The Paradox of Civ6

[Forster]

There is a reason why they got rid of the feature of a volcano blowing up your city, and it's not because everyone loved it so much . . .

What was that? Technically, the scale of hexes in a civ game should make a volcano in the next hex harmless, unless we are talking super volcanoes. Still, I would like to see them in civ. I also miss pollution that had to cleaned up or the problem would spread. I also agree that for the most part technology has been good for mankind. Civs on the receiving end against a superior tech foe might disagree. I like the idea of religion in civ, but I feel they are not represented any way near reality. Religions had major impacts on history and people and were in some cases the center of power in a civilization. In Civ 6 they are portrayed as a weak shadow of the reality.
I really like Civ 6. There are things that could be better, and things that I feel are missing. I would only hope developers would look at threads like this as an idea source about what we as gamers would like to see.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

What was that?

Civiii

 

[Forster]

I am missing something, I guess. I still don't understand the reason you are talking about.

 

[Sukayo]

A nice discussions - i am playing mainly marathon games on huge maps, modded so that civ and science (and era points now) are needed more, so that i do not have all 800 BC. How elsewhere discussed marathon gives a difference experience.
A war takes now at least 25 turns - that can bring times where i have one or another war going on for more than 100 turns.
To get a settler, district/wonder up takes years/ages - so trade routes boosting production gets more important. I see a large shift in the game aspects when changing the timescale - and see it more as the Role play - lead the civ through the time and see what it brings to be great.

 

[Kyro]

The only way this Paradox can be resolved is if Victory is measured not in turns but in specific Quality-based assessments where Quality and not Speed is the determining factor for "Victory".

It should matter how developed your cities are, how happy your people are, what your relationships with other civs are, how well your economy is faring etc. More so than valuing technological/civic progress above everything else. New progress should come with new challenges and not simply always faster/more = better.

Victories can also be broken up into multiple Eras just as Ages are and Victory assigned for the one with the most cumulative progress. (Most Era victories by end game) In other words, advancing beyond your current era denies you further opportunity to compete with others for victory of the era you just left behind.

Yes efficiency should be important such that wastage is avoided and wrong choices should have consequences, but efficiency should not be limited to speed alone.

Of course this would mean a complete overhaul of the game, but as I see it this is the only way when you can complete a game in victory without playing the rat race which Civilization really shouldn't be about.

 

[Karpius]

The only way this Paradox can be resolved is if Victory is measured not in turns but in specific Quality-based assessments where Quality and not Speed is the determining factor for "Victory".

But at what point are these assessments made? Shall we call it a game when one civ reaches a specific score (however we choose to design that score)? We are still in a race then to reach that score before the next civ can do so. For those who want a game, there is no way around the 'gamey' aspects. A 'game' needs a score. A score has no value until the end of the game. The end of the game automatically means a time or turn limit of some sort. The paradox is that human civilization has no discernable time limit (yet), but players (gamers, anyway) need such a time limit to determine any victory condition that is quantifiable in any way.

Despite this, Civilization6 can still be quite gratifying to someone like me who plays without thought to victory conditions. I create my own challenges within the game. But even I will put a turn limit on the game with only the 'score victory' active. That, in itself, is a paradox to my own stated preference of play.

When we put a score on it and specify Victory Conditions, we have a game. When I turn off any measure of 'victory', I now have a sandbox without direction of which way to go. It becomes totally my own measure of success based on what I build with the tools available. The paradox? A single title can be enjoyed both ways.

 

[acluewithout]

I’m not sure a ‘game’ necessarily needs a victory condition any more than ‘play’ needs a goal.

I’m happy Civ has victory conditions, and having them makes the game one sort of game rather than another. But I don’t have a problem with people ignoring victory conditions when they play, and Civ does mostly support that sort of open ended play (albeit you do run the risk of the AI or you accidentally winning - although, again, you then have that one more turn option).

You can also look at history as a game if you want. It’s just a matter of perspective. I mean, didn’t people refer to a ‘Great Game’ at one point in history...?

 

[Karpius]

I’m not sure a ‘game’ necessarily needs a victory condition any more than ‘play’ needs a goal.

