This game is way too simplistic

Victoria said:
I am not so convinced.
They are mechanics that counteract each other to what end, just oh no I'm getting dirty so let's upgrade that?
The implementation of 2 mechanics to facilitate a single role play feature?
Click to expand...

ideally, they should interact in meaningful ways. in the early era, you can chop woods and make mines in their place, for an equal production and an immediate cog boost. only exception is along rivers, where you will want to buil sawmills and get their extra +1 near river. with a pollution mechanic, chopping woods become a more meaningful decision, as your city will lose some food over it. in the industriall age, pollution will still start to kick off, and you may choose to go all-polluted or to try and hold back somewhat. in more recent eras, you'll get the capacity to mitigate pollution, but you'lll have to choose if you want to focus on them or on the closer victory condition. In general, pollution should be a long-term problem. easy to ignore at first, but becoming more and more of a pain the farther it goes. preventing pollution would be expensive, but with long-term benefits. and the more you wait to implement it, the more it will be expensive. so there would be some who may pollute and reap the immediate benefits with the hope to snowball and get enough goods later that they will let them fix their pollution, with interest (this gameplay mechanic is actually similar to that of some economists arguing that market economy and technological progress will take care of pollution on its own, and has contact points with those who suggest megaprojects to fix the environment, like throwing dust in the atmosphere to cool off the planet). Or one may take the other way, have a slower currve, but reap the benefits later. It would add more decisions, if made correctly.
And hey, if you want to look at it like that, religion is the implementation of a lot of mechanics that have little contact with the rest of the game just to have an additional victory condition.
 
Ron Wee said:
Barbarians is a pain in the ass. Should not be in the game.
Click to expand...
lol. You need a challenging common threat out there to stop the AI from rexing all over the place and to give players something to coordinate on. Barbs force us to keep our guards up and help prevent us from falling into the noob trap of not building units early. They're an annoyance that depends on a skilled player to manage. Natural disasters are an annoyance that is skill independent. Also, I don't know about you, but living on a slowly dying world gets really depressing sometimes. I'd rather not have to deal with that in my recreation time too.

bbbt said:
I think 'global warming' would be interesting less as a 'your plains turn to desert' game mechanic, and more as the possible 'victory condition' for the diplomatic victory. It's not enough that you get votes - you have to get their science up, fund clean energy implementation, etc.
Click to expand...

Now I like this. Something similar to Endless Legend's quest victory. Obviously the district system shows that they're taking tips from that game, and I like the idea of coordinating international efforts to stop the world's death contrary to the self interest of individual civs. Problem is, no one wants to sacrifice their economic growth to save their grandchildren, why would anyone in civ want to sacrifice resources so that one of their rivals can win the game?

Sounds like OP has a political axe to grind. Everything is becoming so nasty and segregated these days, do we really need all that r/kotakuinaction drama about our community because we took the game in a blatantly political direction?
 
@Ron Wee: "This game is way too simplistic"

Also from Ron Wee:

"Are districts functional when placed outside the 3 hexes radius?"
"Which resources are hidden?"
"Questions about victory types"
"How do I tell cities to stop growing?"

Mate, I know sometimes with some of your cheeky posts you are taking the piss/trying to start a conversation controversially. But you weren't in these posts above; and the questions are very basic in the sense that (1) most of us would play the game for a bit to find out before asking on a forum and (2) many of these things are the same as they were in previous versions of Civ. With that in mind...I don't think any complaint of yours that the game is "way too simplistic" should be given the time that it already has. I'm not saying you are wrong to ask basic questions...I am saying you can't have it both ways.
 
MantaRevan said:
Also, I don't know about you, but living on a slowly dying world gets really depressing sometimes. I'd rather not have to deal with that in my recreation time too.
Click to expand...
How about fixing a slowly dying world? that's something I'd rather have to deal with in my recreation time.

it all depends on how the mechanics are handled. it is particularly paramount that you can actually do something about it. In civ4, global warming turned your tiles to desert, and there was nothing to do about it. bad. on the other hand, green faces curtailed your city's growth, but you could do something about them, so that was good.
 
.... so you get pollution from chopping wood? I mean Really?

king of nowhere said:
ideally, they should interact in meaningful ways. in the early era, you can chop woods and make mines in their place, for an equal production and an immediate cog boost. only exception is along rivers, where you will want to buil sawmills and get their extra +1 near river. with a pollution mechanic, chopping woods become a more meaningful decision, as your city will lose some food over it. in the industriall age, pollution will still start to kick off, and you may choose to go all-polluted or to try and hold back somewhat. in more recent eras, you'll get the capacity to mitigate pollution, but you'lll have to choose if you want to focus on them or on the closer victory condition. In general, pollution should be a long-term problem. easy to ignore at first, but becoming more and more of a pain the farther it goes. preventing pollution would be expensive, but with long-term benefits. and the more you wait to implement it, the more it will be expensive. so there would be some who may pollute and reap the immediate benefits with the hope to snowball and get enough goods later that they will let them fix their pollution, with interest (this gameplay mechanic is actually similar to that of some economists arguing that market economy and technological progress will take care of pollution on its own, and has contact points with those who suggest megaprojects to fix the environment, like throwing dust in the atmosphere to cool off the planet). Or one may take the other way, have a slower currve, but reap the benefits later. It would add more decisions, if made correctly.
And hey, if you want to look at it like that, religion is the implementation of a lot of mechanics that have little contact with the rest of the game just to have an additional victory condition.
Click to expand...
 
Pollution from chopping might be analagous to increased runoff and erosion ? Just a thought. I would imagine it's the difference between having a sawmill working away log by log, versus clear felling a whole forest coup for quick woodchip money.
 
