"The Curse of Vanilla Civs", or Would you be okay if some classic Vanilla civs were postponed?

[Sagax]

Even that I don't agree with at all. If one finds playing all the civs the same way, that's a player fault, not a game fault.

But I don't fault Firaxis either. Players are notoriously stubborn and cannot adapt. People see Brazil or India and go "oh no I can't play them exactly the same way as the other 30 civs, and they must be crap!" Heck, look at all the discussion on how Mali would be garbage tier just because we all worship the production gods. This is how exactly how people evaluate Civ 6 things using outdated strats from vanilla and judging them as such. To be short, basically any civ that doesn't put 20 internal trade routes in the same city isn't worth playing.

From what I have seen, the complaints about Mali were two-fold: some were coming from Deity players, while others pointed out the existing bug that would mean Mali having their malus applied twice. It was, however, clear to everyone that Mali was meant to play differently. So again - complaints were more about the power level, and less about how the civ plays - this thread/discussion is more about the latter.

outside of the commonly accepted failures

Well... there you go. What if those "failures" were postponed for expansions and designed with fresher ideas? The idea is not to delay ALL the big names - just more than what we are currently getting with reworks.

P.S. I am totally aware that being in an expansion does not guarantee a more interesting kit/gameplay. Still shuddering at those "Get X for the first 10 turns" LUAs.

 

[Archon_Wing]

From what I have seen, the complaints about Mali were two-fold: some were coming from Deity players, while others pointed out the existing bug that would mean Mali having their malus applied twice. It was, however, clear to everyone that Mali was meant to play differently. So again - complaints were more about the power level, and less about how the civ plays - this thread/discussion is more about the latter.

What is the point of introducing a unique playstyle when people are going to immediately discard it because of power level without even thinking about it?

People always talk about originality, but immediately despise anything that is different. (Unless of course, it comes from nostalgia) Mali is just one example.

ell... there you go. What if those "failures" were postponed for expansions and designed with fresher ideas?

Then you need to be more specific about which ones. We've already talked a ton about England, Spain, Norway and Georgia. What else?

I mean, there's like what? 40 choices already? It's pretty hard to get them all to be of the same quality.

 

[Sagax]

What is the point of introducing a unique playstyle when people are going to immediately discard it because of power level without even thinking about it?

People always talk about originality, but immediately despise anything that is different. (Unless of course, it comes from nostalgia) Mali is just one example.

Now you're just talking in extremes... By your logic, what's the point of ever going as far as designing 4 unique elements for each civ? There is also a clear split in public opinion in this forum: you have some Deity players who dismiss slow victories on the spot, but they are countered by plenty of players stating "I don't care, I have more fun this other way". Many players can forgive a lot if it means that they are having fun with a civ. Mali actually fits my narrative: as a civ that is clearly subpar if compared against Inca with ruthless efficiency - and yet is fun to play for those who enjoy rolling in cash, and clearly has its well-defined strengths and niches where it can shine.

Then you need to be more specific about which ones. We've already talked a ton about England, Spain, Norway and Georgia. What else?

Let's throw in Gandhi's India. The passive and barely controllable UA and LUA, with players not even knowing half of the time if LUA is working in their favor. And Varu is a fun unit kind of contradicting Gandhi's peace-oriented ability. The introduction of Chandi definitely helped, but I wonder how India could've been better weaved into the current diplomacy system.

I am almost tempted to include China, with its clunky UI and UU, and a barely noticeable UA - all showing their Vanilla age. But the kit is kept afloat by Qin's versatile LUA that ages well with every expansion, so the civ has interesting wonder-rush strats going on.

I might be wrong, but you seem to think that I'm suggesting to postpone/rework most of the Vanilla civs. Which is not true, I stated in OP how that would not be a sound decision. You can take Russia and Arabia from my cold dead hands.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

W/o predatory DLC practices being on the vanilla roster isn't a downside.

 

[Patine]

We are currently having quite a few threads about civ design and power level going on. On top of that, during Firaxis's GS celebration stream, the devs mentioned how they deliberately held on releasing the Ottomans, as they wanted the game to be packed with enough features before giving this civ justice. This got me thinking:

Is being selected for the Vanilla roster a curse, in a sense? I understand that there is always a risk of expansions not happening if Vanilla completely flops in sales - in which case not having a few no-brainer civs in the game will be quite baffling. But for a juggernaut franchise like Civilization, I think believing in release of at least one DLC and expansion is a safe assumption. If that is the case, then the civs released in Vanilla are doomed to suffer from having fewer mechanics and a less competitive power level field when it comes to their design. Let's face it: aside from a few outliers, most of the Vanilla roster pales in comparison with the civs released in the subsequent expansions - especially in GS. Heck, some DLC civs make Vanilla civs look bland. This is in terms of both their power level and their gameplay design.

