September Update Thread

[Zyxpsilon]

Plus we need higher diplomatic penalties for purchasing tiles. Are there any negatives to it atm? Didn't Leaders start complaining in Civ 5 whenever you bought tiles?

Careful there!
Two specific factors stand as brick walls to our minimal control over rational tiles development.

1) Strategic resources unlocking. That juicy (rare) Oil is standing just outside our current border range. We need it -- rapidly! Why should we be punished for spending precious money while we still could be patient?

2) The automated growth algorithm has a wacky habit of pre-selecting the "wrong" tiles for the next pink unlock step. How many times have i seen silly worthless priorities when a solid prospect remains idle for many extra turns.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I'm not sure what they are waiting for. The QA looks like it is wrapped up.

They keep watching **this** CFC thread of comments for last minute ideas.. to hook any other emergency fixes before locked (as in truly ready) version?

 

[orasis]

They still have to fix coastal flooding and the settler lens. Coastal flooding should be far more dangerous than it is now. Hurricanes and blizzards are nothing compared to the complete thawing of both polar ice caps.

Also, you should not know, before you even figure out pottery, where the coastal flooding will occur and how severe it will be and how to totally avoid it. You should only be able see what tiles will be flooded in the industrial era, the ability unlocked by a tech or civic.

 

[Alexadamz]

But honestly, with the new loyalty mechanism, it would make a lot of sense to change border growth to somehow be based on some sort of loyalty factor, so if your cities are putting out a lot of loyalty, it can claim more of the neighbouring lands.

This would also give back one of the features I liked the most on Civ 4 (no, not the beloved stacks of doom, many others like too much - I don't like those, I prefer UPT strategy of battle, because that is how things works IRL, but armies should be combined for marching, until they clash on battle): the tile flipping with culture. They have tried something similar with the Plague Scenario, but I am really hoping they bring back that thing in the future. Tile flipping with culture booms from districts or improvements are not that much interesting. When they released they released the Loyalty in R&F I really thought it would work like Civ4 (and that is without even saying anything about the weird way Loyalty works: ok, more people could make more pressure towards your civ, but it should be tied with distance to capital and to ammenities in that city, not just a flat ammount only related to tile distance between one city and the other).

 

[Caprikel]

If it's stupid tradition then it's time to end it.



Barbarian cities in civ terms is an oxymoron - barbarians are assumed to be agressive tribal societies incapable of government and urban dwellings.

I'd like to see a civ game in which 'barb cities' do return but in a specific way: barbarians can occasionally spawn or coordinate large invadions targeting cities, and if they take and hold them for some time then they are uplifted to major civs... Or even just city states!

Them becoming new civs is practicaly impossible if we are going to be Leader Purists and not allow new civs with placeholder leaders to spawn in the game. But City States spawning from barbarian invasions would be easily doable - just give them type and ability randomly chosen from among CS not present on the map (name is either of conquered city or from random 'barbarian' pool).

If barbarians becoming cultural city states is too weird then they could always become military CS.

I'd love large barbarian invasions similar to the Poland scenario where you have to defend against waves of barbarians.
It would be really nice to have something to actually defend against since AI invasions are a joke, and can be easily prevented through diplomacy.

 

[steveg700]

When they released they released the Loyalty in R&F I really thought it would work like Civ4 (and that is without even saying anything about the weird way Loyalty works: ok, more people could make more pressure towards your civ, but it should be tied with distance to capital and to ammenities in that city, not just a flat ammount only related to tile distance between one city and the other).

The capital exerts heavy Loyalty pressure. I've had the Cree capital down to one city and surrounded by five other cities for a while now, and it still isn't close to flipping. He then plopped a one-settler city down next to him, and even that's not flipping.

Amenities also play a factor, just not much of a factor (which sums up amenities in Civ VI in general). The bigger relationship comes from the entertainment center and running the Bread & Circuses project.

Of course, "culture" has always been a fuzzy term. When it refers to the arts ("high" culture), it makes less sense for it to cause some kind of gravitational pull than when it refers to customs, beliefs, and other more nuanced expressions that civ doesn't emphasize. Now, religion, that should exercise real pull on Loyalty.

 

[Alexadamz]

The capital exerts heavy Loyalty pressure. I've had the Cree capital down to one city and surrounded by five other cities for a while now, and it still isn't close to flipping. He then plopped a one-settler city down next to him, and even that's not flipping.

