[R&F] So...How's R&F?

Has R&F met your expectations?

  • Even better than I expected

    Votes: 74 29.8%
  • It's good, as expected

    Votes: 123 49.6%
  • It's good, but I wasn't expecting much

    Votes: 28 11.3%
  • It isn't very good, no surprise

    Votes: 22 8.9%
  • It is terrible. I had such high hopes!

    Votes: 1 0.4%

  • Total voters
    248
There is a little game that includes Warlords and Beyond the Steel. :p

I'm one of those people that thought Civ IV was half a great game. Great roleplaying, fun making strategies, solid builder game, but ugly and combat was horrific. Couldn't believe the combat was still so bad after so many entries in the franchise.

Civ V was a breath of fresh air for me. I know 1UPT was controversial but it makes Civ way more enjoyable to me. Hexes are also so much nicer to look at.

I realize we all have our own favourites though.
 
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.
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the governor skill trees. That's the one thing that really stood out about that mechanic...

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... but the process of getting to the end game is much more interesting than the usual eureka-hunt-and-press-End-Turn.
Confirmed. Now, I'm off to try Robert the Bruce for a game...
 
Civ V was a breath of fresh air for me. I know 1UPT was controversial but it makes Civ way more enjoyable to me. Hexes are also so much nicer to look at.

I realize we all have our own favourites though.
Never had a problem with 1 UPT, and agree that it made the game better. However, I will continue to rail against hexes in Civ. They are only useful in a micro strategy game, where turn radius is a factor. In a game like Civ, they are nothing more than decoration. After all, with squares and diagonal movement, you have eight directions to move in...with hexes only six. Much more realistic and effective on a macro level.

That said, they are pretty...
 
I'm not a civ veteran, having only played V and VI, but Civ V's expansions added drastic improvements and additions that changed the game fundamentally. Yeah, that also had to do with the fact Civ V was a bit barren in its vanilla state, but still. That's something this expansion doesn't really do, I feel. So I view R&F as more of a civ/leader/wonder pack, with some minor additions and tweaks. And in that sense, I'm pretty satisfied.
 
I'm not a civ veteran, having only played V and VI, but Civ V's expansions added drastic improvements and additions that changed the game fundamentally. Yeah, that also had to do with the fact Civ V was a bit barren in its vanilla state, but still. That's something this expansion doesn't really do, I feel. So I view R&F as more of a civ/leader/wonder pack, with some minor additions and tweaks. And in that sense, I'm pretty satisfied.
With all due respect, I must disagree. (Not at all about Civ V, by the way...) Vanilla Civ VI is, at its core, nothing more than an expansionist warmonger game, or hamstringing the 4X game into a 2X game if you'd prefer. R&F has completely hamstringed the hamstring, bringing it back to its 4X roots. There's nothing minor about the major changes to the game mechanics...which took me a full game to realize...but there you have it.
 
I am very happy with R&F. I like the new mechanics and some of the new civs. I feel more conscious of what era it is. And I’m thrilled city-flipping is back!

The most pleasant surprise for me is a modest improvement in some aspects of the AI. The diplomatic AI is more satisfying, partly because the new alliance system means both parties have a higher stake in the relationship. Sometimes diplomacy is still annoying, don’t get me wrong, but it’s better. Loyalty seems to discourage annoying forward-settling by the AI. Combat AI is still problematic, but at least the AI focuses on cities now, and I’ve seen it take walled cities. More generally, my games are tighter contests now, with tension even in the late game. The AI is not improved enough to change the minds of those for whom it’s the top issue, but I like the improvements I’m seeing. At least Firaxis is trying.

Incidentally, I much prefer hexes to squares, but then I’ve been a board war gamer for decades, and in that genre hexes rule. :) Also, they cover the surface more accurately than squares.
 
Never had a problem with 1 UPT, and agree that it made the game better. However, I will continue to rail against hexes in Civ. They are only useful in a micro strategy game, where turn radius is a factor. In a game like Civ, they are nothing more than decoration. After all, with squares and diagonal movement, you have eight directions to move in...with hexes only six. Much more realistic and effective on a macro level.

That said, they are pretty...

They are not only pretty, they make the entire game world look much better and more natural.
They are also innately more intuitive to comprehend than the various issues of diagonal movement inherent in squares.
 