By definition, a game requires some method of measuring victory and defeat. Thats why Civ6 includes Victory Conditions. On the other hand, a simulation simply offers the platform or world in which participants do their thing....whatever that is. Civ6 gives us the ability to do both within the same platform. To me, that is rather remarkable. To me, that is a paradox.

You can also look at history as a game if you want. It’s just a matter of perspective. I mean, didn’t people refer to a ‘Great Game’ at one point in history...?

Quite right. History has often been referred to as a game, but usually within the context of certain situations and events. There is no rulebook that tells humans what the final Victory Condition is. Nor is there a set time limit on when that condition might be met. People of faith have their own versions of what the final victory condition might be. Socialists have another. Racists have their view and freedom loving people have their view. But humans never entered the 'Great Game' in agreement on what final victory was. Humans make up the rules as they go and like any other organism on Earth, go with whatever works at the time.

 

[acluewithout]

Does a ‘game’ - by definition - actually doesn’t have to have a victory condition? Hmm.

I looked at the OECD, and it refers to just ‘An activity that one engages in for amusement or fun.’, but does go on to say ‘ A form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules.’ I’m not sure.

If I play ‘let’s pretend’ with a child, is that not a game even though there is no way to ‘win’? If I play fetch with a dog, is that not a game? Is the win condition ‘dog brings back stick’?

I’m really not sure a ‘game’ requires a win condition to be a game, but as a matter of strict semantics perhaps I’m wrong about that...

Sorry, I’m probably not helping you take this paradox point forward very much. I guess I just don’t see any ‘paradox’.

To me, Civ is a lot like an RPG - except my ‘player character’ is a nation not a specific person. Just like an RPG you can sort of ‘win’, but the win is very arbitrary and meaningless, you can completely ignore if you wish (ie the game is not competitive) and basically secondary to the things you did along the way. I also don’t think Civ is a simulation in any real sense. At best, it’s a simulation of a particular view of history which is a complete fantasy anyway.

 

[Karpius]

I’m really not sure a ‘game’ requires a win condition to be a game, but as a matter of strict semantics perhaps I’m wrong about that...

Sorry, I’m probably not helping you take this paradox point forward very much. I guess I just don’t see any ‘paradox’.

Yes, there can be broader uses of the word 'game', but semantics aside, Civilization6 is an 'activity' where one can choose to pursue predefined, official Victory Conditions that require competing against the AI (or multiplayer) in a measurable way. The paradox, to me at least, is that one might choose to do what you described below....

you can completely ignore if you wish (ie the game is not competitive) and basically secondary to the things you did along the way.

Playing to 'win' is contradictory to playing without concern for what is defined as a 'win'....hence, a paradox. But I find it to be an amazing and wonderful paradox!

 

[Forster]

Using a score for victory condition seems a valid way to determine which civ wins. I would like to see the option of either the score at the end of a selected number of turns or when a civ reaches a selected score.

 

[Karpius]

Using a score for victory condition seems a valid way to determine which civ wins. I would like to see the option of either the score at the end of a selected number of turns or when a civ reaches a selected score.

It is certainly quite valid and important for those who want to know the score. It also quite unnecessary to those for whom a score is irrelevant to what they are doing.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I am missing something, I guess. I still don't understand the reason you are talking about.

Sorry, I misread your first post. :/

They stopped using them because people ended up not liking them and complained when they got bad events. I think the same thing would happen again. We'd get all sorts of comments beforehand from people about how they want negative events like that; but when rubber met road, most players would feel as if RNG were conspiring against them just as they do with bad map gens (and the almost invariable reroll game right after). You'll probably never see barbarians popping out of goodie huts either, and for similar reasons.

 

[Forster]

It is true that a score is irrelevant for those who want a different victory condition, but since you can disable different conditions, I would like to see it available for those that want it.

