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

So what do you feel is still broken?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Victoria, May 23, 2020.

  1. OmegaDestroyer

    OmegaDestroyer King

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2018
    Messages:
    604
    Gender:
    Male
    Interesting. And here I thought these stupid demands were designed to just annoy the living Hell out of players.
     
  2. Casworon

    Casworon Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2014
    Messages:
    421
    It's great to see a comment from someone from Firaxis here. They say that they are reading and watching us and this just shows it. Makes me feel a bit bad about some of my harsher posts. I do love the game deep down really :lol:.

    This thread has turned into a player wishlist so I will throw my hat in. I would really love the different victory conditions to interact with each other more.

    Currently if you want to power game and min/max the most effective strategy is to decide very early on what your chosen victory condition is going to be and then just spam whatever districts are associated with the victory you have chosen. This seems to be against Civ VI's aim of playing the map and adapting to the situation the game provides to you.

    If advancing down a victory condition helped you towards the others in some way then you could decide much later on in the game which victory you are going for and the experience of playing would feel much more open and free. There are some examples of this in civ v, for example tourism gave extra science from trade routes and made cities take less damage from conquest. In Civ VI tourism has literally no effect apart from advancing you towards a culture victory. If it aided you in other ways you would have a reason to aim for it even if you hadn't decided on a victory yet and it isn't just wasted effort if you decide to pivot later.

    That's just using tourism as an example. But it would be cool if all the victory conditions where intertwined. Diplomatic victory points having some effect on the game rather than just being a victory point counter would also be cool.

    Ideally I would want to be deciding on my victory condition once the game enters the late game, rather than at the moment whereby if you are deciding any later than the beginning of classical or medieval you are harming yourself.

    An easier idea would be the introduction of some kind of 'Balanced victory', whereby you can win by advancing down all the victory conditions. Encouraging balanced play rather than having empires heavily slanted towards the victory they are min maxing towards. Would probably have the same effect and be much easier to introduce this late into the games life.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
  3. criZp

    criZp Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,661
    Location:
    Nidaros, Norway
    Perhaps a score victory that was "first player to reach X score" rather than "highest score at turn X"

    I think the districts and 1st building could function like they do now, but 2nd could have no base yields or gpp, and only buff your specialists with yields and gpp. 3rd building could do the same, but prodive +2 slots and allow for even bigger buff if you have electricity.

    Also some government building or whatever that buffs all specialists in cities with governors, would be neat.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2020
    Jkchart, WorldWarIV, Equilin and 3 others like this.
  4. Denkt

    Denkt Reader

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,466
    Location:
    Not in a Civilization City Atleast
    If you make building yields based on pops rather than flat, throw in some buffs to the neighbourhood, change city states from giving flat yield to for example +10% science for each city with a library and maybe tweek amenities/Entertainment complex, governments, governors, chopping/harvesting and cards you may greatly encourage growing cities without having a civ V situation.

    Basically flat yields from buildings is the main reason why you don't need to grow cities, it is basically like your economy is automated without need of population. Add chopping, weak neighbourhoods, limited specialist and other stuff and growth is not really all that needed.
     
    WillowBrook likes this.
  5. criZp

    criZp Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,661
    Location:
    Nidaros, Norway
    I think flat yields are fine in the early game, as you then want food to grow in population and create settlers. Using food to support specialists is something that there could be more focus on at a later point in the game when you have a decent number of cities with decent size.
     
  6. Caprikel

    Caprikel Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    132
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Carolina, but secretly a Minnesotan
    When I first heard that Loyalty was being introduced, I expected it to be something that would nerf large empires by simulating the difficulty of keeping a large empire intact through the prospects of rebellion. While it did add rebellion into free cities, it was implemented in such a weird way that doesn't make a lot of historical sense.
    The first issue is that a city can only flip if it has loyalty pressure from a different civilization. In game this means that only cities bordering other civs will be able to rebel, and they only really rebel in order to join that other civ, rather than to be independent (Though there are occasionally instances where free cities grouped together stay independent until gobbled up). Because of this an American Revolution type situation will never happen, since you don't ever have cities rebel to form an independent nation. As someone who also really enjoys the roleplay aspect of civ, this is rather disappointing.
    The second issue is that empire size really doesn't affect loyalty much. As long as you have your cities bunched together in blobs, you'll never have to worry about the majority of your cities from rebelling, only the ones on the outside near other civs. The number of cities you have has no affect on loyalty, nor does the distance from your homeland affect loyalty. Both of these things should reasonably affect loyalty, although not necessarily immediately. Because of this, loyalty doesn't reflect the difficulties of maintaining the loyalty of large numbers of cities or far off colonies (Though I don't want colonies to be impossible to keep, I'll discuss further on how I want loyalty to change in such a way that would still allow colonies).
    The third issue is that cities that are conquered don't rebel in a realistic or interesting way. Basically you'll often run into situations where you conquer a city, but despite being recently conquered it will rebel and magically spawn a small army to defend itself, regardless of the population of the city. And it will do this over and over again, even with a population of one. This just doesn't make any sense, even if the people of a conquered city absolutely hate their conquerors, they're still not going to rebel if they have an army occupying the city. In addition a small population of 1 shouldn't have the population even necessary to form an army to rebel. People aren't going to rebel unless they think that they have a chance of success, and a population 1 city isn't going to rebel against a military behemoth if they know they're going to get killed, most people generally will adapt to the new ruler as long as they can continue their way of life and aren't completely miserable. It would be much more interesting to see a conquered city rebel with the backing of another civ, forcing me to either let them become independent, or facing war with another civ if I want them back.

