The mid to end game of Civ6 is so bland

[Noble Zarkon]

That's been the case with every iteration of civ.

Not to the degree we have in Civ 6, for instance in Civ 4 we had Corporations coming in to play, the UN forcing you into civics, Emancipation anger etc etc.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Not to the degree we have in Civ 6, for instance in Civ 4 we had Corporations coming in to play, the UN forcing you into civics, Emancipation anger etc etc.

Opinion I guess, but I thought Corporations felt awful and tacked-on. There were many good things added in the 4 expansions but corporations weren't one of them for me. It just felt like busy-work to me, making more clicking but not really changing the game much. I would note though (for people that did like it) that that was an expansion--so we'll see what comes in 6.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I never got to make much use of Corporations, except in games already won. I always thought it came way too late and also you had to have a specific type of great person which was annoying.

Emancipation anger was generally a small factor, but it could be considered a precursor to Public Opinion in Civ 5.

 

[KayAU]

I wasn't a big fan of corporations either, to be honest. I liked emancipation anger and public opinion, though. I liked the ideology system in general. It added something interesting to focus on and compete for in the late game. There were some quite interesting things to do, like trying to force someone out of their ideology before they had the chance to boost their happiness through their ideology specific wonder.

 

[Acken]

That's been the case with every iteration of civ. Boring end game is not new--not sure how someone got this far through the series if that flaw ruins it for them. I hardly if ever finish but that's hardly a "feature" of 6. It's just a product of me getting part way through and deciding I want to try something different this time.

Partly but not to the current extent. Especially, chalenge wise.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I never got to make much use of Corporations, except in games already won. I always thought it came way too late and also you had to have a specific type of great person which was annoying.

Emancipation anger was generally a small factor, but it could be considered a precursor to Public Opinion in Civ 5.

Yeah the ideology (in 5? I'm getting old) was pretty neat.

 

[UWHabs]

There definitely needs to be more work end-game. Heck, even the basic city-management basically stops at airports.

Really I think what needs to happen is that the game progresses in 2 stages - the current game is pretty awesome up to about the industrial revolution. But after that, there's a whole lot more that we should do:

-The "old" districts basically need to be retired at that point. Seriously, there is no city at the scale that we're talking about in civ that doesn't have a market, library, etc... by this time. We can't just give every city a free campus/library, but would be nice to transition new cities to maybe a simple model where they spend X on "public infrastructure" and get multiple bonuses
-We should be forced to specialize industries in our cities more. I think someone proposed a model for factories where they would basically take raw goods and produce different finished goods (ie. a factory that has dyes and silk in its region may produce a new luxury, printed textiles)
-We should be forced to manually remake the land. That old mine that's now 5000 years old? Maybe we need an upgrade to it. Could be instead of getting the free extra cog from it, there's a new "modern mine" or something with different bonuses. This could also help us manually reshape the land to the modern era
-There should be more focus on new buildings. If we're forced to build libraries and markets, why don't we have the modern supermarket, movie theatre, aquarium, public transit, recycling centres, etc...
-With this, in the modern times we also need to be more concerned with the environment as well. Or maybe you also can run government-types that give you bonuses but give unhappiness for

Now, granted, a lot of the stuff I mention is essentially more of a different game. I don't want to be like cities: skylines and have to manually plan which districts are connected by my city's metro lines, but it would be nice if there was a little bit more that builders can do in the modern era. Heck, you can even make the game scale even more exponential than it is now - the modern era should be exponentially longer than it is now, so maybe it should be the case that a modern university should give as much science as 20 ancient universities. But might be a neat mechanic where essentially everything changes when you get to the industrial era - suddenly your old commercial hub doesn't cut it anymore, and you either need to upgrade it to a modern one, or leave it around as a tourist attraction and build a new modern commercial hub somewhere else instead.

 

[stinkubus]

The game already has tons of buildings which don't actually advance one toward victory. What could a building like a recycling center possibly provide that can't be obtained through some method already available?

 

[Art Morte]

The game already has tons of buildings which don't actually advance one toward victory. What could a building like a recycling center possibly provide that can't be obtained through some method already available?

Housing or amenities, I suppose. But I agree that it's not very necessary. At the same time I think there should be something more, buildings wise, in late game. You're going for science / culture / faith victory, okay, so you've built those districts (almost) everywhere. Harbor / commerce / entertainment / industrial / encampment where you feel like it. The bottom line is, it's not enough. Deciding what districts & buildings to build in what order is 10 times more interesting in early and mid game than it is in late game.

