Settler's edition announced

[McSpank01]

Or against more opponents. In Civ V, once the other civs size you up as a warmonger, they'll band together and all attack you at once. It's often the decisive point for me in the game, if my army is stretched too thin to defend on multiple fronts.

But it's also a natural response.

If for every victory type, the AI had ways of banding together to slow you down, once you had emerged as clear threat, that would operate as a kind of break on player snowballing, but also not seem forced by arbitrary game mechanics, but rather the rational motivations of the rival civs.

This is kind of key really, and the reason late games get so boring. I played a game of Civ 6 the other day where I was just so far ahead in tech and culture, without really trying that hard. Yet all of the other civs were hugely friendly towards me and just cracking on with their own lives, not really paying attention to what I was doing. I was assuming that some AIs thought that they could win a religious victory first maybe, but it only takes 2 civs to do the same thing and they cancel each other out. There was no other path to victory for anyone, yet nobody noticed.

 

[Siptah]

Many many multiplayer games have mechanisms to avoid the game being 'rich gets richer'. I would say 'anti-snowballing measures' are a standard approach in boardgaming and any multiplayer strategy games, whether digital or analog, new or old.

Indeed. Resets or diminishing returns are very common and have also worked in many, many games. Yet, somehow in civ games, they were not popular because many viewed them as artificial restrictions, whether civ 3‘s corruption, civ 5‘s global happiness, or civ 7‘s marginal losses at age reset. Why I can‘t quite understand - maybe because many don‘t want to feel that a game actually has mechanics and rules? But then why play a strategy game and not a simulation?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Indeed. Resets or diminishing returns are very common and have also worked in many, many games. Yet, somehow in civ games, they were not popular because many viewed them as artificial restrictions, whether civ 3‘s corruption, civ 5‘s global happiness, or civ 7‘s marginal losses at age reset. Why I can‘t quite understand - maybe because many don‘t want to feel that a game actually has mechanics and rules? But then why play a strategy game and not a simulation?

Some of those mechanics actually work. For example, in Civ6 technology cost depends on how many civilizations already researched them, so underdogs research tech faster. But while it works, its effect is too small to significantly restrict snowballing.

 

[Siptah]

Some of those mechanics actually work. For example, in Civ6 technology cost depends on how many civilizations already researched them, so underdogs research tech faster. But while it works, its effect is too small to significantly restrict snowballing.

Yes, some anti-snowball mechanics like this or districts becoming more expensive the more you have seem to be widely accepted. Maybe because they feel more subtle?

 

[McSpank01]

But then why play a strategy game and not a simulation?

Because people play Civ games in a variety of ways? Sure there are some people who view as a competitive strategy game, to be won and completed. Others view it as a civ builder that is more immersive and more of simulation. Both answers are correct. The problem with ages and resets is that massively favour the first demographic and alienate the second one.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yes, some anti-snowball mechanics like this or districts becoming more expensive the more you have seem to be widely accepted. Maybe because they feel more subtle?

I think the difference is between "losing something you already have" and "harder to get something new". The second one is accepted as natural, the first one is frustrating. Both Civ3 corruption and Civ5 happiness mean you lose some yields you already have when you get more cities. I think for the same reason natural disasters generally have negative reception.

 

[GeneralZift]

This is a slightly evil idea, but what if they just rig the disasters to more often target the players in the lead. Like divine intervention.

 

[Siptah]

Because people play Civ games in a variety of ways? Sure there are some people who view as a competitive strategy game, to be won and completed. Others view it as a civ builder that is more immersive and more of simulation. Both answers are correct. The problem with ages and resets is that massively favour the first demographic and alienate the second one.

I‘m aware of different playstyles, but I think most people land in the middle of the sharp contrast you describe. Civ isn‘t good for competitive games (aside from
Game of the month or similar), and it is hardly a simulation. It was always a mechanics based strategy game. But apparently, there is a line which mechanics are acceptable (e.g., having rather meaningless turns for starters) and others which are not (e.g., global happiness for many).

 

[0urBall]

This is a slightly evil idea, but what if they just rig the disasters to more often target the players in the lead. Like divine intervention.

I'm sure some people will provide examples where they feel this is already happening...

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Indeed. Resets or diminishing returns are very common and have also worked in many, many games. Yet, somehow in civ games, they were not popular because many viewed them as artificial restrictions, whether civ 3‘s corruption, civ 5‘s global happiness, or civ 7‘s marginal losses at age reset. Why I can‘t quite understand - maybe because many don‘t want to feel that a game actually has mechanics and rules? But then why play a strategy game and not a simulation?

Personally, I think its because they weren't sufficiently tied to difficulty level. Difficulty levels were focused on blunt hammer things like more starting warriors and more starting settlers, instead of on smoothly-graded challenges that apply throughout the game. Meanwhile unnecessary challenges were applied to lower difficulty levels, where they aren't needed or valued.

