• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.

R&F a failing version more than great variation

planetfall

Emperor
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
1,336
Location
California
R&F has an issue in marketing as the dark age is not spelled out so some are afraid of giving it a go. I finally tried it and can see it's potential but it simply does not live up to hopes. I'm ready to go back to vanilla or give the wokest version of civ, GS, a try.

Interesting changes in R&F for gameplay were
1- governors where you could add just a little bit more to a city.
2- new policies and wonders
3- the idea of weak, normal and strong eras


Where it fails
1- hard to match governors with abilities to see have right governor in city
2- the era progression: there is too much postponing civ development because era points don't carry forward and too much of You Need To Build garbage wonders just to get era points.
3- spies still can't see details of a particular city: esp, buildings
4- still no way to see which techs have been researched

All in all, just too much busy work for the slight interest in falling eras and rising eras.

Perhaps others had similar/different reactions to R&F.
 
You do know that GS will have all the mechanics of R&F as well, right?
 
No, I thought it was like the older expansion paks, some would change, some would fall away, and most would stay.

Naturally I'll have a more informed view, after several games of GS.
 
That's how it was for Civ 5 too. The second expansion had all the previous mechanics of the first one as well. It's just the civs, wonders, and scenarios etc. introduced in which you would be missing out on.

If that's true for earlier games, that's the first I've heard of it. Since Ed Beach was the lead designer of Civ 5's last expansion and for Civ 6, I wouldn't be surprised if that's when it started.
 
R&F also introduces loyalty, where if you try to forward settle, you will lose the city to disloyalty. I think that ALONE makes R&F worthwhile. The rest is bonus. That is why, along with other reasons, I'll never go back to Civ V.
 
You could argue that dark ages were a little under-whelming if you expected a true rise and fall. But if you expected that, then you can play the Dramatic Ages mode, which does have a real penalty.

But at the same time, since it's not like super over-powered, you can also sort of ignore it. Yeah, a little micro to maybe delay something until the era flips over, or rushing to get a specific unit out to get the earlier era score, can help you optimize. But it's not strictly required. And as mentioned, loyalty alone to prevent mass forward settling, is worth it to never consider going back to vanilla rules.
 
Climate change is a political emphasis to justify a reverse robin hood, rob the poor for the rich. Climate science at best shows .03% change over time and we are lower than the earier ages. I don't mind having this thrown into a game, as it's fiction, not real life. But if you are going to throw it in, why not have more options in game setup to set the degree of effect. If you are really going to follow the climate change theory, you'ld have to account for greater/lesser
solar activity, which has more climate effect that any carbon ideas. More solar activity equals temperature increasing for a decade and then reverting back. Less solar activity would mean less heat and thus global cooling. Remember the ice ages. Now that might be a fun variation, an ice age that can't be stopped and comes down to the 45th latitude, ie washington DC. Or how about a desert age, where earth heats up past normal "the sky is falling hype" and gets up to the really hot times in earth's history.

I don't know how nuclear power is used in GS yet, as I haven't finished a game yet, but it will be interesting to see the alternative power options.

But this strays from the original post which was about R&F not GS. RF issue #1, governors, can be addressed by adding a map label by each governor but that means the label has to be destroyed and recreated each time a governor is reassigned. Just too much busy work for minimal gain.
 
Climate change is a political emphasis to justify a reverse robin hood, rob the poor for the rich. Climate science at best shows .03% change over time and we are lower than the earier ages. I don't mind having this thrown into a game, as it's fiction, not real life. But if you are going to throw it in, why not have more options in game setup to set the degree of effect. If you are really going to follow the climate change theory, you'ld have to account for greater/lesser
solar activity, which has more climate effect that any carbon ideas. More solar activity equals temperature increasing for a decade and then reverting back. Less solar activity would mean less heat and thus global cooling. Remember the ice ages. Now that might be a fun variation, an ice age that can't be stopped and comes down to the 45th latitude, ie washington DC. Or how about a desert age, where earth heats up past normal "the sky is falling hype" and gets up to the really hot times in earth's history.

I don't know how nuclear power is used in GS yet, as I haven't finished a game yet, but it will be interesting to see the alternative power options.

