles me are the global eras, the Chinese for example the barbarian invasions did not have the same effects as the West and their consequences. Every nation has different events, different governments in reference to events and the economy. The French Revolution did not affect China or Japan or Russia, serfdom remained in Russia until the mid-1800s, and Russia remained an autocracy until 1917

 

[Siptah]

What puzzles me are the global eras, the Chinese for example the barbarian invasions did not have the same effects as the West and their consequences. Every nation has different events, different governments in reference to events and the economy. The French Revolution did not affect China or Japan or Russia, serfdom remained in Russia until the mid-1800s, and Russia remained an autocracy until 1917

I‘m not sure every player gets the same crisis. There could be a different one for player 1 (e.g. famine) than for player 2 (e.g. mass refugees) or for player 3 (e.g., revolution) or 4 (e.g., foreign off map army comes to invade). Either randomly or due to the actions in the game.

 

[Leyrann]

Hm, maybe I‘m doing something wrong then. Of course I have a counter spy in my capital and I am protecting my spaceports. Yet, I keep losing governors in whatever cities, have industrial zones pillaged, and partisan all the time. Maybe you are just a better player and are so far ahead of the AI that not everyone of them has multiple Spies at hand before the game ends?

I do tend to be ahead of most AIs, but certainly not always all of them. Definitely not sufficiently far ahead that they don't have spies available yet - that's usually the area of the game where I begin to catch up to their start-of-game bonuses. I feel like most of my advantage on Deity stems from being much more efficient at converting a strong empire into a victory.

 

[Zaarin]

the Chinese for example the barbarian invasions did not have the same effects as the West and their consequences.

Not entirely true. At the same time the West was dealing with the Huns, China was dealing with the Xiongnu, the Rouran, the Yuezhi, the Xianbei, and so forth. China lived with its foot on the steppe and was almost always faced with raiders hungry for Chinese wealth (and sometimes they succeeded at becoming China--such as the Jin, Yuan, and Qing dynasties).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Not entirely true. At the same time the West was dealing with the Huns, China was dealing with the Xiongnu, the Rouran, the Yuezhi, the Xianbei, and so forth. China lived with its foot on the steppe and was almost always faced with raiders hungry for Chinese wealth (and sometimes they succeeded at becoming China--such as the Jin, Yuan, and Qing dynasties).

It is also frequently overlooked that both the European (Roman) and Chinese situations vis-a-vis the 'Barbarians' included a lot of non-combat interactions - in the long run, probably a lot more.

The Romans traded with central Europe, Scandinavia and Germany from at least the first century on - they even had posts in central Germany guarding the trade routes and river crossings that brought amber down from the Baltic, for one example. German settlements across the Rhine from Roman settlements traded so extensively that there was a progressive 'Romanization' of them - most noticeably at modern Wiesbaden, occupied by the Matti tribe of Germans and right across the river from the huge Roman Legionary Fortress of (modern) Mainz: by the time of the Emperor Domitian, the settlement of the Matti was incorporated as a Roman City (the original Roman city gate is still in modern Wiesbaden).

In China, it is often not appreciated that the Long (Great) Wall was built as much to keep Chinese peasants from absconding to the steppe as it was to keep 'barbarians' out of China. The fact that several crossing points in the wall were maintained to keep trade flowing - and controlled for taxation purposes - also indicates how important non-combative trade and contact with the 'Northern Barbarians' was to the Chinese Dynasties. This extended to trade in people as well: DNA studies are starting to show surprising amounts of non-Han elements in parts of the Chinese population, dating back to at least the Tang Dynasty, which included a surprising percentage of 'Barbarian' DNA in their aristocracy!

This, of course, is also paralleled in Europe: the plagues of the 3rd century so depopulated parts the western Roman Empire that Germanic groups were allowed or invited in long before the 'invasions' of the 5th century, and the 'Germanicization' of the Roman Army was a feature of the last 2 centuries of the Empire, up to and including the senior leadership of the Roman forces.

In this case, any Crisis related to interactions between the settled states and the 'barbarians' took place at both ends of the Eurasian continent.

 

[luca 83]

It is also frequently overlooked that both the European (Roman) and Chinese situations vis-a-vis the 'Barbarians' included a lot of non-combat interactions - in the long run, probably a lot more.

