There is no strategy involved

Bobolove

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
31
I remember back in the day where whole idea behind the Civ was to expand and fight. Good times. Especially civ 2/3. But now its just a whole bunch of micromanaging that really kind of a throw the game in opposite direction of what it was.

The best part of civ6 is the early game. By a mile. You have to make important decisions on where to settle, which tiles to improve, what units to build, what direction to expand to etc. All very important military and progressive decisions.

But at some point, during the game, everything becomes a click-feast-party. The actions you choose are so minimalistic to the whole game that it really doesn't matter weather you build this or that. Sure there is some strategical options, but for the most part, regardless of what kind of a victory you are after, its basicly just spamming everything you can.

So this was bothering me and I got the storms DLC because I was kind of a hopeful it would add important things to the game. Unfortunetely the storms DLC (that everybody says its good), its annoyance from one part to another. The weather effects really have no real effects on the game. And the idea behind the world summit, although good, its total waste of time. Haveing 5 different ways of a power plant doesnt add anything important to the game. Its just annoyance and take away the focus from empire and fighting.

So I was thinking about why this is and I believe its just because there is so much stuff in the game. I cant even move my units 3 times before new tech is researched, new civic pops up, new units are build. And so you kind of a feel this clickly need to click click click and improve improve improve cities over and over again, while core play is something you try to do in between.

And Ive tried marathon and everything. Its still goes way too fast thru the ages.

So now I just play the start and build up my empire to certain point and start over. Because after that point, the winning is given.

So my tips for Civ 7 are:
- Make choosing which tiles to upgrade a real challange.
- Remove useless civics
- make world summit have real effects on the game
- ai needs better fight mechanics (you can literally declare war and then just wait as opponent sends one unit after another into a wall and loses all of them and then you simply march over him when he has no units left)
- If you are a warmonger, make several civs fight you from different sides.
- make weather effects be a real consideration for where you put your cities or districts. (right now, I really dont care where I plant my cities. builders repair that in no time.)
- make builder have less charges as a way to combat (upgrade everything mania)
- that archeology stuff needs to go. civ is a empire and fight game, not sim city beautification game. Or at least just make a building for acheology and let it add x amount of stuff to your nation. Going around digging stuff really isnt what Civ was about.

..and more. But most importantly make it so decisions have a certain effect on the game. Right now every of my cities always gets all the districs, and all the buildings, regardless of wether they need it or not. Because the upgrades are so fast and you can acually get everything. How about slowing down building progress and then choosing what cities to make into what and how to focus and mange your production capabilities. You know, the strategy part of the game. And strategy is lacking big time here. Like I said, the start of the game is very strategic in nature and fighting can be very strategic. But everything else is a click-feast-party.

tl:dr; buhu, I didn't like the game
 
Civ has been about more than empire and fight since at least as far back as the culture, and even science wins were added.

It should stay more than empire and fight, and add more to those sides so they are not limited to building things.

Archaeology was not the best way to do it, but the warmongering impulse to want to reduce everything else in the game to “just build buildings” does not a better civ game make.
 
EXterminate is only one of four 'X's in 4X games. Removing the other three is not Progress. Ideally, to keep such games separate from simple Combat Games, equal weight in mechanics and importance should be given to all 4 'X'es. That's not easy, and the difficulty is the root of many of the problems with Civ - and other more recent attempts at the 4X genre, none of which have gotten the balance any better . . .
 
It should stay more than empire and fight, and add more to those sides so they are not limited to building things.

"Staying more than Empire-building" doesn't mean denying Empire-building fully. Maybe that's me who has never played Civ5-6 correctly, but I did notice there was something lacking regarding Empire-building in those, preventing them to grow as "epic" as their predecessors.
 
"Staying more than Empire-building" doesn't mean denying Empire-building fully. Maybe that's me who has never played Civ5-6 correctly, but I did notice there was something lacking regarding Empire-building in those, preventing them to grow as "epic" as their predecessors.
To my tastes, Civ5 was especially frustrating for discouraging empire building. Coming from my Civ3 games where I had 40 cities (founded and conquered), managing a 4 city Tradition game seemed downright puny.

Civ6 has done better in recapturing the scope of my Civ3 empires. Yes, the AI seems to content itself with 7 or 8 cities many times. But I can work my way to a 20 or 30 city empire, with some warmongering. With many more wonders to build and districts to locate, my empire looks more robust.
 
The problem OP has is not “other victory conditions exist” it’s Late Game Fatigue because Civ6 is a giant ball of minimaxing micro combined with the fact that there is zero anti snowball mechanics other than Grievances, which are neutered by the awfull AI.
 
The problem OP has stated is that they think mechanisms that let you control aspects of your empire other than expansion and fighting detract from the game.

I couldn't disagree more profoundly.
 
To quote the OP: "Civ is an empire and fight game . . ."

By my count, that's only one of the four Xs in 4X games.

It is perfectly acceptable to regard Civ as a purely 'empire and fight' game, but it's a gross simplification and underestimation of the game.

And at the time and ground scale of Civ, grossly inaccurate. All the battles, sieges and field campaigns in history would take about 4 Ancient Turns in Civ (160 years) if they were carried out with no breaks. What are you going to do for the other 496 planned turns in the game?

I would rather hope (and the OP does touch on some of this) for an expansion of all aspects of the game:
Better Combat System
Better system of Improvements, Districts, and general City Building
Better diplomatic system, including (or Excluding) some kind of World Congress
Better economic system, with a really integrated Trade and Resource system to drive it.
Better 'peripheral' systems: religion, espionage, culture/archeology, Great People and other 'named' creatures

Making a Really Good game in regard to only 25% of the game's stated scope (4x) seems to me to be a recipe for Failure in Game Design that has the deadly potential to appeal to only 25% of the intended (and paying!) audience. Far better to improve, in some way, ALL of the 4Xs, knowing, of course, that you will never satisfy 100% of the paying customers completely, but striving to at least somewhat satisfy the majority, or at least give them all some reason to consider buying the game . . .
 
I'll quibble just a bit, to say that "empire and fight" is two of the X's ... eXpand and eXterminate. In all the other points Boris makes, I agree.
 
I'll quibble just a bit, to say that "empire and fight" is two of the X's ... eXpand and eXterminate. In all the other points Boris makes, I agree.
Stipulating that by manipulating Loyalty and/or spamming Settlers you can Expand without Exterminating, I'll grant that "empire and fight" could cover two of the 4Xs.

But except as a Batting Average, .5 is not great, and not normally something to strive for . . .
 
Make the game less clicky by reducing builder charges? Doesn't that make it more clicky? Personally I want the immortal workers back so I can set them to do something and forget
 
Stipulating that by manipulating Loyalty and/or spamming Settlers you can Expand without Exterminating, I'll grant that "empire and fight" could cover two of the 4Xs.

But except as a Batting Average, .5 is not great, and not normally something to strive for . . .
It also includes the exploit part. As every serious empire builder knows developing the economy is of the utmost importance since it is the chief weapon you beat up your enemies with.
 
If thats the case it includes the eXplore part too, can't empire build if you can't see where to do it!
 
Make the game less clicky by reducing builder charges? Doesn't that make it more clicky? Personally I want the immortal workers back so I can set them to do something and forget

Let use purchase tile improvements and it gets even less clicky
 
Top Bottom