    Alright, those are my main complaints about the loyalty system, but before I move onto some ideas to help rectify those issues, I'll briefly mention the things I do like about the loyalty system to show that I do appreciate certain aspects of the system. Loyalty punishing forward settling is something I really like, since it feels like it represents the idea that people settling in that city would come from both the home civ and the civ nearby due to the proximity, with the city eventually joining with the civ that ended up making up the majority of the population and culture of the city. While there isn't an actual mechanic that has population separated by different nationalities, it does feel like this is represented by proximity loyalty. Another thing I like about loyalty is that it lets you peacefully take cities, which makes for a fun challenge to try to win domination peacefully. It reminds me of Texas, and how they joined the US peacefully, which is something that wasn't possible without loyalty.

    Next I'll go over some ideas to potentially resolve these issues. For the first issue there needs to be a mechanic that allows for cities to rebel without other civs nearby. A city with low amenities and/or a starving population should reasonably lose loyalty to the home civ such that they would rebel even without another civ to join. This should include cities in your core surrounding on all sides by your other cities. Also it should trigger other nearby cities to join if they're also suffering from low amenities or other problems that would reduce their loyalty.
    For this to even happen though, the loyalty pressure from other citizens in other cities shouldn't universally be emit pressure at the current rate. If they're from a city that is also unhappy, they shouldn't emit much loyalty pressure at all. That way you could actually have a situation where cities in your core could rebel.
    Also I really think there ought to be a taxation system that ties into loyalty. Basically have it so you can increase your taxes to gain a percentage increase of gold yield from that city, but it decreases loyalty depending on how much you increase it. Naturally you would be able to lower it to increase your loyalty at the cost of lower gold yield. (Though to make this more impactful the issue of gold being too easy to come by needs to be addressed as well).
    For the second issue, this one would be a bit more difficult to address. For starters you could introduce the mechanic of "connection to the capital", where cities connected to the capital by roads/harbor have a bit higher loyalty, and those not connected have lower loyalty. For distance you could tie in a loyalty malus based on distance, where distance efficiency affects the loyalty. And by distance efficiency I'm referring to how trade routes will produce more gold if they travel over the ocean, or go through a mountain tunnel/canal. Basically a colonial city settled on the coast would be better off loyalty-wise than a city settled inland on a foreign continent. Far off colonies should be easy to keep at first while they're low population, but become progressively harder to keep loyal as they increase in population. As for the number of cities, I'm not sure if there be a straight up loyalty nerf that gets worse the more cities you have, since that would make playing on larger maps much more annoying. Preferably I would want something that realistically reflects the difficulties of keeping a large empire intact.
    For the third issue I think military strength near a city should reduce the chance of rebelling to keep annoying situations from happening where a small 1 pop city just keeps flipping over and over again. Although to balance that there should be a way to lose military units to rebellion, but it should probably only happen to cities that have been part of your empire long enough. Or if they want to be really bold, they could have it so when a city rebels, military units produced from that city will rebel as well. It is a bit of a stretch though, it probably be more so something where it converts your military units within the borders of the city to rebel, or something like that.
    Also it would be nice to see a return to vassalage or puppet cities as ways to allow you to have more cities part of your empire without dealing with the loyalty issues that you would normally get when annexing them fully.
    Similar to how in Civ V had a science/culture malus for the number of cities, you could instead do that with loyalty, but this time it would actually make some sense. Then to help deal with that, allow puppet/vassal cities to not contribute to the number of cities for that malus.

    Anyway, for those brave enough to read this whole thing I'd certainly like to see what your thoughts are on these things, especially I wouldn't mind critiques on my ideas.
     
    ashar26, Krajzen, Cyon and 2 others like this.
  7. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,007
    Location:
    Abroad
    Culture victory is broken - too easy to get compared to a science or diplomatic victory, for example. The addition of rock bands made culture victories easier, even though they are (aside from Domination and in some cases Religion) the most reliably easy victory type.

