1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[R&F] So...How's R&F?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Wingednosering, Feb 12, 2018.

?

Has R&F met your expectations?

  1. Even better than I expected

    74 vote(s)
    29.8%
  2. It's good, as expected

    123 vote(s)
    49.6%
  3. It's good, but I wasn't expecting much

    28 vote(s)
    11.3%
  4. It isn't very good, no surprise

    22 vote(s)
    8.9%
  5. It is terrible. I had such high hopes!

    1 vote(s)
    0.4%
  1. Wingednosering

    Wingednosering Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    536
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto
    It's been a few days...how is R&F? Does it improve the base game? Does it bring it up to BNW standards? How's the AI?

    I ask on behalf of all of us civ players that haven't been abe to get it yet. Has it lived up to the hype?
     
    RohirrimElf likes this.
  2. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,023
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    BNW standards? Considering I feel Vanilla Civ 6 is better than BNW Civ5, then of course yes. It's a superior game in every way. Now if you mean does it improve the game as much as BNW improved Civ5? well that's hard to say. I will say it's as good as expected, but still a bit plagued by some minor bugs.
     
  3. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,020
    I voted 'Even better than I expected', but I don't like the phrasing of that option. I wasn't expecting much from the expansion, but I'd say it's overperformed "good, but I wasn't expecting much" - but 'Even better' suggests an expectation that it would be great.

    Civ VI still isn't as good as a strategy game as Civ V with Gods & Kings, but I've made peace with the idea that, following this trajectory, it never will be. It follows the base game's trend in adding a host of mostly trivial decisions to make - where it far exceeds the base game is in making these engaging. They don't feel as trivial as they are in practice, and that does a huge amount to bolster immersion. It also indirectly impacts existing systems in a way that rebalances some of the lesser-used districts.

    Is it as good as Civ V? No, but it's reached a point where it's at least as much fun as Civ V despite the still-terrible counterimmersive leader agenda-driven diplomacy. The difficulty level hasn't changed or the game has become easier - it's certainly no harder and while there are some AI improvements (including the apparent fixing of the spaceport bug), there's nothing that makes it play better at a strategic level.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018
  4. Sherlock

    Sherlock Just one more turn...

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,207
    Location:
    Eagle, Idaho
    I find there's more to do and the late game is more enjoyable.
     
  5. iammaxhailme

    iammaxhailme Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2015
    Messages:
    1,068
    I don't think it's as much of a game-changer as G&K or BNW, but I still wouldn't want to go back to playing without it. I consider it a big pack of civs + wonders with a few new gameplay mechanics (loyalty and governors being the more relevant ones; emergencies don't seem to show up much).
     
  6. Wingednosering

    Wingednosering Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    536
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto
    It means whatever you want it to mean! I personally think G&K and BNW were the height of the series to this point, with Civ VI being the best 'base game'. It could also be seen as 'quality as an expansion' if you prefer.
     
  7. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Considering that Civilization 5 was an unmitigated disaster that only became a decent game when the community stepped in with Vox Populi, I found Vanilla Civ VI to be already a better game than anything Civilization 5 had to offer.

    With that in mind, Rise and Fall has exceeded my expectations. I was expecting a solid expansion but not a great one. Not to say that there aren’t some teething problems and some adjustments that will have to be made.
    I can definitely feel that one more turn vibe and I get this distinct feeling that they are moving closer towards cIV, though. They are trending in the right direction and Anton’s (lead designer) comments seem to bear that out. More immersion and more role playing opportunities. :)
     
  8. sonicmyst

    sonicmyst Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,063
    Location:
    Philippines
    I find Rise & Fall expansion good, but not over the top. This expansion manages to break the monotony of mid to late game by the use of Ages and Loyalty systems, ensuring that each Era brings something different. It makes the players strategize more since filling up Era points is quite a challenge during mid to late game.

    Players also have to choose alliances carefully. Keeping up an alliance with an AI that will later turn out to be a tough competitor to a victory condition later in the game is quite a dilemma for me. Should I betray the alliance and risk becoming a target of emergency,or should I find another way to win without becoming a traitor?
     
  9. BenitoChavez

    BenitoChavez Whispering Walrus

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,812
    Location:
    Alpha Quadrant
    I give it a B+.

    I like most of the new Civs, the new wonders are interesting, governors are fun, and loyalty adds a new depth to settling and warmongering.