The Romans traded with central Europe, Scandinavia and Germany from at least the first century on - they even had posts in central Germany guarding the trade routes and river crossings that brought amber down from the Baltic, for one example. German settlements across the Rhine from Roman settlements traded so extensively that there was a progressive 'Romanization' of them - most noticeably at modern Wiesbaden, occupied by the Matti tribe of Germans and right across the river from the huge Roman Legionary Fortress of (modern) Mainz: by the time of the Emperor Domitian, the settlement of the Matti was incorporated as a Roman City (the original Roman city gate is still in modern Wiesbaden).

In China, it is often not appreciated that the Long (Great) Wall was built as much to keep Chinese peasants from absconding to the steppe as it was to keep 'barbarians' out of China. The fact that several crossing points in the wall were maintained to keep trade flowing - and controlled for taxation purposes - also indicates how important non-combative trade and contact with the 'Northern Barbarians' was to the Chinese Dynasties. This extended to trade in people as well: DNA studies are starting to show surprising amounts of non-Han elements in parts of the Chinese population, dating back to at least the Tang Dynasty, which included a surprising percentage of 'Barbarian' DNA in their aristocracy!

This, of course, is also paralleled in Europe: the plagues of the 3rd century so depopulated parts the western Roman Empire that Germanic groups were allowed or invited in long before the 'invasions' of the 5th century, and the 'Germanicization' of the Roman Army was a feature of the last 2 centuries of the Empire, up to and including the senior leadership of the Roman forces.

In this case, any Crisis related to interactions between the settled states and the 'barbarians' took place at both ends of the Eurasian continent.

The Chinese chronicles of the Han dynasty (206 BC-220 AD) are not correct, with in the period of the Great Wall the barbarian invasions from 300 BC, however the events, the historical periods and above all the events cannot be condensed into defined eras; The Arab world did not influence the Enlightenment or the French Revolution so in China, Japan, Russia, Africa, India, or states like Prussia

 

[luca 83]

The crisis system for was and too schematic there are several factors for each nation, random events, successful or not of a coup election of one you or one president in place of another . I repeat, the French revolution did not have much influence in Turkey or China or India

 

[Zaarin]

I repeat, the French revolution did not have much influence in Turkey

It did, though. Every monarchy in Europe, including the Sick Old Man of Europe, was shaken to its core by the French Revolution, and many became reactionary against liberalizing ideas because of it, including Russia and, yes, the Ottoman Empire, both of which had been generally trending towards modernizing before that (at least on an intellectual level).

 

[Siptah]

I repeat, the French revolution did not have much influence in Turkey or China or India

China stopped existing after all its cities were annexed by the Maori in 2400 BC, so obviously the Revolution of 1629 in the French capital of Ravenna didn‘t have an influence on it.
I don‘t understand your point. Are you arguing historic facts in an alt-history game or about game mechanics?

 

[luca 83]

It did, though. Every monarchy in Europe, including the Sick Old Man of Europe, was shaken to its core by the French Revolution, and many became reactionary against liberalizing ideas because of it, including Russia and, yes, the Ottoman Empire, both of which had been generally trending towards modernizing before that (at least on an intellectual level).

As a policy maybe but I don't apply its reforms, tell me what consequences the French Revolution had in India, and in China ? And in Iran? and in ethiopia?

 

[luca 83]

China stopped existing after all its cities were annexed by the Maori in 2400 BC, so obviously the Revolution of 1629 in the French capital of Ravenna didn‘t have an influence on it.
I don‘t understand your point. Are you arguing historic facts in an alt-history game or about game mechanics?

one thing is the alt History univers universe another thing is the historical models and the probabilities of events and the causes and effect of actions and the probalities and causes egfetto of the game that should be managed by an excellent ai in an interweaving of cause and effect, probability , chance , government, ideologies

 

[Siptah]

one thing is the alt History univers universe another thing is the historical models and the probabilities of events and the causes and effect of actions and the probalities and causes egfetto of the game that should be managed by an excellent ai in an interweaving of cause and effect, probability , chance , government, ideologies

I‘m still not sure of your point.

a) Is it that you are put off by the fact that crises happen simultaneously to all civs on the map?

b) Or is it that one of the multiple crises available for each age can hit a civ that historically didn‘t have to cope with it (e.g., Rome getting a crises modeled after the Bronze Age collapse while Persia gets Barbarian Invasion?)

For a) I would assume the reason is more in gameplay (simultaneous age transitions) than in history. Yet, the way it seems to work in civ 7, all civs contribute towards triggering the crisis. And yet, many historical „crises“ affected more than just a single empire in quick succession, such as the Bronze Age collapse which was felt from modern Sudan to Northern Germany, and from Spain to Iran. Or the 184x revolutions. But of course, non of them were world-wide.

