I agree R&F is a bit underworked. Things missed are:
1. If player refuses to get free city through loyalty, things get messy. This scenario wasn't worked through.
2. City-state revolt is another scenario which didn't get any attention.
3. Era score don't scale well with game speed. Only normal speed plays as planned.
And imo. it was all the better for it. Considering how small a part of the actual game time most players use on scenarios, they have taken up an unreasonable amount of previous DLCs and expansions.
And imo. it was all the better for it. Considering how small a part of the actual game time most players use on scenarios, they have taken up an unreasonable amount of previous DLCs and expansions.
IMO scenarios are great. (Personally I love maps & scenarios). Civ V's Into The Renaissance is epic. I must've played close to 1000hrs of that scenario alone
TBH Civ VI's scenarios haven't come close. Maybe the Vikings? Or perhaps Nubia's scenario? But it's a quicker/shorter game, perhaps made with multiplayer in mind? I think they serve a purpose. It helps to better design civs (for the devs) and for gamers it helps to introduce certain new systems used by those civs.
IMO R&F would've been better designed if it had at least one scenario.
I haven't tried just the spelling fixes, but even AI+, which includes the fixes, as well as other improvements, isn't significantly more difficult, certainly much less than a full level. Although R&F may be almost a full level easier than Vanilla.
I haven't tried just the spelling fixes, but even AI+, which includes the fixes, as well as other improvements, isn't significantly more difficult, certainly much less than a full level. Although R&F may be almost a full level easier than Vanilla.
Indeed the difficulty difference is huge. I feel not that AI has gotten that much weaker, but the human player has so many more tools for optimization that the AI simply cannot match (governors, legacy policy cards, dedications, etc.) I was struggling to get non-domination non-religious victories out a t230 in Vanilla... Now I consider anything over 200 turns a bad game in RnF.
Once Magnus gets nerfed though I expect the winning time will take longer again.
I don't know why they announce it so soon.
I think it's cruel to tease even full game/movie/whatever releases months in advance.
A patch though, 2 weeks now? really?
I just want to be content with what I've got.
It's like everyone's been infected by this need to convince me otherwise.
I would say Thursday at the earliest, but I wouldn't rule out running into next week. They only resumed forward progress on last Thursday. It may take them over a week to get things back where they should be.
@Abraxis I think they intended the patch to come out on the 12th, but some bugs got away from them and forced them to delay it. I, for one, am pleased they didn't just release it buggy but on schedule even though they got egg on their face for marketing.
I'm hoping the patch will make warfare more sensible. Let me give an example from my current game.
To the north of me is Scotland, and further north is Japan. Scotland did have three cities, but lost the northernmost to Japan in an early war. Now Japan has declared war on Scotland again and is about to conquer both the remaining Scottish cities. I don't want this; Scotland is a friend and I don't want a powerful Japan on my doorstep. So I declare war on Japan and start moving forces up to protect Scottish territory (I have Open Borders). What happens? Robert demands I remove my troops from his borders. I tell him I'm passing through (to help YOU, dammit) and then because I don't clear everything away immediately for 30 turns, I've "broken my promise".
It ought to be possible to join a war on one side, with that side recognising that you are an ally.
Also, defensive pacts should come much earlier in the game, say, as soon as both partners have writing. Mutual defence is not anything hard to arrange.
And imo. it was all the better for it. Considering how small a part of the actual game time most players use on scenarios, they have taken up an unreasonable amount of previous DLCs and expansions.
Whether or not you like scenarios, it's better to have more variety than not. Scenarios provide that variety, especially where the base gameplay is stale, full of annoyingly bad AI, or buggy (as it currently is). Scenarios are a breath of fresh air precisely because they are briefer than regular games, so your point about scenarios taking up an inordinate "amount" of previous DLCs and expansions is frankly not relevant. Most people would also see DLC as having more value if it was a Civ AND a scenario, not just a civ.
Some scenarios in VI's DLCs, like Nubia's, came with amazing unique art assets discussed in these forums before. And who can forget that V had memorable scenarios like Smoky Skies, or that IV had a wonderful space colonization scenario?
Firaxis not having even one scenario in its Rise and Fall expansion pack smacks of laziness.
I'm hoping the patch will make warfare more sensible. Let me give an example from my current game.
To the north of me is Scotland, and further north is Japan. Scotland did have three cities, but lost the northernmost to Japan in an early war. Now Japan has declared war on Scotland again and is about to conquer both the remaining Scottish cities. I don't want this; Scotland is a friend and I don't want a powerful Japan on my doorstep. So I declare war on Japan and start moving forces up to protect Scottish territory (I have Open Borders). What happens? Robert demands I remove my troops from his borders. I tell him I'm passing through (to help YOU, dammit) and then because I don't clear everything away immediately for 30 turns, I've "broken my promise".
It ought to be possible to join a war on one side, with that side recognising that you are an ally.
Also, defensive pacts should come much earlier in the game, say, as soon as both partners have writing. Mutual defence is not anything hard to arrange.
Indeed the difficulty difference is huge. I feel not that AI has gotten that much weaker, but the human player has so many more tools for optimization that the AI simply cannot match (governors, legacy policy cards, dedications, etc.) I was struggling to get non-domination non-religious victories out a t230 in Vanilla... Now I consider anything over 200 turns a bad game in RnF.
Once Magnus gets nerfed though I expect the winning time will take longer again.
I agree with this, the more tools you give to the player to play with, the easier the AI will get. You're introducing another set of infinite possibilities for the AI to work through.
This is why in my view the only way to introduce a real challenge is to force external catastrophic crises (NOT like the emergencies which are random) when you've reached certain victory thresholds. Colonization was so successful b/c you were not competing against the other AI colonists, but against the motherland.
I don't know why they announce it so soon.
I think it's cruel to tease even full game/movie/whatever releases months in advance.
A patch though, 2 weeks now? really?
I just want to be content with what I've got.
It's like everyone's been infected by this need to convince me otherwise.
To me, it reminds me of airlines and flight departures. I see two communication approaches being used.
One, say nothing. Ever. The flight leaves when it leaves. Firaxis/2k normally takes this approach. They got messed up by the accidental early release of the video.
Two, communicate constantly as new information becomes available. You could say that this is the better approach, but if you observe how frequently and constantly customers pester the boarding staff when the airline adopts this approach, it seems to me like it's actually much more work for staff. People react to all of the incremental information, and engage staff on how it's going to impact their travel plans, even though the information is interim information and the final departure time isn't yet known.
Personally, I prefer the latter approach, but if I sit back and watch how my fellow human beings deal with the extra information they get, I can understand the reasons for going with saying nothing until there is certainty.
This is why in my view the only way to introduce a real challenge is to force external catastrophic crises (NOT like the emergencies which are random) when you've reached certain victory thresholds.
This is one way to introduce a challenge, but I don't think it's the only way.
And it avoids the real issue, which is that the development team has shown no interest in making the game a challenge to those who can play it well. I believe it already represents a challenge to most casual gamers. It offers huge replayability, in part for the same reason that it offers little challenge, because you can make completely different choices next game and still do well. Those appear to be Firaxis' objectives.
Personally, I'd like to see Settler be the default difficulty level for causal gamers, Prince be the go to difficulty level for those who want to play a "sim" game and try out new and interesting strategies, and Deity be the level only a small number of people (not me) can ever consistently beat the game at. But that's not the approach taken for Civ 6.
I really don't think the challenge issue has as much to do with the game mechanics as it has to do with the motivations and intent of the development team. I expect that Ed Beach and crew believe the game is a tough enough challenge as it is.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