Some people like to kill everything, some people like a relaxing game; those players generally do not want anti-snowballing mechanics and shouldn't be forced to put up with them. Mechanics that limit growth, make expansion more challenging, make maintaining a tech- or military-lead harder - those are all things that belong in higher difficult levels, for players who don't want a "win your way" game, who instead want a "maybe I can win, maybe I can't" game. But they shouldn't be in lower difficulty games where they just annoy, frustrate or limit the player from playing the type of game they enjoy.

 

[Siptah]

Personally, I think its because they weren't sufficiently tied to difficulty level. Difficulty levels were focused on blunt hammer things like more starting warriors and more starting settlers, instead of on smoothly-graded challenges that apply throughout the game. Meanwhile unnecessary challenges were applied to lower difficulty levels, where they aren't needed or valued.

Some people like to kill everything, some people like a relaxing game; those players generally do not want anti-snowballing mechanics and shouldn't be forced to put up with them. Mechanics that limit growth, make expansion more challenging, make maintaining a tech- or military-lead harder - those are all things that belong in higher difficult levels, for players who don't want a "win your way" game, who instead want a "maybe I can win, maybe I can't" game. But they shouldn't be in lower difficulty games where they just annoy, frustrate or limit the player from playing the type of game they enjoy.

Hm… but food has always (?) been anti-snowball because it was never x food per pop to grow but always with a quadratic formula or at least settlers/units had food upkeep in early civs iirc. I never saw complaints about that.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Hm… but food has always (?) been anti-snowball because it was never x food per pop to grow but always with a quadratic formula or at least settlers/units had food upkeep in early civs iirc. I never saw complaints about that.

This is part of the reason why Infinite City Spam worked and wide dominated tall. Food mechanics were pro-snowball, not anti-snowball, because they made it harder for a smaller empire to ever catch up to a larger one. Take the lead and you keep the lead.

Also, civ has been around a long time and people have complained about EVERYTHING at one point or another.

 

[socratic]

Food is a very natural mechanic. It feels more like you responding to the growing needs of your empire instead of an artificial roadblock (even though, in reality everything in a game is an artificial roadblock). Populations need food, so you need to invest in food to keep a high population. Very simple, historic, and in the player’s control. It makes sense both in the game’s world and for the gameplay. Your Cities all turn into towns because someone progressed too much? Not so much.

 

[itix]

The anti-snowball mechanisms in Civ 1 and 2 was corruption. You had to play wide, but corruption increased with distance from the capital.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The anti-snowball mechanisms in Civ 1 and 2 was corruption. You had to play wide, but corruption increased with distance from the capital.

And you went Communist to conquer the world, to get equal corruption everywhere.

 

[Siptah]

And you went Communist to conquer the world, to get equal corruption everywhere.

You went fundamentalist, stopped researching and conquered the world with your instantly available fundamentalist units. I don‘t think they suffered any corruption?

 

[The Civs 6]

Indeed. Resets or diminishing returns are very common and have also worked in many, many games. Yet, somehow in civ games, they were not popular because many viewed them as artificial restrictions, whether civ 3‘s corruption, civ 5‘s global happiness, or civ 7‘s marginal losses at age reset. Why I can‘t quite understand - maybe because many don‘t want to feel that a game actually has mechanics and rules? But then why play a strategy game and not a simulation?

At least those were actual gameplay mechanics that could lead to interesting choices and had some flavor. Isn't civ supposed to be a game about crises rather than like a hangover where you wake up from a crisis you barely remember?

 

[Siptah]

At least those were actual gameplay mechanics that could lead to interesting choices and had some flavor. Isn't civ supposed to be a game about crises rather than like a hangover where you wake up from a crisis you barely remember?

Civ is a game about crises? Isn‘t it about exponential growth? All resources are endless, catastrophes are a nuisance or not modelled at all, internal conflict and politics do not exist or are also merely a planned nuisance, happiness is easy to manage. The only crisis in previous games seems to be war?

I agree that it would be better to play longer into the crisis in civ 7 and make them much more punishing and harder to overcome though. Currently, they are in most cases a complete non-issue. I hope for a slider for crisis intensity soon.

 

[The Civs 6]

Civ is a game about crises? Isn‘t it about exponential growth? All resources are endless, catastrophes are a nuisance or not modelled at all, internal conflict and politics do not exist or are also merely a planned nuisance, happiness is easy to manage. The only crisis in previous games seems to be war?

I agree that it would be better to play longer into the crisis in civ 7 and make them much more punishing and harder to overcome though. Currently, they are in most cases a complete non-issue. I hope for a slider for crisis intensity soon.

Civ 4 had crises. When you got nailed by maintenance but needed to win the land grab phase. Civ 2 had crises. When you could no longer reasonably get units to your front lines due to your sprawling empire, or when everyone turned on you.

Civ 6 has no crisis you just figure out your civ's formula and win the game (which is a cheap thrill, a thrill nonetheless).

 

[Crashdummy]

A Crisis slider would be a good idea, specially since they can be completely disabled

That way people that want more stones in their path can increase it