For b) it would be very boring if France always got the French Revolution and Ming would always fall due to inflation. It would also allow you to prepare for the specific crises you expect. And as I see it, in a game in which Sumeria can capture Rome, it‘s fine if Egypt collapses under a famine (if that is how the doves rolled or the Egypt cub developed in the game).

 

[8housesofelixir]

the Chinese for example the barbarian invasions did not have the same effects as the West and their consequences

To important historical events to note: the Disaster of Yongjia (311 CE), and Houjing's Rebellion (548-552 CE).

The former destroyed the Roman Empire equivalent of China (the Qin-Han-Jin dynasties) and reduced it to the Chinese equivalent of the Byzantines (the Eastern Jin and Southern dynasties), while the latter completely crippled the said Byzantines and paved the way to the largely multiethnic the Sui-Tang dynasties.

It did, though. Every monarchy in Europe, including the Sick Old Man of Europe, was shaken to its core by the French Revolution, and many became reactionary against liberalizing ideas because of it, including Russia and, yes, the Ottoman Empire, both of which had been generally trending towards modernizing before that (at least on an intellectual level).

It even impacted Qing China. One of the reasons why Emperor Qianlong was not very happy with the British Macartney Embassy - which arrived in Beijing in 1793 - and their requests to open up more trade ports was because he feared the Europeans might export anti-monarchy revolutions to Asia through the trade ports.

 

[luca 83]

I‘m still not sure of your point.

a) Is it that you are put off by the fact that crises happen simultaneously to all civs on the map?

b) Or is it that one of the multiple crises available for each age can hit a civ that historically didn‘t have to cope with it (e.g., Rome getting a crises modeled after the Bronze Age collapse while Persia gets Barbarian Invasion?)

For a) I would assume the reason is more in gameplay (simultaneous age transitions) than in history. Yet, the way it seems to work in civ 7, all civs contribute towards triggering the crisis. And yet, many historical „crises“ affected more than just a single empire in quick succession, such as the Bronze Age collapse which was felt from modern Sudan to Northern Germany, and from Spain to Iran. Or the 184x revolutions. But of course, non of them were world-wide.

For b) it would be very boring if France always got the French Revolution and Ming would always fall due to inflation. It would also allow you to prepare for the specific crises you expect. And as I see it, in a game in which Sumeria can capture Rome, it‘s fine if Egypt collapses under a famine (if that is how the doves rolled or the Egypt cub developed in the game).

Yes, I do not understand why events have to happen simultaneously: there are factors to take into account: chance, probability events, success or failure of an event

 

[Siptah]

Yes, I do not understand why events have to happen simultaneously: there are factors to take into account: chance, probability events, success or failure of an event

I think this is mostly a decision of gameplay > history.

I fear if you gave each player full control over when the crisis for them personally triggers (e.g., by counting milestones per player instead of altogether), it becomes „gamey“ pretty quickly. Players figure out when the optimal point to have the crisis is and play respectively, avoiding overextending your current empire while maximizing the gains for the next one.

Simultaneous transitions also eliminate the first past the post problems of Humankind for civ selection, as everybody chooses at the same time (and in single player, player goes first). It‘s also a neat reset for all players if you start at the same time in the new age. A bit of leveling the playing field, but not forgetting your legacy which transforms into bonuses for your new empire.

It would be possible to have crisis spread (similarly to revolutions in EU4 or the plague in CK2) from one empire to the next. But speaking in civ terms and times, this would need to happen within 2-5 turns anyway, so I suppose it can quite as well be simultaneously.

I would wager that some crises still hit with a delay, e.g. barbarian invasions for civs that have some defenses out there vs. those that have nothing. And then there‘s the thing with the cards: you can choose (some of) the penalties, at least at the beginning of the crisis. Thus, players that can either choose penalties that don‘t affect them much or such that they can counter won‘t feel the crisis immediately, while others might be under pressure right away.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Yes, I do not understand why events have to happen simultaneously: there are factors to take into account: chance, probability events, success or failure of an event

When a new era starts:

• the map expands
• old resources are retired and new ones added
• some game rules change

It therefore makes more sense to have all civs change at the same time.

Note that we don't know whether each civ gets the same events during crisis. We really haven't seen much at all about how crisis periods work.