Amenities also play a factor, just not much of a factor (which sums up amenities in Civ VI in general). The bigger relationship comes from the entertainment center and running the Bread & Circuses project.

Of course, "culture" has always been a fuzzy term. When it refers to the arts ("high" culture), it makes less sense for it to cause some kind of gravitational pull than when it refers to customs, beliefs, and other more nuanced expressions that civ doesn't emphasize. Now, religion, that should exercise real pull on Loyalty.

I know the Capital exerts loyalty pressure, but the way it works is counterintuitive and the most pressure comes from flat pressure just from citizen's number and distance from cities, it is irrelevant if those cities are the Capital or not. Many other things should affect loyalty - roads to Capital shoyld add some bonus, we should have new buildings to affect loyalty in far cities, many things. The flat passive way loyalty works is weird. Changing that thing it could even work the way Civ4 tile flipping did, pressuring each tile more than the other and so you could change borders without anexing the enemy city.

 

[steveg700]

Maybe you should be able to build a government plaza on each continent, and the building's bonuses aren't applicable outside that continent. Then you have a government plaza project for generating more loyalty pressure. Provide some of requirement so that a civ has to establish a presence on the other continent first.

 

[Duuk]

They still have to fix coastal flooding and the settler lens. Coastal flooding should be far more dangerous than it is now. Hurricanes and blizzards are nothing compared to the complete thawing of both polar ice caps.

Also, you should not know, before you even figure out pottery, where the coastal flooding will occur and how severe it will be and how to totally avoid it. You should only be able see what tiles will be flooded in the industrial era, the ability unlocked by a tech or civic.

Hard pass. Coastal tiles sinking has kept Civ6 unplayed for me basically since GS came out.

"Oh look, I built an ironclad... there goes Florida!"

Edit: I just checked. Last played: 3/2/19 Wow.

 

[AntSou]

1) Strategic resources unlocking. That juicy (rare) Oil is standing just outside our current border range. We need it -- rapidly! Why should we be punished for spending precious money while we still could be patient?

2) The automated growth algorithm has a wacky habit of pre-selecting the "wrong" tiles for the next pink unlock step. How many times have i seen silly worthless priorities when a solid prospect remains idle for many extra turns.

1. Because other Civs want it to. So you should get a penalty for acquiring it if the strategic resource is within city range of some other Civ. You should also make them upset for buying tiles adjacent to their borders. If neither of these apply, then you'd get no diplo penalty.

2. I agree, but the AI suffers the same process, so there's no disadvantage.

 

[lotrmith]

Of course, "culture" has always been a fuzzy term. When it refers to the arts ("high" culture), it makes less sense for it to cause some kind of gravitational pull than when it refers to customs, beliefs, and other more nuanced expressions that civ doesn't emphasize. Now, religion, that should exercise real pull on Loyalty.

Religion does push and pull on Loyalty.

• +3 if the city is following the religion you have founded.
• -3 if you have founded a religion and the city doesn't follow it.

It could probably stand to be more, or at least fluctuate based on # of followers with 'following' (>50%) providing a multiplier.

 

[Depravo]

I agree, a kind of outpost mechanism to control territory with tiles providing other incentives to be conquered than city support is better than cities everywhere.

It's a nice idea, especially if you could build unique structures in outposts to allow border growth (frx mission / school / research site), improved defences (stockade / fort / firebase), out-and-out exploitation, etc. Give them a production rate of next-to-zero, but let them be used as a jumping-off point for internal trade routes, and let those routes generate a small amount of culture rather than food in this case.

 

[AntSou]

Religion does push and pull on Loyalty.

• +3 if the city is following the religion you have founded.
• -3 if you have founded a religion and the city doesn't follow it.

It could probably stand to be more, or at least fluctuate based on # of followers with 'following' (>50%) providing a multiplier.

And this is why we need Firaxis to actually tell us what's going into those numbers. The Loyalty panel offers no useful information even when you mouse over it. I had no idea Religion affected Loyalty and I don't recall the tutorial mentioning it.

Also, Military Units affect it, but by how much? does every military unit provide the same amount of loyalty? I have no idea what goes into it, only that dropping a unit in a city helps a bit.

 

[Starwars]

Religion affecting it was added via a patch so I guess there was no work put into explaining it. Definitely a shame because it can be rather important in some cases.