But this strays from the original post which was about R&F not GS. RF issue #1, governors, can be addressed by adding a map label by each governor but that means the label has to be destroyed and recreated each time a governor is reassigned. Just too much busy work for minimal gain.

1. No.

2. You can setup the "degree of effect" at game start, between 0 and 4, plus there's a game mode which basically turns it to 5.
 
Good to know, I have it low for first time, so far only issue is new requirement for more happiness. Rest is typical of new expansion.
 
I imagine something along the lines of 'GS represents climate change, which is somehow called woke now because that word has been tortured past any possible real meaning' 🙃

Calling Civ woke is pretty amusing to me, as having had some extremely 'woke' friends in my life, I think they'd consider it Cultural Appropriation: The Video Game.
 
Climate change is a political emphasis to justify a reverse robin hood, rob the poor for the rich. Climate science at best shows .03% change over time and we are lower than the earier ages. I don't mind having this thrown into a game, as it's fiction, not real life.
I very heavily disagree with your statement and I'm backed up by thousands of scientists all around the globe. I will not start any discussion about that but I can't let this passed unchallenged!
 
Moderator Action: Please stick to discussion of game mechanics in the game threads. If you wish to further discuss the politics of global warming there is the Off Topic forum for that.
 
Thank you Leif, I don't want to discuss the politics of "climate change" here, all I was trying to say is if the game has a global warming aspect built in, for balance it should also have a global cooling feature. Some players complain that the game is too predictable, so what would happen to gameplay if the developers combined the experience of the Germans in WWII where the Russians won by taking advantage of freezing temperatures and the experiences of early history where the ice ages chased humans south?

How about a new age, not Dark Age, but Cold Age/Ice Age, where cooling hits.

Triggers could be:
-- random, like volcano or floods
-- an enemy using EMT weapons

Stop events could be:
-- time of 35 turns
-- player adding EMT hardening to power plants and units

Effects could be:
-- mobility in tiles above 45th parallel reduced by 1
-- power plant usage increased by 1
-- food above 45th parallel reduced by 2
 
Thank you Leif, I don't want to discuss the politics of "climate change" here,
Well in your initial post you led with the extremely politically charged term "woke" which all but begged for such a discussion.

How about a new age, not Dark Age, but Cold Age/Ice Age, where cooling hits.

Triggers could be:
-- random, like volcano or floods
-- an enemy using EMT weapons

Stop events could be:
-- time of 35 turns
-- player adding EMT hardening to power plants and units

Effects could be:
-- mobility in tiles above 45th parallel reduced by 1
-- power plant usage increased by 1
-- food above 45th parallel reduced by 2
This idea is so unrealistic and random that I can't imagine it would go over well. Why would floods have anything to do with a period of cooling, for one thing? Is this some reference to the biblical flood?

For another thing, an "ice age" lasting 35 turns makes no sense--the last glacial period lasted ~100,000 years. This sort of idea just doesn't work on the scale of a civ game.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Leif, I don't want to discuss the politics of "climate change" here, all I was trying to say is if the game has a global warming aspect built in, for balance it should also have a global cooling feature.
Moderator Action: Then, in future, please say that and do not use "woke" as it is politically charged and not descriptive of what you wanted to say.

edit - and if you feel the need to respond to this, please do so via conversation. We are not turning this thread into a discussion on moderation.
 
Even if there is no mechanic that would dynamically change the terrain into a colder or warmer Earth, I would argue we can emulate a somewhat “cold” / “warm” map through the Advanced Setup.
  • For a colder Earth, we can pick Cold temperature, Arid rainfall, Low sea level and a lower disaster level.
  • For a warmer Earth, we can pick Hot temperature, Wet rainfall, High sea level and a higher disaster level.
Cold temperature setting doesn't seem to increase the number of Polar Ice tiles (I need to check that). You can also change the World Age, for New (more Hills and Mountains) or Old (more Flatland).


About Nuclear Power, I need to talk about the Power system and CO2 system.

With Gathering Storm, some buildings have been updated to require Power such as the Factory, the Research Lab, Broadcast Center, the Stock Exchange, the Food Market, the Shopping Mall, the Airport, the Stadium and the Aquatic Center. Powering those buildings will increase the yields given by them.