- But don't they rework some Vanilla civs for newer expansions?
They do, but it's clearly not the main focus. In Civ 5, the only almost fully-reworked civs were Arabia and France for BNW (and Germany got a UB). In Civ 6, we only got England reworked, with a few more civs getting some additions to their kit without major overhauls. And let's be honest - those are more like added flavor than full-on redesign.

There is an option to just commit to reworking most of Vanilla civs when the final expansion kicks in. But I don't think this is a reasonable or efficient proposition from a production standpoint. It draws away too many resources that would otherwise be better spent on actually polishing the new expansion. It also kind of devalues the Vanilla version for less Civ-obsessed buyers.

So my question to you all is: What would you think if some civs usually auto-included in Vanilla got shafted into expansions, if it meant that they were to appear in the future expansions with a less Vanilla-constrained kit (which usually also means a more powerful kit unless you are Canada)? Do you see any current Vanilla civs that you think would have benefited from this treatment? Personally, I always felt like America is a civ that would have benefited the most from a complete set of mechanics introduced by expansions, and probably wouldn't have been as "meh" as they usually are in the franchise. However, I can also see how an average unsuspecting consumer would flip out if it was not introduced in the Vanilla roster. They might even get outraged if they foresee that the "big names" are "saved for later behind a paywall" (even if it's not what it actually is). Let's not forget that the majority of Civ buyers are not Fanatics. You may dream of a Civ filled with every obscure and underrepresented ethnic group imaginable, but that's not what many-many casual players are looking for when buying this franchise. The majority of Civ buyers probably don't even play more than 1 game, if Steam achievements are to be believed.

Let the discussion begin!

The "power creep curve" where significant game content becomes objectively "better" or "more powerful" if introduced in an expansion, DLC, or other form of supplementary addition is a well-documented phenomenon across numerous computer games - strategy and otherwise - and even a fair number of pencil-and-paper RPG and modular physical board games. VERY few game companies who don't release single, fait accompli packages with no impending expansion have managed to completely overcome this problem, and certainly Firaxis is no exception (going back even as far back the "Alien Crossfire" expansion for "Alpha Centauri," the first release formally under their label).

 

[Archon_Wing]

Now you're just talking in extremes... By your logic, what's the point of ever going as far as designing 4 unique elements for each civ? There is also a clear split in public opinion in this forum: you have some Deity players who dismiss slow victories on the spot, but they are countered by plenty of players stating "I don't care, I have more fun this other way".

You don't have to play on deity to complain? I'm quite sure not everyone that complains about Georgia plays on deity or even care about efficiency. You don't have to be an expert to know something's wrong with Canada. I'm definitely sure not all the Mali complaints are deity players . The divide between these kind of players is nothing as clear cut.

Let's throw in Gandhi's India. The passive and barely controllable UA and LUA, with players not even knowing half of the time if LUA is working in their favor. And Varu is a fun unit kind of contradicting Gandhi's peace-oriented ability.

The idea behind Gandhi was to discourage others from attacking him. A tanky unique unit that's hard to kill and also inflicting twice the war weariness on enemies. The only bad thing about India is that Dharma simply doesn't fit, and that has more to do with religion being a system where it is competitive and there is no viable way to make sure that multiple religions can coexist. I guess at this point in the game, one would give them a new ability rather than rework religion.

 

[ArallanKing]

When ppl say that EP Civs are much more op than vanilla Civs, probably they forgot that we have Tamar from RF

 

[Pietato]

Not really convinced by this, nor have ever been. The Maori are a faith powerhouse, any civ with harvest goddess makes crazy sums... remind me how Russia makes Moar apart from a cheaper district?

To the OP, It has always been clear that all civs are equal but some are much more equal than others. Part of the design. I am not sure if England was left out of initial it would be stronger added later. But yes, they have to release DLC with OP civs or no-one will buy them... if Norway was released as a DLC now the first person to buy would but out a warning to others and it would fail.

