The mid to end game of Civ6 is so bland

[gettingfat]

Not talking about the AI and the late game slow down again, I am just talking about the general game design.

In reality, after the discovery of nuclear warfare, the stronger nations have a low likelihood to get into a full scale war between them. Using USA as an example, as long as a country has any sign of owning nuclear weapon, they won't directly war with them, but will instead use other more subtle, less violent strategies that include a combination of ideology pressure (see USSR), economic/curreny war (US currency has been their biggest weapon), culture/propaganda (I honestly think many Hollywood movies are), espionage acitivities (the fingerprints of Americans are all over behind those "color revolution") and diplomatic activities (that is how they are trying to beat China now)....

Some of these strategies were actually presented in the previous versions, like the corporation, like the ideology pressure, like culture pressure/city flip, like permanent alliance, like election rigging/coup......but nothing at all in Civ6.

I expect some posters will defend with the "will see these features in expansion" argument. To be honest, it's the same devs that worked on Civ5, so I never understand why instead of expanding, polishing, perfecting some of these previous good but may not be optimal features, the devs just simply throw them away until somebody complain.

In most of the mid- to late-games playing Civ6, it's just a series of pressing "next turn". They don't even give us the hall of fame. There are very few things that motivate a player to finish the game....oh, forgot to mention that "they are winning, we fear them...-120 dip penalty", which actually makes the end game even more predictable. My gosh....

 

[Art Morte]

I tend to agree, I'm finishing a much lower percentage of my Civ6 games compared to Civ5.

The point comes too soon where it feels like only a large-scale war is going to change anything about how the mid-to-end game is going to play out.

It's a shame, because I'm enjoying the early-to-mid game more than in Civ5. But once you've settled most of your cities and decided which districts they're going to have, it feels there's very little to decide after that - unless you decide to start conquering.

 

[Uberfrog]

I think this has always been an issue with Civ. If you play well, and you're on the track for a victory the end game is inevitably just clicking next turn.

I'm hardly an optimal player, but I think this works to my favour. The most fun I've had with any Civ game is the mad dash towards a city-sniping Religious (in Civ VI), or desperately scrounging City-States for a Diplomatic (in Civ V) victory where a runaway AI is en route to a Sciende or Culture Victory. But if you are the runaway, there's very little joy in the endgame.

 

[Ozisl]

I love the Marathon+ and similar mods. Some give far more depth in units and tech to research early... it makes the time you spend more balanced and gives you more time to experience the first half of the game.

 

[Art Morte]

I think this has always been an issue with Civ. If you play well, and you're on the track for a victory the end game is inevitably just clicking next turn.

I feel that stage starts earlier in Civ6 than in any other Civ I've played (4 and 5).

 

[Scaramanga]

Having nuclear weapons is not enough to create the military stalemate you're describing. You need to be cultured enough to have other options besides using them (ie. The Cold War civic). Imagine nuclear weapons in the hands of monkeys and you get an idea of an imbalance between technology and culture.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I actually like the late game.because things get more complex with more cities, air/naval units (though I've never managed to build a nuke. So it's my 2nd favorite, besides the early game and its exploration phase.
I actually dislike the medieval/classical period. Warfare is boring and consists mostly of ramming a bunch of ranged units into a city and at this point barbarians become annoying busy work.

Haven't actually use nukes in Civ 6. I am not really sure if you folks actually wage MAD though? In any incarnation of Civ, I've avoided wars of nuclear pairity because that usually ends up really ugly-- usually I would launch missiles against someone technologically inferior, as is typical in Civ. I would only think of nuclear war otherwise unless I was desperate or can destroy their nuclear cache first.... and that honestly sounds about right. And the warmonger/war weariness seems pretty brutal.

But yes, I agree that Civ 6's diplomacy is very bare bones and considering we already have opposing government hate, that idelogy really wouldn't have been a problem. And no, i don't buy this "we need to cripple each game so we can sell more expansions" crap. Even Civ IV vanilla had a small version of ideological pressure from Emancipation.

Things to do I think:
Coalition Wars, and join a Coalition War
UN Peacekeeping
Embargoes
City State Sabotage/Coup .

 

[Sherlock]

Ancient civilizations and history are more interesting. It's more fun to invent the wheel, a granary, writing, etc, than to build the Eiffel tower.

I want a spin-off game (like 'Colonization') called 'Ancient Civilizations' that goes from 4000 b.c. to maybe 800 a.d.