    Agreed. In Civ IV not meeting an AI demand had consequences (i.e. greater likelihood of war), whereas in Civ VI denunciations tend to herald a likelihood of war, so a civ demanding something AFTER a denunciation just boggles the mind. What do you get for meeting their demand anyway? A measly +5 "you suck and gave into my demand" bonus in the diplo screen? Will that in any way reduce the stack of negatives one got for being denounced in the first place? I think the whole system is odd.

    What is also odd is that after AI approach you to ask you about your units near their borders, and you get the choice of saying "hi, yes, this is a war" or "this isn't a war, they are just doing their morning constitutionals" - the game interprets your "they are doing morning constitutionals" answer as an AFFIRMATIVE agreement to move said units AWAY from the borders, when no text indicates that. You get a negative diplo modifier for not moving said units away, even if they are on or right next to your own borders for defensive purposes.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
    Equilin and wesplaysciv like this.
  8. SupremacyKing2

    SupremacyKing2 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,375
    Location:
    Indiana
    YES!!! And I think you could implement this very easily with a new victory condition that says something "if your score is at least 3x times greater than the #2 civ at any point after turn 200", you win.
     
    Casworon and bengalryan9 like this.
  9. AriochIV

    AriochIV Colonial Ninja

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,767
    Location:
    Nehwon
    Civ IV and earlier had a version of this, where if you have a certain percentage of world population and territory, you win. I was perplexed and disappointed when Civ V removed it (though at the time there was a lot more to be perplexed and disappointed about in Civ V).

    Master of Orion had a different variant, where the Galactic Council votes were determined by population, so if you controlled more than half the galaxy, you could vote yourself the winner.
     
    Jkchart, WillowBrook, Cyon and 4 others like this.
  10. Fluphen Azine

    Fluphen Azine What is Fluphen Azine?

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,373
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I can't tell if this is a joke or you are serious.
    I had to look up the list and read about these Engineer options.
    Do you get 1 housing and 1 amenity for every IZ created after using this GE?
    What is so OP or Broken about getting Culture Bombs?
    Maybe you are saying this Engineer needs to be reworked?
    I'm so confused lol.
    Obviously I ignore IZs and Culture Bombs for the most part.
     
    yung.carl.jung likes this.
  11. Cedbird77

    Cedbird77 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2017
    Messages:
    126
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes this is huge if the Ai is to get better

    I think Barbarians as tough as they can be are a beautiful part of the game. Because they are apart of the unpredictability of life.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2020
    yung.carl.jung likes this.
  12. leandrombraz

    leandrombraz Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,177
    Gender:
    Male

    In addition to this, they need to do an overall on emergencies, specifically how it interacts with diplomatic relationships. Example I just had in my game:
    289070_20200524223602_1.png

    Dido can't participate in an emergency to liberate her own city, even though she voted it favorably, because we're friends. Only Kupe declared war on me when the emergency started. I wasn't looking to get into another war with her, so good for me, but that doesn't make any sense. She paid 30 favors to get that voted, she voted favorably, she has an army read to attack, but she can't act because we're friends. There's a clear disconnection between relationship status and what seems to be the AI intentions.
     
  13. Pfeffersack

    Pfeffersack Deity

    Joined:
    May 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,351
    Location:
    Germany
    AI is an neverending story, but I would be glad if at least some obvious things could get fixed. I'm surely not the only one seeing each and any late game AI going overboard with building Space Port districts…

    AISpacePortMania.jpg

    It doesn't seem to matter if they are pursuing actively a science victory (you sometimes get those rumours) or if they are leading in tech or being in the middlefield - as soon as they can, each and any city turns into Baikonur or Cape Canaveral. I'm sure that the AI would benefit e.g. a lot more from investing those tiles and hammers into Airports and Planes. Unless a civ is really on the way to science victory, the maximum per civ should be 1 or 2 at all (I would be ok with that to allow them flexibly switching the victory condition later)
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2020
    yung.carl.jung likes this.
  14. ezzlar

    ezzlar Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,667
    Well, it was a joke. But he is awful.

    To get him you need a lot of Great Engineer Points from Industrial Zones. But the cultural bomb effect he gives you when you build an Industrial Zone (annexing adjacent tiles) is moot since you probably already have built most of your industrial zones.
     
  15. Sostratus

    Sostratus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    1,940
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    With regards to loyalty I know at least myself and likely others have been advocating for some sort of “disloyalty” tht doesn’t depend on other empires being around. You’d have to search in the Ideas & Suggestions forum for a thread called “ideas for the perfect 4X game” or something like that, I wrote about it fairly extensively in there.