Although I'm not really a fan of how founding a religion *can* actually be negative vs not founding a religion in that case. And yet another little reason why I wish they would remove the limited prophets and allow everyone in a game to found a religion.

 

[Kwami]

Hard pass. Coastal tiles sinking has kept Civ6 unplayed for me basically since GS came out.

"Oh look, I built an ironclad... there goes Florida!"

Edit: I just checked. Last played: 3/2/19 Wow.

I think I've lost a total of one tile to sinking since GS was released. I'm not sure why that would stop you from playing.

 

[steveg700]

Religion affecting it was added via a patch so I guess there was no work put into explaining it. Definitely a shame because it can be rather important in some cases.

Although I'm not really a fan of how founding a religion *can* actually be negative vs not founding a religion in that case. And yet another little reason why I wish they would remove the limited prophets and allow everyone in a game to found a religion.

Well, that would have rather extreme consequences on the game, but I would settle for some elements whereby a civ without a religion has some tools at his disposal to regulate what religions are getting spread to his people. You shouldn't need to have a religion to attempt to purge a religion.

At the very least, players should be able to ask another civ to stop spreading their religion. And for that matter, a player should be able to invite another civ to spread their religion to them.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Coastal Flooding is ridiculous as a game mechanic, let alone its historical implication in Civilization 6. The game needs some sort of negative terraforming as a reprecussion for human pollution, but having it only affects coastal tiles is a bit limited. How about lakes and oases drying up? Plains turning into deserts? New coastal tiles appearing due to Volcanic eruptions near the coast? The destruction of reefs? The removal of resources due to ecological tampering, environmental pollution, excessive agriculture or otherwise? The environmental changes are amazing but their overall implementation remains just like the flooded tiles they've added in GS - shallow.

I like the patch though. I'm okay with just changing the Admirals; several of them were weak and they are now properly patched up into useful GA's worth recruiting. The other balance changes are welcome but not essential - civ 6 is already balanced fairly as is. The new map types and Single Player jerseys is what really excites me. Now I won't have to play against 4 white, 3 green and 5 maroon civs in the same game. Can't wait to test them all out. ^_^

 

[Kwami]

Coastal Flooding is ridiculous as a game mechanic, let alone its historical implication in Civilization 6. The game needs some sort of negative terraforming as a reprecussion for human pollution, but having it only affects coastal tiles is a bit limited. How about lakes and oases drying up? Plains turning into deserts? New coastal tiles appearing due to Volcanic eruptions near the coast? The destruction of reefs? The removal of resources due to ecological tampering, environmental pollution, excessive agriculture or otherwise? The environmental changes are amazing but their overall implementation remains just like the flooded tiles they've added in GS - shallow.

What's ridiculous about coastal flooding? It makes sense to me. And, sure, that other stuff would be good, too. Apparently, some engine limitations prevent them from turning one tile type into another, so that's why we don't see plains become deserts.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Coastal Flooding is ridiculous as a game mechanic, let alone its historical implication in Civilization 6. The game needs some sort of negative terraforming as a reprecussion for human pollution, but having it only affects coastal tiles is a bit limited. How about lakes and oases drying up? Plains turning into deserts? New coastal tiles appearing due to Volcanic eruptions near the coast? The destruction of reefs? The removal of resources due to ecological tampering, environmental pollution, excessive agriculture or otherwise? The environmental changes are amazing but their overall implementation remains just like the flooded tiles they've added in GS - shallow.

Great now I want a Volcanic Islands map type with this new feature.

 

[Lord Lakely]

It's not how coastal flooding works irl. Coastlines are fairly malleable things. They shift constantly. Bruges used to be ON the North Sea and is now located 30 kilometres inland. The frickin' Sahara desert used to be an ocean. One could walk over the Bering Straight during the Ice Age.

The implementation that tiles flood isn't a mistake, but assuming (or suggesting) that the only possible effect of climate change is a mistake. It's a bit more complex than that. I would like to go on a tangent about how the polar icecaps influence the ocean currents that influence marine ecosystems around the globe, as well as the distribution of photoplankton, philoplankton and krill. but it's late here and I REALLY should look things up before I elaborate on subjects I only vaguely know bits about, but jist of it is that, if the polar caps melt we're knee-deep into doo-doo, as well as seawater.

It is shallow, but oh well. Better not overcomplicate things, I guess?