Your statement on unwanted random events is not something I feel a valid reason for not having them. People complain all the time about events they don't like. I feel that certain types of events ought to be optional the way barbarians are now. To me it is confusing with the number people that complain the game is too easy, or boring in the later periods, you would think random events would help remove some of the boredom as well as complicate things for a civ. I would like volcanoes, tsunamis, and plagues to be in the game. I have to admit, the only thing I am really unhappy about is barb spam close to your first city. One or to camps seems reasonable, but four camps, two of which are horse camps, and the fact that they spawn like every other turn, can pretty much ruin any chance you have. I would be more accepting of a volcano blowing my initial city away because then I can restart a new game right away rather than fighting barbs for the first 50 or so turns building nothing but units to fight. With volcanoes you can move your settler away from the danger area. A super volcano should affect all civs within a certain range and might not start visible. It should also affect all civs globally as far as the temperature (sun covered by ash in the air), poor food production and lesser food from camps. I think it would be interesting playing in such an environment.

 

[sixty4half]

We all want something and the opinions of those that disagree often don't make sense to us.

 

[God of Kings]

There are two main types of players: those who play to have fun and those who play to win.

I play Civ to have fun, because I know that I cannot beat players who consistently win on the Deity difficulty properly. However, I also play to win, which is why I primarily play in difficulties in which I know I would win.

R&F has the Timeline feature, which facilitates storytelling.

Civ does a great job at accommodating both player types.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It is true that a score is irrelevant for those who want a different victory condition, but since you can disable different conditions, I would like to see it available for those that want it.

Your statement on unwanted random events is not something I feel a valid reason for not having them. People complain all the time about events they don't like. I feel that certain types of events ought to be optional the way barbarians are now. To me it is confusing with the number people that complain the game is too easy, or boring in the later periods, you would think random events would help remove some of the boredom as well as complicate things for a civ. I would like volcanoes, tsunamis, and plagues to be in the game. I have to admit, the only thing I am really unhappy about is barb spam close to your first city. One or to camps seems reasonable, but four camps, two of which are horse camps, and the fact that they spawn like every other turn, can pretty much ruin any chance you have. I would be more accepting of a volcano blowing my initial city away because then I can restart a new game right away rather than fighting barbs for the first 50 or so turns building nothing but units to fight. With volcanoes you can move your settler away from the danger area. A super volcano should affect all civs within a certain range and might not start visible. It should also affect all civs globally as far as the temperature (sun covered by ash in the air), poor food production and lesser food from camps. I think it would be interesting playing in such an environment.

I'm up for random events but don't like the sound of an invisible super volcano. I would prefer a system that gave you a choice: settle next to a volcano and benefit from the fertile lands surrounding it (extra food yields on each tile) but run the risk of having your city destroyed, or forgo the extra growth and avoid the risk.

 

[LMT]

This is an interesting thread. Thanks, OP and all those who have commented above.

As someone who has played since Civ II, I can say that I finish many more games of Civ 6 compared to 5. And I finished more games of 5 compared to 4 and so on. Why is that? It may be because as I grow older, I have more free time (though I'm not sure that's true).

But it may also be because the games have become more engaging, with more options of how to develop your civilization. Yes, it seems like the optimal strategy to win any victory type is build a large army early and take out a neighbor. But once that is done, there are many different ways to proceed. And really, you can play peacefully and win on all but the higher difficulty levels.

I think the developers have done a reasonably good job of expanding and changing the game over the years to have me continuously engaged in it. Yes, there have been periods when I don't play for weeks (or months) at a time. But there's something that always brings me back. My guess is that it's a decent balance between a strategy game and a historical simulation with a large variety of options on how to play..

It's neither a perfect strategy game nor historical simulation and it never will be incredible at either of these as long as it tries to be both of them. But I don't mind this because if it tried to be more of one at the expense of the other, I doubt it would maintain my interest for years on end.

So some ideas for improvement...

I wouldn't mind seeing random disasters again (e.g., volcanoes, earthquakes, etc), but they couldn't be so overwhelming as to destroy most of your civilization. I do like the idea of new civs spawning from the ashes of ones that have been destroyed. And I wouldn't mind the return of barbarians being able to take over cities. Maybe these barbarian cities could evolve into free cities. And if enough of them occurred in any area, they cold evolve into a loose confederation, forming a new civ. And maybe bring back the world congress in some form?

Anyway, I guess my point is that minor tweaks, interspersed with major game changes, have kept Civ fresh for me. I hope it never becomes too much of a game or too much of a sandbox. Just give me lots of options as to how gamey or sandboxy I can play it.