Core Civ 6 had much more features than core Civ 5, so the expansions don't have to catch up so much. Do you remember how much G&K and BNW changed Civ 5 even in such basic systems like going from 10 health (when even a warrior always took at least 10 % health of a modern armor) to 100 health...
R&F just expands Civ 6 a little bit while making no significant changes. What I miss, however, is the great additions to the tech tree in Civ 5 made by G&K and BNW (more units of almost all types, new future era units etc.). I was really hoping for something like this in Civ 6.
 
Last edited:
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.
Great post, enjoyed reading that. Also, great point about razing cities, they should bring back the system used in V, it hadn't occured to me before but that would be more immersive, more fair, and generally much better.

As for R&F: I was hyped so had high expectations to begin with. I love the base game despite its flaws but now couldn't go back, I think this is an excellent addition. I wouldn't say it has exceeded my expectations but it has met them, which is still quite an achievement!
 
Never had a problem with 1 UPT, and agree that it made the game better. However, I will continue to rail against hexes in Civ. They are only useful in a micro strategy game, where turn radius is a factor. In a game like Civ, they are nothing more than decoration. After all, with squares and diagonal movement, you have eight directions to move in...with hexes only six. Much more realistic and effective on a macro level.

That said, they are pretty...
Excuse me, but sqare tiles make no sense and are far from realistic! The only possitive we can say about squares is that it give 8 directions instead of 6. But at what price? Those 6 directions are all the same, but for squares you have 4 and 4 VERY different directions. And the diagonal direction feel much like cheating. Imagine you are standing on a tile, on the very next tile on your right is a 1-tile mountain and you want to go behind it (to the right of the mountain). So, you go NE and SE and you are there in 2 moves. In the exactly same 2 moves that it would take you to go straight if the mountain wasn't there. Does this feel right to you? That you can spend the same amount of movement points to move a VERY different distance? (Going straight and going around an obstacle isn't the same distance!). Diagonal moves in fact are 1.41times longer.
Another situation - you are sailing east through unexplored ocean (your visibility radius is 1 tile). If you go straight east, you reveal a strip 3 tiles wide, which is logical. But you can also go zigzag in diagonals and at the same amount of turns explore 5-tile wide strip (minus a few tiles here and there).
 
Much better than expected. Would never go back to vanilla.
 
It's very good. Definitely better than expected. Loyalty seems more balanced than I thought it would be at launch.
AI still does stupid things in war but seems to be much better now at managing the economy. They build districts with good adjacency, more districts in general and there's more competition for great people now.
The changes to science/culture per population, the later trade routes and the global eras have gratly improved the pace of the game.
Now if they just improve balance some more (Magnus + production enhancing policy cards + overflow = lol) and keep the AI from constantly delcaring stupid joint wars and city state massacres, it would be better than Civ5 with BNW.
 
I actually went for "better than expected". I wasn't sure how the new mechanics would actually do much to my overall enjoyment of the game. But I love the era system and feel like I have only started to explore it (and how one could play with it). I also enjoyed the two civs I have played with so far (Netherlands and Cree). Loyality really is a great mechanic especially towards the end of the game and I feel empires (also by the AI) are now actually about territory and not about spreading as many cities as possible. Much more immersion.

I also like how the AI works in alliances now... at least when it comes to war. I tend to be too careless with my defense when I go for a peaceful victory (which is most oif the time). Now I have to look into it a bit more... especially when you have Mongolia and the new India leader next to you and they are buddies ;)
 
Now if they just improve balance some more (Magnus + production enhancing policy cards + overflow = lol) and keep the AI from constantly delcaring stupid joint wars and city state massacres, it would be better than Civ5 with BNW.

If they tweak these things then R&F will be a king (IMO). :king:
And ofcourse CS annihilation must be stoped ASAP.
 
There are still a few improvements to be made here and there but the AI is significantly more competent.

The new gameplay elements also add to the game (era system especially). The only real duds are the emergencies.
 
I had very high expectations and actually almost expected to be disappointed.

I certainly wasn't. Even better than expected. Never had the "one more turn" feeling even nearly to this degree. And my first ever Heroic Age is something I will never, absolutely never forget.
 
I am very happy that I have to do something in later eras. AI uses spies not only to siphon funds and destroy my industrial zones but also recruits partisans and steal tech boost or disabling my governors. Finally they make use of ships. In my last game I lost city due to Brasil surprise attack. Two of their battleships softened my defenses and his allied city state razed it - very clever move (it was on closed peninsula and there were only two cities, my and city state). Another thing I like is I have to plan my attack, three archers and two warriors are not enough to conquer all neighbors. I also learned that the beginning I should really pay attention about suzerain status, because city states are far better on conquering cities that normal AI nations IMO :-)
 
Back
Top Bottom