[R&F] The (messed up?) pacing of Civilization 6.

What do you think of the increased tech pacing at higher difficulties?

  • Very good!

    Votes: 6 10.7%
  • Good!

    Votes: 6 10.7%
  • Neutral.

    Votes: 16 28.6%
  • Bad!

    Votes: 14 25.0%
  • Very bad!

    Votes: 14 25.0%

  • Total voters
    56

skallben

Diplomat
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
1,005
Location
Cold Country in Europe
Higher difficulties means more productivity in a Civ world, stemming from both AI:s and players. We all know games tend to get shorter and shorter when difficulties go up, the games breeze through the eras. It always bothered me, am I the only one?

What's your opinion?
 

ZeroSuitSenpai

Warlord
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
134
I think the early eras go by too quickly. I'm always surprised at how fast the game hits the renaissance. I like the speed of the earlier eras on Epic, but then the later eras end up boring or overly long for me, so I usually stick to standard speed.
 

nzcamel

Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,127
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
My early optimism that R&F would significantly fixed the pacing seems to have been misplaced. The Educator probably offsets many of the gains!
 

Leyrann

Deity
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
4,371
Location
Netherlands
The other option is to penalize the player at higher difficulty levels. Is that what you want?
 

Council 13

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
74
Location
Chicago IL
I think the pace of the game is off in general. What makes it worse is how often many units become obsolete before you could put them to any use. The musketman-infantry pacing has always bothered me the most.
 

Art Morte

Prince
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Messages
494
Yeah, pacing is off in this game. Classical-to-Industrial feel the best, but they are over too soon. Then the last three eras start dragging and decision-making becomes obvious. Feels like very little changes in the last three eras. Rarely finish my games due to this.
 

historix69

Emperor
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,340
Last year I played a modded game where it took 200 turns to get from ancient to classical times and I liked the pacing. In general, Civ6 and R&F are too fast for me. I think 200-300 turns per era are good to fully enjoy all the possibilities of units, especially on bigger maps where travelling costs a lot of time.
 

nzcamel

Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,127
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Last year I played a modded game where it took 200 turns to get from ancient to classical times and I liked the pacing. In general, Civ6 and R&F are too fast for me. I think 200-300 turns per era are good to fully enjoy all the possibilities of units, especially on bigger maps where travelling costs a lot of time.

If marathon could be expected to run the full length, then it's almost 200 turns per era (187). It's too soon to say for sure (still only on my 2nd game of R&F), but I'm thinking that R&F has added around 20 turns per era for me... I'd like another 40 turns-ish per era again, to actually have the marathon length.
That's at king.
 

halfhalfharp

Prince
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
517
Way too fast for technology and civics, both AIs and players alike. At the same time, the production cant catch up the rocketing techs/civics.

Up to 4 cities, districts take eons to build, many UU and units suffer the same problem, as well as lacking sufficient window to make good use of.
 

Kyro

Prince
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
599
This is what happens when you don't extend the pacing but introduce stuff like eurekas that pay half of research costs.
 

halfhalfharp

Prince
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
517
This is what happens when you don't extend the pacing but introduce stuff like eurekas that pay half of research costs.

Exactly. And also not giving enough production before arrival of factory. Moreover normally players only beeline necessary techs in higher difficulties. The progression will be insane.(And the AI will be more insane.)
 

Kyro

Prince
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
599
Exactly. And also not giving enough production before arrival of factory. Moreover normally players only beeline necessary techs in higher difficulties. The progression will be insane.(And the AI will be more insane.)

I would say this oversight is actually intentional so as to do exactly that, speed up the overall pace to cater to players who prefer action over planning.
 

halfhalfharp

Prince
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
517
And then why should we go planning... we can always spam units and war. This is just Barbarian 6, an extension of Barbarian 5.

Also look at the district cost increase per new city and the era score system (+4 per capital capture, +5 per civ eliminated). It is just encouraging warlords to rise.

It is more than a problem of pace, but a problem of fixed playstyle, which gives much boredom when you emerge victory for enough times slaughtering those stupid AIs.

Ah, and the AIs are underwhelming in wars. Whats the fun of slaughtering sheeps?
 

Kyro

Prince
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
599
And then why should we go planning... we can always spam units and war. This is just Barbarian 6, an extension of Barbarian 5.

Also look at the district cost increase per new city and the era score system (+4 per capital capture, +5 per civ eliminated). It is just encouraging warlords to rise.

It is more than a problem of pace, but a problem of fixed playstyle, which gives much boredom when you emerge victory for enough times slaughtering those stupid AIs.

Ah, and the AIs are underwhelming in wars. Whats the fun of slaughtering sheeps?

That's just it, the whole point is to promote action at the cost of planning by rewarding one over the other. They want you to focus on "doing" rewarding stuff rather than having long-term consequences for investing and planning so I guess that's where the conflict of interest arises.

More doing, less thinking. Caters to a wider audience I guess, but really destroys what Civ is all about.
 

halfhalfharp

Prince
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
517
That's just it, the whole point is to promote action at the cost of planning by rewarding one over the other. They want you to focus on "doing" rewarding stuff rather than having long-term consequences for investing and planning so I guess that's where the conflict of interest arises.

More doing, less thinking. Caters to a wider audience I guess, but really destroys what Civ is all about.

I will say that "doing" is fun somehow, regardless of the fact it is trying to fit more audiences. But firstly we are facing dumb AIs. And secondly the diplomatic system is still a mess.

There is only the way to go war and the war is not much fun at all.

The system of "doing" is not that delicate nor the system of "planning" as well.
 
Last edited:

halfhalfharp

Prince
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
517
I think this is a problem rather than characterization.

It will be really disappointing if we need to rely solely on Modders to improve the game... Where is the point of playing the original game then.
 

nzcamel

Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,127
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Use the 8 Ages of Pace mod if you don't like the default pacing

I'd like to use it, but I don't want the road changes that come with it :undecide:
 

Leyrann

Deity
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
4,371
Location
Netherlands
I'd like to use it, but I don't want the road changes that come with it :undecide:

That's as simple as deleting the .xml about the roads. I did that as well in my version.
 

nzcamel

Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,127
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
That's as simple as deleting the .xml about the roads. I did that as well in my version.

You say that...but unlike you I am a technical bundy lol :sad: I'll only do it if someone is willing to give me literal step by step instructions.
 
Top Bottom