Not a game of Civ with the end cut off, a game that is paced differently (not rushing up to the end) and gives you more to do in your ancient civ. More trade, more war, more research.

 

[kaspergm]

I agree, late game in Civ6 is a real drag. I know it's an inherent problem in civ games, but Civ6 definitely has some design choices that work against it in this area. Why do I have to wait for countless turns while I put a gazilion production into space ship parts when I have long since researched all the technologies, for instance?

 

[Uberfrog]

Ancient civilizations and history are more interesting. It's more fun to invent the wheel, a granary, writing, etc, than to build the Eiffel tower.

I want a spin-off game (like 'Colonization') called 'Ancient Civilizations' that goes from 4000 b.c. to maybe 800 a.d.

Not a game of Civ with the end cut off, a game that is paced differently (not rushing up to the end) and gives you more to do in your ancient civ. More trade, more war, more research.

The recent Egypt v Nubia scenario had a really good focused scope. I think the historical 4x genre could benefit from some more competition and experimentation in general.

 

[Sherlock]

Uberfrog - very good point. I'd love to see more turn-based historical games to compete with Civ.

 

[Morningcalm]

Some competition for Civ would be welcome--surely there is much room for an ancient-era focused 4x strategy game that delves into the history of the ancients in a different way, with perhaps more attention to historical detail for the various leaders of the Hittites, Babylonians, Goths, Gauls, Maurya, etc.

I would welcome slightly more open-ended scenarios in Civ VI itself focusing on the ancient or medieval eras, with perhaps a slightly less stringent turn limit. Many scenarios feel too much like a race and therefore lose some atmospheric touches.

 

[Esperr]

While I didn't much care for the complexity of the EU series, I think something like that could help the series a lot. The games are just set in a historical period, sure you can rewrite history from the where the game starts you, but it also comes pre built with a "point" and something to do.

 

[Arms Longfellow]

They could make the late game more interesting by drastically re-working the science victory. You could get spaceship tech and launch a ship to Mars ... but the game isn't over yet. Now you have the new, albeit smaller planet to explore and fight for territory against other factions all over again. They could do the same thing with moon bases.

 

[Ryika]

Uberfrog - very good point. I'd love to see more turn-based historical games to compete with Civ.

If Paradox decides to make a historical version of what they did with Stellaris and learn from the mistakes they made in their first attempt to create a 4x-ish game, the days of Civ being at the top of the historical 4x hierarchy are over.

Honestly, when you look at the developmental progress that 4x space games and 4x fantasy games have made, Civ looks like a relic from 10 years ago in terms of mechanics - and UI design of course. I'm really surprised no other company has really tried to break into that market.

 

[cinattra]

There just aren't enough annoying things to hinder you in Civ6 in the late game. You don't need to interact with the game once you are ahead. Your civ is on autopilot essentially.

Bring back the UN.

 

[Lee Duane Fitzsimmons]

I have had this problem with all of the versions of Civ. That is why I usually start over after gunpowder.

I'm not sure how this can be overcome.

 

[Art Morte]

I have had this problem with all of the versions of Civ. That is why I usually start over after gunpowder.

I'm not sure how this can be overcome.

Maybe make the early-to-mid game slower than the late game?

Another idea of mine is to make governments more important than now, so that civs with different governments really rally together and start working together culturally, militarily and scientifically. If you have fascism, democracy and communism going against each other in late-game instead of just individual nations, things could get more interesting - especially if you're outnumbered.

I think something should be done, too many games feel 'done' too soon.

 

[Lee Duane Fitzsimmons]

I agree, Art.

By the time one gets to the industrial era, the whole "flavor" of the game. If there was some way to get more juice from the early and mid game, then maybe some kind of solution may be found.

Personally, I would like to "freeze" tech just before gunpowder so that the "coolness" factor of the game could be preserved.

Any other ideas?

 

[stinkubus]

You can turtle your way to a reasonably fast science win (~T200) with as little as 12 cities. The GP involved put a hard limit on how long the game will take, as Sagan along with a couple chops will end the game. If you go all out conquest dom wins are easily achievable prior to T200. I don't play culture or religion, but posts in the forum indicate those games are easily winnable prior to T200 even with a modest number of cities.

You'll have the number of cities required no later than T100, and often much faster. In a game I played yesterday I had 15 cities at T60. From there so long as you don't make any egregious errors victory by T200 is easily achievable. The late game feels empty because the game is already supposed to be over.