Here's an idea (feel free to shoot it down) : What if the last and best buildings of each district were globally limited? Say that after the Research Lab there were x number of even better science buildings that can be constructed globally. The logic being that not every city of every nation can have state-of-the-art, world-class science thingy. And there would be certain criteria you need to meet to be able to produce one of those limited buildings. And you would have to prioritize for which ones you go, because you couldn't beat everyone to all of them. This might increase meaningful decision-making in late game.

 

[UWHabs]

The game already has tons of buildings which don't actually advance one toward victory. What could a building like a recycling center possibly provide that can't be obtained through some method already available?

As it currently stands, nothing, correct. But it really wouldn't be that hard to bring back some form of "pollution" that would limit tile/district outputs (and appeal), and a recycling centre would cut down on that. Basically, if you like to build stuff in cities, there's nothing new late-game to build. Yeah, I go build a new district, or just spam projects or units, but if you're not going to war, basically it also means that every late game tech is completely useless.

 

[Esperr]

Maybe they could make it to where disricts get a bonus for how many turns they have been around, so theres an actual choice with them, which was the whole point of them I thought.

 

[Art Morte]

Essentially, you're making a case for late game national wonders of some type. I agree, they should exist.

I would go further and think there should be more small-reward-now or late-reward-later mechanisms. That will act as a natural catch up mechanism that makes the late game more interesting. For example, any harbour district built after steam power gives one more trade route than those built before. You therefore have to make a decision between having some trade routes now and later, or fewer trade routes now but way more later. The fastest way to a science victory might therefore be deliberately preventing yourself from becoming strong/powerful now so that you can become even more powerful later. I'm sure theres a better and more realistic way to implement this, but my point still stands.

I think there needs to be some logic behind it, lest it would feel stupid. Why would an older harbor provide fewer trade routes than a newer one? Okay, you could make it so that you need to upgrade older harbors (and other districts), but that might just feel more like a chore than meaningful late-game decision making. However, I would entertain the idea of the 'small reward now, greater later' thing if it were logical and well implemented.

What I'm thinking, in regards to my earlier idea, is that what if you're going for science victory... There are, say, 12 of the best science district buildings available globally in an 8-player standard size map. These provide a science boost, maybe a space race production boost, too. The criteria could include that besides the production cost, before you can build one you need to have accumulated a certain amount of gold and culture. The logic being that such a state-of-the-art facility is expensive and your nation needs to be civilized enough to attract the world's top scientists to work there. This way you'd need to build a few theater districts in the game - something that players seem to often ignore - if you want a couple of those top-level science buildings in late-game.

Or if you're going for culture victory and want a few of the 12 theater district's 'special' buildings, you'd have to have, say, a certain amount of gold and some high level entertainment districts and perhaps big enough a population in the city where you want to build it, the logic being that having your own "Hollywood" is expensive, is unlikely to appear in a nation with low entertainment and needs a big city to succeed.

This way you'd need to make some decisions earlier in the game that don't necessarily help you a lot at the time you make them, but enable you to have some of these limited, top-level district buildings in late-game.

 

[Art Morte]

That sounds similar to the GP system as it currently is. Sure, it's not buildings, but the basic idea is the same: high level rewards to different areas of the game that are available in very restricted numbers that civilizations compete for and require previous investment in infrastructure.

With great people you still need to build only those districts and buildings that give you those particular great people. There's no need to branch out there. If you needed certain amounts of culture and gold, for example, to get access to the best science buildings, that would add some depth to the game, imo.

 

[zhivik]

While Stellaris has its faults, I believe their end-game crises addition works very well to resolve the tediousness of the late game. I get it that Stellaris takes place in a distant future (end-game crises rarely occur earlier than the fourth millennium), which allows much broader artistic licence what events to create. Still, I believe Civilization could benefit from something similar, a pool of global scenarios that occur when certain conditions are met.

Here are a few things I can think of:

• A global natural disaster, which would affect food and production yields (higher sea level, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions);
• Religious extremism (definitely not limited to Islam, please mind), creating plenty of rebellions and renewed barbaric attacks;
• An alien invasion (why not?) - it would be fun if suddenly a new, stronger enemy appears, even if this makes Civilization look a lot like XCOM;
• A pandemic, leading to a rapid depletion of population and hard decisions how to counter it.