Ron Wee said:
Devs should stop dumbing it down, stuffs like Nationality and Pollution were in previous game, they should improve them instead of removing them.

If Pollution is a pain in the ass, then why the heck do we need "Religions"? Religious units keep flooding my city, it's annoying af. A real pain in the ass.
Click to expand...

I would also like to see nationality & pollution & I also would lump religion together with modern ideology & make a single mechanic out of it. However,
the devs placed another emphasis which of course also reflects the real world. I also feel "religious units flodding my cities" annoying. But that's just
what happens in the real world right now so it is understandable that they focused on implementing religion & not so much on pollution.
 
I think the biggest problem with pollution is hat it only effects the very last part of the game. Yes, it probably starts in the Industrial era but it doesn't particularly affect anything until the Information era at which point someone has probably already won. I'd rather see mechanics for Nationalism, Colonies or Social Classes than have something to deal with that's biggest advantage is that I see a smaller disadvantage.

If they add a future era I think pollution/global warming becomes a necessary part of the game but I'd rather not see that for other reasons.
 
Victoria said:
.... so you get pollution from chopping wood? I mean Really?
Click to expand...
the ancient romans chopped all trees in central italy. forests never recovered. now we have erosion and flooding problems up to this day which we wouldn't have if we had more forests. sahara desertification was mostly caused by changed in the north atlantic wheater systems, but it was aggravated by overgrazing. land deterioration, aggravated by human overexploitation, led to desertification and had contributed to the downfall of several large empires, including the romans.
so you can cut down on your sarcasm
 
king of nowhere said:
the ancient romans chopped all trees in central italy. forests never recovered. now we have erosion and flooding problems up to this day which we wouldn't have if we had more forests. sahara desertification was mostly caused by changed in the north atlantic wheater systems, but it was aggravated by overgrazing. land deterioration, aggravated by human overexploitation, led to desertification and had contributed to the downfall of several large empires, including the romans.
so you can cut down on your sarcasm
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the Italians have had plenty of time to replant a forest or three. Can't blame it all on the Romans! They've been gone 1500+ years now give or take.

Most of the forests in the South Island of New Zealand were burnt down a few hundred years ago, but the place is covered in forest today. Yes, to be fair, it's very sparsely populated compared to Italy; but wherever you set aside land, it can be done.
 
king of nowhere said:
so you can cut down on your sarcasm
Click to expand...
deforestation disaster is everywhere, the moors in England are also caused by it yes I know... but pollution?
In fact all human habitation causes what you say but to include it as a mechanic to slow the game down is not something everyone wants.
 
nzcamel said:
I'm pretty sure the Italians have had plenty of time to replant a forest or three. Can't blame it all on the Romans! They've been gone 1500+ years now give or take.

Most of the forests in the South Island of New Zealand were burnt down a few hundred years ago, but the place is covered in forest today. Yes, to be fair, it's very sparsely populated compared to Italy; but wherever you set aside land, it can be done.
Click to expand...
this is not an attempt at casting blame. yes, of course if the land had been uninhabited it would have recovered with time (why forests don't grow spontaneously anymore in the game, by the way?). In italy extensive agricolture is practiced everywhere the terrain is not too rugged, and this has benefits that are far greater than its drawbacks - we still need to grow food, after all. on the other hand, many recurring natural disasters could be avoided with a better land use; every autumn we get flooding somewhere, and every time there is a debate on who is the brain-dead moron who decided to build a town in the middle of where a stream should discharge, or how some more trees would have stabilized the terrain and avoided landslides; but there is never the political will to do much for the long term.
but we are really going offtopic here. the poiint is that overexploiting the land causes problems in the long run, and a generic "pollution" mechanic could be used to represent that.

Victoria said:
deforestation disaster is everywhere, the moors in England are also caused by it yes I know... but pollution?
In fact all human habitation causes what you say but to include it as a mechanic to slow the game down is not something everyone wants.
Click to expand...
"pollution" is a general term; distinguishing between soil poisoning, water poisoning, overfishing, soil depleting, desertification, plastic dump, radiocativiity and all other kind of possible contaminations is way too complex for our purposes here.
anyway, you would not like a pollution mechanic, I would like it if implemented properlym, and it all boils down to preferences. Can we just agree to disagree?
 
I think that regrowing forests aren't in the game anymore because, in Civ V, they were no more a straight up +1 production like in Civ IV, but instead gave +1 production -1 food (I do have that right, don't I?). In IV, a tile never got worse because of a forest growing, while in V, it just might. In VI, the system is similar to IV in that a forest just gives a straight +1, but they probably just didn't carry it over because it wasn't there in V.

Regarding forests, I would like to see a lot more forests in general, more in line with Civ IV, and on top of that a forest tile in Civ VI needs more trees because, well, right now it just doesn't look like a forest. Imo the only downside on the graphics. When I start up a game, I want to have a feeling like there's forests everywhere, and I'll have to start by cultivating the land.
 
This could be a mod thing. But otherwise I find it pointless in terms of how the game works. It would seem like an extra add on that would just ruin the game for some players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Quintillus
Today I Learned (about Civ3)
2 3
Replies
45
Views
3K
MrSweetchuck
M
C
playing earlier in the Phanerozoic
Replies
9
Views
735
civilizationfanatic2000
C
B
There is no strategy involved
Replies
13
Views
848
aieeegrunt
aieeegrunt
C
how to make significant disparities fun to play in?
Replies
6
Views
493
BuchiTaton
BuchiTaton
Lazy sweeper
  • Locked
Why I am still here (10 years+) New ideas to share?
16 17 18
Replies
354
Views
17K
Noble Zarkon
Noble Zarkon
Top Bottom