Maori faith comes later though, unless you find a natural wonder or a 5 faith CSes.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

People are all hating on Victoria, but with Monumentalism in a golden age England can face roll the map if done correctly.

 

[acluewithout]

My two cents.

I really don’t think any Vanilla Civs have been hurt by the expansions, other than England and maybe Norway and America. And England is a funny case anyway.

Norway has had a rough ride. From the start, they were just in this nasty place where lots of mechanics they leveraged didn’t work well - Military Tactics, Pikemen, Coastal Cities, other people having Coastal Cities, and so on - but they maybe also suffered from having a gameplay style people didn’t get on board with. I think people for a while saw them as a conquest Civ, when really they’re an explore and raid Civ.

With the various balance changes in GS, I’m not sure Norway are really “underpowered” - they were sort of always underpowered given the explore / raid design but we’re fun regardless - but they do now feel a bit un-sexy compared to all the new kids. The basic design is fine - faith, early exploration, raiding, two unique units - and naval, coasts and faith have all got better in GS which helps them. But, yeah, they just need something to make them feel a little more exciting. Also, nerfing the Maori a bit would also help Norway feel more special.

America didn’t get hurt by any changes in RnF or GS. Instead, I think America just sucked regardless since Vanilla, because FXS gave them this very passive and insipid design (sorry FXS). All that’s really happened in RNF and GS is that these expansions provided an easy way to revisit this Civ’s UA. Really, they could have had the whole diplomatic cards into wild cards from the start. Regardless. America is in a good place now.

England was very unlucky. The game was originally balanced around overlapping Industrial Zones and stacking Harbour and Commercial Hub trade routes. FXS killed both and lots of Civs, including England, suddenly became a bit lost. Indeed, I think the whole balance of the game has been thrown out from the very start given the decision to nerf both mechanics. FXS have been inching towards solutions for both missing mechanics, but probably aren’t there yet.

Letting England keep the trade route stacking in Vanilla, a bit like how Inquisitors have been nerfed in GS but Spain has been allowed to keep their original design, sort of mitigated this change for England. But England still suffered from the underlying change in balance - getting rid of stacking meant coastal cities were weaker and naval less important so there was no one for England to compete with on the waves.

RnF then reworked trade routes, which royally screwed England, but really just made the problems with coastal cities even worse. And then FXS decided Pax B didn’t work with the new mechanics and the general desire to make conquest harder (they may have been right about that too), and then it became apparent FXS would rather recycle a lot of England’s design features with other Civs (Zulu gets Pax B; Sweden gets British Museum, various others get stuff England basically had in Civ V).

So, England started a mess and ended up a bigger mess. Reworking England therefore made sense.

I agree with @Sostratus that the new England feels right when you read it (an empire of Iron and Coal) but in practice the new abilities are very underwhelming. Part of the problem is that England is again tied into mechanics that aren’t quite working - colonialism (okay, that’s been a problem from the start) and now power and Military Engineers. But FXS has done a good job of buffing harbours and coastal cities, and has found a good way for England to interact with trade routes, so overall England doesn’t feel like a mess anymore. Just a bit bland in places.

The more I think about it too, I really think the “power” bit of England’s WotW should have focused more on Factories and maybe even have had a negative “more CO2” mechanic. Anyway. Hopefully FXS haven’t got tired of messing with England, and will maybe give them another look in the patches.

God. I talk about England a lot. Sorry.

Anyway. Digression aside. All the other Vanilla Civs still seem well designed to me. If any have a problem, it’s just that they’re tied into mechanics that need more work or were maybe the Civ was a bit underpowered initially anyway. Really, I don’t think there are any other Civs that have been really hurt by new mechanics or overshadowed by new Civs, although there are a few that had designs that shined more with the newer mechanics (France and spies; all the Civs that focus on faith; Civs with abilities connected to City States).

 

[megabearsfan]

This is part of the reason why I wish Firaxis would include more alternate leaders in the expansions. Having an alternate leader for a vanilla civ, who utilizes expansion features, would be a good way of livening up the vanilla civ.

 

[BrotherInJah]

This is part of the reason why I wish Firaxis would include more alternate leaders in the expansions. Having an alternate leader for a vanilla civ, who utilizes expansion features, would be a good way of livening up the vanilla civ.

That would only make sense if LUA is the only problem, which isn't the case with most discussed civs.