    Anyways, I see we’ve managed to agglomerate a whole page on tall/wide stuff. Is it “broken?” Eh. Is constant expansion being the only way to play a bit stale? Yes, but playing the map is vastly preferable to 4 city tradition.
    The crux of the matter is that unstacking cities has resulted in the city- the nexus through which your empire’s power is wielded in all Civ games- becoming incredibly shallow. There is no more to scientific endeavors than “Has Campus?” and so on. That need not be the case- they can of course design a system where cities are unstacked in the map yet have a greater depth.
    Restoring the ability to actually invest in building up a city beyond the Boolean choice to drop 1 copy of each key district would make for the gameplay people clamor for- for any given empire in any given scenario, you have the choice: improve my existing cities or go settle new ones. I digress. I’ve written on it before and will hold my tongue.

    I know I’ve proposed a few ways to break the back of science spam as a dominant Civ franchise strategy, but that’s not really just the fault of civ6. I just want some numbers balancing from the patches at this point, and a few tweaks to make the AI play a tad more meta. IE, people already know how to play the game well after 3.5 years, so instead of making the AI generally better, I’d be happy if they just reweight them to do stuff that is known to work and be less likely to do stuff that is known to not work so well.
     
    Meluhhan, yung.carl.jung and Uberfrog like this.
  16. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,073
    I tried to recreate as I had a T1 save but no cigar. There is a chance the foggy tiles has CS troops which I guess Could cause the effect.
    Will keep my eye out.
     
  17. Equilin

    Equilin Prince

    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Messages:
    415
    Gender:
    Male
    Pathing. Especially when it involves 1) water-land movement differences and/or 2) mountain tunnels.
    Trade, as many posts already mentioned: trade routes, trade deals, resouce movement (rather than generating yields out of thin air for TRs) and population migration are what i think should be in one system.
    Unit strategic resource requirements. Why does a Knight requires only iron and not horses too?
    Partisans: I have no real hatred against them other than them being completely useless, not even pillaging anything for 2-3 turns before getting killed. At the very least they should behave like proper barbs. Also Police Station building for neighborhoods should be added to combat spies and partisans.
    World Congress: need "proposal bid" so i can get my preferred proposal in for extra dipfavor cost.
    Re Tall: just move GPP and some yields, as well as rationalism and co. cards, to specialists.
    Yes it can. Just disable the Apocalypse mode.
    And I bet you it will never do. Casual players already have ok pace against current ai in terms of winning, and there are no ai difference between difficulties.
    It helps against spies, in a way, although yes they do go "overboard", like having spaceports in low hammer cities.
     
    yung.carl.jung likes this.
  18. Galvatron

    Galvatron Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    128
    That's just not true in the slightest.

    No empire has done that, including the world spanning ones. Almost every empire has been destroyed because it started buying its own press releases ands self destructing with stupid endless wars over places with no value; usually invading Iraq.

    The punishment for going wide is being wide. The solution to balance is that being wide should be better than being tall, but it should be harder because everyone else wants your stuff and so if you have more stuff people want more of your stuff.

    Going tall should be what you do when you can't go wide. Either because there's no space left or expanding more will make you uncompetitive with the other empires.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2020
  19. RDomico

    RDomico Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    96
    I still don't see the AI building much of an airforce or any anti-aircraft units. I only played one game since the new dlc was released, so maybe I am wrong.
     
    Pfeffersack likes this.
  20. yung.carl.jung

    yung.carl.jung Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,747
    Location:
    The Twilight Zone
    One easy thing that hasn't been mentioned enough: Make city state defenses even stronger, decrease the likelyhood of the AI declaring war on them. Often times it would be better for the AI to simply ally them anyway, in terms of yields! So they're hurting both themselves and the player.

    I also think city-states auto razing cities when they conquer them sucks. imho both barbarians and CS should be able to conquer and keep cities!

    Except Barbarians are rarely "unpredictable" in their behavior, the opposite actually. Where they spawn is also somewhat predictable, because you the player influence where camps can/cannot spawn (by having vision).

    I agree with you Barbs are a good balancing mechanic, but like many other players I think it would be nice if Barbs weren't only in the game to make the early game more difficult/slow everyone down. I think Barbarians as a faction you can negotiate with would be incredibly neat, even if it's only a minimum. From both a gameplay and a historic point of view I hate that barbs are simply violent brutes with no language/culture/personality.
    It'd be much cooler if Barbarians were simply tribalist cultures/stateless societies/separatists or small monarchies that you could either ally or convince to integrate.
     

Share This Page