To generate Power, you can build a Power Pant. There is 3 different kind: a Coal Power Plant, an Oil Power Plant, and a Nuclear Power Plant. They consumes Strategic Resources and convert it into Power to cities within 6 tiles range. They also generates yields by themselves:
  • Coal Power Plant: Grants Production equal to the Industrial Zone adjacency bonus.
  • Oil Power Plant: +3 Production to all City Centers within 6 tiles (cannot stack).
  • Nuclear Power Plant: +4 Production and +3 Science to all City Centers with 6 tiles (cannot stack). Randomly, it can: self pillage itself; pillage the tile improvements, districts and building adjacent to the Industrial Zone; damage the defense of adjacent City-Center and Encampment; kill adjacent citizens, civilians and military units; and create an area of effect draining 50 HP per turn for units finishing the turn there. The risk starts 10 turns after the Nuclear Power Plant has been build (doesn't scale with Speed...), but can be reset by the Recommission Nuclear Reactor project, a 400 Production project.
When Coal, Oil and Uranium are consumed, they generates CO2. The amount per Strategic Resources is different: High for Coal, Medium for Oil, and somehow, Uranium generates some CO2 too. It applies to units too (like Ironclad, Tank and Giant Death Robot), or when putting Railroad (as it requires Coal).

Oil Power Plant have its use when nearby cities doesn't have an Industrial Zone, so that you can power them and give them +3 Production. Nuclear Power Plant has drawbacks that outweigh its marginal bonuses. I don't why they implemented the Nuclear Power Plant like this, but can be used the same way the Oil Power Plant. As the bonus given by Power Plants cannot stack, there is no use to build Oil or Nuclear Power Plants everywhere.

It may depend on the playstyle, but for me, the Coal Power Plant is vastly superior. Coal is more handy as no end-game units requires Coal, so we can freely use it without competition. It is improved by Mines, so easier than Oil that may require an Offshore Oil Rig, unlocked later. Oil is also highly demanded for late-game unit. Uranium is quite rare and allows to maintain Giant Death Robot.

As I tend to build high adjacency for my Industrial Zones, I use a lot Craftsmen and Five-Year Plan that double the Industrial Zone's adjacency bonus, making Coal Power Plant even better. I use Craftsmen even more since it has been converted into a Military policy card. I would argue that Natural Philosophy is the new Rationalism (more ways to gain Science adjacency, Rationalism being harder to trigger), and Five-Year Plan is the fusion of Craftsmen and Natural Philosophy, so that card is going to be slot as well.

There are also buildings and tile improvements that generate Power with no Strategic consumption (so: no CO2), such as an Hydroelectric Dam (a Dam's building), Geothermal Plants, Solar Farms and Wind Farms.

CO2 emitted in the world stockpiles. When it goes beyond some threshold it dynamically remove Polar Ice tiles, flood or remove some coastal tiles. There is a total of 8 phases of sea level rise, going from +0 meter to +3.5 meters that gradually flood and remove coastal tiles. Improvement, Districts and Wonders can be pillaged by flood or removed due to the rising sea level. It also increases the likelihood of Natural Disasters. Flood Barrier can be built to counter it.
 
Since I like to build Railroads (making it faster to move troops around) and I like to go for the Science victory in GS, I pay close attention to the elevation of coastal tiles when I'm settling coastal cities. Given my still-developing skills, I'm likely to see that first sea level rise (1 meter) before I've built the Exoplanet Expedition. Thus, I don't improve those tiles which I will probably lose access to. If I can be more efficient, generating more science earlier, I might be able to win before my tiles are engulfed by rising sea levels.

I agree with @Aurelesk about the comparisons among the power plants. I always build Hydro dams where I have dam districts, as well as Geothermal Plants where terrain permits. That may permit me to make fewer power plants overall. If I have several sources of Uranium, I will build the Nuclear Power Plant and put the Recommision project into the queue right away, so I don't forget. Having the extra power helps with Terrestrial Lagrange stations, to speed up the Exoplanet Expedition.

I don't play R+F, so I can't comment on its mechanics. The idea of an "Ice Age Mode", where the later eras are significantly cooler than the earlier eras (the game covers only 6,000 years or so) might be interesting to play a few times.
 
I don't play R+F, so I can't comment on its mechanics.
As I said above if you play GS, you have all the mechanics of R&F anyways: governors, loyalty, dark/golden ages etc.
 
Top Bottom