    The negatives are that it seems like it is impossible to become an ally with someone even if you have all green diplomacy modifiers for many turns. Emergencies heavily benefit the player as the AI will almost never win any. Emergencies and protectorate wars allow you to capture/raze cities of the target civ. It's only after I completely wipe out a civ when you get the warmonger penalty.
     
  10. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,020
    I've seen no evidence of this at all. Playing on Deity and Immortal I've always managed to get friendship declared with a green modifier, and alliances are always available with declared friends. Green status seems to correlate much more directly with genuinely liking you than was the case in the base game.

    In fairness to the AI, I didn't win the one I had either. Does the AI even accept them?
     
    Quintus of Mund and Thormodr like this.
  11. chazzycat

    chazzycat Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,872
    I like the new mechanics, especially governors and dark/golden ages. I think where the expansion falls flat is in the civ roster and design. Borderline insignificant nations like Mapuche and Georgia just don't really get me that excited. I would probably get over that, if they were interesting gameplay-wise. But a lot of the new abilities are boring too (which one of the causus belli does my "unique" ability revolve around again?). Honestly I think they went a little too far with their philosophy of finding lesser-known civs and leaders. I would give up half the expansion roster for Napoleon.
     
    cairnsy44 and Roald Amundsen like this.
  12. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,023
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    There is a little game that includes Warlords and Beyond the Steel. :p
     
    MrRadar, lp60068, Japper007 and 4 others like this.
  13. drubell

    drubell Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    512
    It's a little early for me to make a call, but I am very happy about the fact that the governor system is has definitely improved the situation where Civ 6 intended you to develop specialized cities. To that end, I've enjoyed the game much more (in vanilla, there really wasn't much reason not to build every city generally the same way). That's been a big positive for me.

    The new alliance system is nice, though I haven't played much past early game to really see the system fleshed out. In concept I support it strongly.

    I don't really care for the loyalty system. All it really is about at its core is the prevention for low-pop city spam, which I think could have been conceptualized better.

    I also don't care much about or for the historic moment/golden age system because it's very close to BE's insistence that you must play a 4X in a certain way or else the game will evaluate you poorly. The only thing that should be an evaluation from the game on how I am playing is whether or not I can achieve a VC. And to be more petty, I dislike it because I dislike my screen getting dark when I'm in a dark age because I can't see. Why can't I toggle that crap off like I could with the day/light cycle that launched with the base game?
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018
    DWilson and cairnsy44 like this.
  14. SharTeel

    SharTeel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2005
    Messages:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    It's as good as expected, the AI still has some problems (settling cities 3 tiles from your capital and having them flipped, free cities without war! Or settling without access to fresh water to keep the second city 3 tiles from the cap), but it's very enjoyable
     
    Mr Jon of Cheam likes this.
  15. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,020
    On the contrary, a major failing of Civ VI at release was the absence of a mechanic to constrain or pace expansion. Loyalty is probably the best mechanic Firaxis has ever come up with to achieve this (save perhaps the BNW trade system, if that were decoupled from Civ V's other expansion constraints) - it's not arbitrary like corruption, it doesn't lead to the stereotyped timing of expansion that Civ IV maintenance did, and it doesn't have the 'gamey' tall vs. wide tradeoff of global happiness. Linking it to the age system makes it much more dynamic - rather than expand early or at a constant rate over time you're timing your expansion to the type of age you're in and those of the competitors in areas you're aiming to invade or settle.
     
  16. Xmonger

    Xmonger Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2016
    Messages:
    88
    First game was two back to back Golden Ages. I love the Era and Era score, I got the two Goldens through aggressive exploration and extermination of the early Barb threat and got rewarded for it. Which makes sense, early game should reward exploration of your new world and dealing with threats. Plus pushing tech and city growth.

    Loyalty is also a great system. I'm playing a 'triad' system with my cities, three in a triangle all reinforcing unbreakable Loyalty. Also benefits my single Government district where it can be central to them all for adjacency bonuses. And going wide isn't hard too, I flung out a Settler off on the other coast, soon the Netherlands followed, but then later she fell prey to Loyalty pressure and I swooped in with a Governor to take the city peacefully. Bam! Now two cities over these in a colony. Just like what happens historically with colonies and empires where you send out 'pods' of cities in new lands. Later still I sent a new Settler out onto a virgin island. Over time it felt some Loyalty issues so I had to beef it up with a Governor.

    AI is playing great. I made some questionable moves and got punished for it by the other AI civs.

    Absolute best Civ yet.
     