I guess there may be many more options to think of, I am certain there are better ideas than these listed above. End-game crises should be entirely optional, of course (as they are in Stellaris), since they will be probably not everyone's cup of tea. Nevertheless, it would be something to occupy you with in the end game, when you are on a clear path to victory.

 

[Rosty K]

Ideology of Civ5 was a pretty nice example of a crisis. Most of the time it would nicely destabilize things by completely reshuffling the diplomatic relations. Though that's more of a mid-game crisis.

 

[Sherlock]

I just looked for it and couldn't find it? It's under the tab that starts with 'standard rules', right?

There is a ruleset called "Ancient Rivals" included with the game. I don't think it's to the granularity you're hoping for but it can be a fun 50 turns even against AI on a LAN.If anything it is good practice for the first 50 turns of a real game.

 

[Scaramanga]

I just looked for it and couldn't find it? It's under the tab that starts with 'standard rules', right?

It is multiplayer only. You would have to create a LAN game and play against AIs. I will be hosting AncRiv games on the Internet infrequently.

 

[c4c6]

I think this would really solve the end game blandness part, because if you are really a sprawling massive global civilization, why can't you have the actual problems of a global sprawling massive civilization.

I agree. Essentially, some form of civil war/internal unrest is the perfect way to balance the game because - by its very construction - the strength of your opponent is based on your own strength. You can't outgrow yourself in the early game in the hope that your late game civil war faction will be smaller than you are now.
The difficulty with this is to prevent it form feeling too gamey, that a difficult opponent is thrown at you just for the sake of it. Balancing the two is very hard, nigh on impossible.

YES!!!

Still, I believe Civilization could benefit from something similar, a pool of global scenarios that occur when certain conditions are met. Here are a few things I can think of:

• A global natural disaster, which would affect food and production yields (higher sea level, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions);
• Religious extremism (definitely not limited to Islam, please mind), creating plenty of rebellions and renewed barbaric attacks;
• An alien invasion (why not?) - it would be fun if suddenly a new, stronger enemy appears, even if this makes Civilization look a lot like XCOM;
• A pandemic, leading to a rapid depletion of population and hard decisions how to counter it.

I guess there may be many more options to think of, I am certain there are better ideas than these listed above.

Well, Francis Tresham's original 'Civilization' ("A war game which you will lose if you have too many wars. A game of trade in which mere wealth will get you nowhere. A game of social, military and economic strategy. A game of noble endeavours and unspeakable disasters. A game without dice but with a great deal of skill. A game worth learning.") had LOADS of "CALAMITIES" (2 Volcano/Earthquake, 3 Famine, 4 Civil War, 5 Flood, 6 Epidemic, 7 Civil Disorder, 8 Iconoclasm&Heresy, 9 Piracy) and 'Advanced Civilization' improved that with (2 Treachery, 3 Superstition, 4 Slave Revolt, 5 Barbarian Hordes) as well as 'Mega Civilization' added (6 Cyclone, 7 Tyranny, 8 Corruption, 9 Regression) ... all boardgames, btw.

1980 magazine advert

10 out of 12 calamities in one turn!

Sid Meier's Civ1 just recreated Barbarians & Civil War, called Schism - a very rare COMPLETE SPLIT of nations into 2 independent nations (just in case the capital of a large empire was captured). The rest was and is skipped ... what I hear, is that the people don't like 'dark ages', just 'golden ages'; they don't like disasters, just infinite growth ... how can this become "balanced" in a long game???

Btw, Francis Tresham playing 'Advanced Civilization' at TringCon: https://boardgamegeek.com/image/2860383

 

[zhivik]

Sid Meier's Civ1 just recreated Barbarians & Civil War, called Schism - a very rare COMPLETE SPLIT of nations into 2 independent nations (just in case the capital of a large empire was captured). The rest was and is skipped ... what I hear, is that the people don't like 'dark ages', just 'golden ages'; they don't like disasters, just infinite growth ... how can this become "balanced" in a long game???

I remember seeing this during a playthrough back in the day. I believe I was at war with the United Kingdom and I got a tip (I believe from one of my advisors) that if I take the capital, the country would split apart. I did and I got the UK splitting into France and England. I remember this fondly to this day, it was a great concept, sadly not implemented in any of the later games.

 

[PYITE]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...s-in-next-dlc-expansion.621308/#post-14844196

Ed Beach is not satisfied with end game either. Future expansions will help.