The mid to end game of Civ6 is so bland

[Karpius]

The alternative is to spice things up as you like and play the game differently to how you achieved your sub-100-turn Diety victory. A lot of people find that more fun, and there's no harm in it. This is not making excuses for the game. It is simply not true that what I've just said implies that I think Civ6 is perfect or the devs shouldn't fix things. It's simply making the most of a flawed product, while hoping the flaws get fixed. I'm tired of having to explain this to people. There is no dichotomy where you either have to hate every aspect of Civ6, or love every aspect of it. That is an incredibly toxic point of view to have about anything in life, let alone something as innocuous as a video game.

Very well put and essentially the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread. The game is no more perfect than those of us playing it. For some, the game is simply unplayable because it doesn't cater to their personal tastes enough. Others seem to be able to enjoy the game as is, or with various mods they created or downloaded. There is no right or wrong answer in this as it a very subjective topic. And, as Olleus pointed out, it *is* an innocuous video game.

All I was trying to do was offer some different ways of still enjoying the game as it is once you have beaten the designers' victory conditions. If you prefer to have the designers make that decision for you, that is fine as well. No one is making excuses, simply offering suggestions.

 

[stinkubus]

Also, if you like to re-roll start trying to play out the bad starts and it's a somewhat different game because certain milestones won't be met at the turns you're accustomed to.

 

[Japper007]

Also, if you like to re-roll start trying to play out the bad starts and it's a somewhat different game because certain milestones won't be met at the turns you're accustomed to.

Playing out bad starts is definitely the best way to make the game interesting, I have fond memories of a Russia game where I started on a 5 tile tundra island on a continents map. Completely changed what strategy worked!

 

[bladex]

agree it's rare that i actually finish a game all the way to the end these days.

 

[c4c6]

Playing out bad starts is definitely the best way to make the game interesting, I have fond memories ...

Well, in Tresham's Civilization the disasters are so numerous, that they are always distributed "fair" - besides that strong shoulders, which can carry more, get more ... (just to be sure, they cannot run away towards victory too fast). And one gets used to them.
So far methinks, 'dark ages' & disasters aren't necessarily bad, because they ARE THE KEY for a great recovery after suffering. I don't like the lows too, but without them there are ultimately NO highs. (Just as in real live )
Why do people wonder to find THAT "all flat" boring??

The deciding aspect is: that works in multiple human player context - nobody can simply drop out from the boardgame ... as most of us do in a single player computer game infested by "too many" crisis. (Kind-ich versus Über-ich alias 'we need an Ironman-Mode' )

[Don't fear the Ü, it's just an smiling U]

 

[stinkubus]

It is also very much unrealistic that your economy just continues to grow and grow throughout the game. Some sort of "recession" mechanic which provides a temporary malus to cogs and gold could be a possible solution.

 

[c4c6]

Yes, as those disasters just have the scope of that game (stone age until iron age) we need of course also modern disasters like tulip markets "lower prices? The sky is the limit!" ...

(But some will say, that they don't want to be punished for doing well ... alphaville, 'Forever Young' ...)

 

[bbbt]

They implemented a 'chaos/havok' (? I can never remember what they called it) counter in the game in theory designed to counter a stable/snowballing player though all it does currently is cause the AI to behave erratically (I will declare war on you for no apparent reason but not actually send any troops!).

However, it seems primed to be combined with some sort of disasters/events logic (for single player only and optional only of course), that starts throwing obstacles at you as you are doing well. Of course, they'd have to be interesting, and not just lots of iterations of "X has damaged Y, spend some turns repairing it" and the like.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yes, as those disasters just have the scope of that game (stone age until iron age) we need of course also modern disasters like tulip markets "lower prices? The sky is the limit!" ...

(But some will say, that they don't want to be punished for doing well ... alphaville, 'Forever Young' ...)

Sounds like events from previous Civs, volcanoes destroying cities, etc. People hated those. They pretended like they wanted them, then didn't when they actually were added. This isn't just guessing on the developers' parts.

 

[EgonSpengler]

So I started playing Pangaea maps with a hugely increased number of civs. On a Large map, for example, I've had 2 exciting games in a row with 16 Civs instead of just 10. My next game, I may raise that to 20, fully double. It becomes a mosh-pit almost immediately, and any civ that doesn't defend itself gets taken over without remorse. I mean, hey, at least that's kind of historically accurate.

An update: First, it turns out a Large map will only support 16 Civs, so no 20-Civs game.

Second, my wacky start settings only delayed the inevitable. [France, Emperor, Pangaea, Large, Epic, 16 Civs and 16 City-States]
It started off well. More than half of the city-states got clobbered quickly. There was a chain of islands with room for 6 cities that the AI didn't touch. Not one of them put a city there, I put 6 cities there myself. Then, roundabout Turn 400 of 750, I steamrolled my pathetic neighbor who practically begged me to kill him. So not even 2/3 of the way through the game, I've got 20 cities, I'm leading in everything except Religion, and I'll bet the $12 in my wallet that the AI won't lift a finger to stop me the rest of the game. I don't even think I'll bother getting to the end. Oh, well. It was fun for about 400 turns, at any rate. That ain't nothin', but my suggestions above evidently do nothing to address the mid-end-game problem that was the point of this thread.