  17. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,780
    Location:
    Abroad
    It's fine, adds more interesting aspects to the diplomacy via emergencies and golden ages interacting with loyalty, but I resent the lack of new scenarios, the creation of governor skill tree buckets, and the relatively lower number of new civs for this expansion compared to prior Civ expansions.
     
  18. Anno

    Anno Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Messages:
    82
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    Maybe my first game is just lucky but so far it's significantly better than I had imagined it would be.
     
  19. Architect

    Architect Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    512
    Gender:
    Male
    Pretty much all I have been doing since it released. Excellent expansion!
     
  20. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,020
    I thought it was good after my first full game. My ongoing game is actively harrowing.

    I'm playing as Wilhemina (and liking the Dutch bonuses, though Polders are indeed almost impossible to find sites for - I'm on a large island - large enough for 7 cities - and so all coast, and I have all of one suitable polder spot). Half the world hates me but I have good long-term relations with Macedon and Greece, and now alliances. I rapidly entered a Classical Dark Age but crawled out into a Heroic Age in the Medieval era, only to fall back again in the Industrial (now in a Modern Normal Age having just missed the Golden Age threshold). Early on Korea triggered an emergency by seizing Bandar - unfortunately I was the only one to respond, and when I got there found it was unexpectedly well-defended. Lots of money for Korea.

    All the action has taken place on the island to my west - I first settled Leiden close to Korea, so needed to ensure I managed loyalty (they weren't too close, though). Korea, allied to Antananarivo just east of Leiden, went to war and Tana eventually razed the city (Korea soon replaced it in the exact spot). I built up a navy with the intent of attacking Tana - unfortunately, my spy sent on the new Fabricate Scandal mission to get rid of Korean envoys succeeded just as I took down the wall. That made me suzerain and prevented me from finishing that war. In the meantime I took out two Korean coastal cities - loyalty issues wouldn't let me keep them, but I considered that razing them would reduce the loyalty support of Daejeon (the Korean city that replaced Leiden); also Tamar then expanded into one of the vacant spots, which would help push Korea's loyalty down. That way, once Tana was mine, I wouldn't be dealing with loyalty issues of my own and could hopefully pressure the Korean city - Korea's got a much bigger, higher-tech army than me so military conquest will be hard.

    Once the Korean cities were down, Tana was once more under Seondok's sway so I launched an attack and took it, to find a cavalry corps and two hwachas waiting. My naval superiority vanished when Korea brought out an ironclad - I had no access to coal, and had to wait until I could promote my Magnus governor to circumvent the need for it (not sure if it's a bug, but once Magnus gets this promotion you also get the ability to upgrade your existing units anywhere in your territory - at least, unless Tana had coal I wasn't aware of).

    Still, I took Antananarivo at the cost of only one of my unique frigates (still not going to try typing out the name). So far so good, and though the Korean cavalry was a threat the AI had already shown it took longer than it ought to to capture cities and I had more frigates in production or en route. Only suddenly, an emergency triggered demanding that my rivals liberate Antananarivo. Seondok and Saladin accepted, and Seondok actively pushed for the city. I didn't have forces in place to stop her, and despite her odd reluctance to use her hwacha she took the city back ... yet more Korean gold.

    At this point I'm basically committed to a path of militarising in order to destroy Korea altogether, retaking Tana, taking Daejeon (destined to be renamed Leiden) and any other suitable cities along the way.

    I haven't had any gameplay this immersive in Civ VI before - not only that but I'm actually needing to make real strategic decisions and getting punished for making the wrong ones, another novelty for Civ VI. As the above breakdown shows every new feature of R&F has come into play in this session (though I've been perhaps too passive with governors - and I'll definitely need to get Victor at some point). Although loyalty hasn't actually come into play in terms of its mechanical effects it's done exactly what it's supposed to - informed my settling decisions, deterring me from settling distant islands, and dictated much of my strategy for neutralising Korea.

    I'm sliding down the science rankings and there's a fair chance the game won't be winnable without going full domination to curtail Saladin and Tamar as well as Seondok (who's already suffering as one of the razed cities was a 15-pop core city - as an aside, razing seems unnecessarily punishing. The Civ V system where cities gradually burned unless recaptured at least gives the AI some chance to take a major city back), but the process of getting to the end game is much more interesting than the usual eureka-hunt-and-press-End-Turn.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018
    doolar, CPWimmer, Hammurabbit and 5 others like this.

Share This Page