1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Time to retire "Tall vs Wide" for "Peace vs War"?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Trav'ling Canuck, May 29, 2018.

  1. EgonSpengler

    EgonSpengler Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    6,471
    Gender:
    Male
    Nice idea. What if War Weariness and Loyalty affected unit strength in the field somehow? We see instances of armies that are good "on paper" but fold up like a lawn chair when they get shot at, because they have no esprit de corps, or aren't being paid enough, or just don't give a crap. And we see the reverse, as you say, when a seemingly outclassed army can walk its own terrain blindfolded, gets help from the civilian population, or is inspired to fight like the devil.
     
  2. ChocolateShake

    ChocolateShake Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2016
    Messages:
    525
    Gender:
    Male
    I think a big part as to why war is better than peace at the moment is due to the state of the AI. If you build an effective strike force, the AI won't be able to repel it. Loyalty slowed this down a bit by forcing you to capture multiple cities at once, but I don't think that's an effective or fun way to address the strength of warmongering after playing a game as the Mongols and going on a war spree. If the AI could backstab you effectively or cause you to care a lot more about your planning, things could swing in favor of peace. Not by much but it'd still be something.

    War would be far costlier if you had a risk to lose more than 1-2 units during your invasion of a neighboring empire. I think like @EgonSpengler mentioned, there should be a morale effect.

    There are other ideas too like supply. Rise of Nations had a lot of interesting ideas like attrition, where your units would slowly take damage per time when in enemy borders without a supply unit. At present this could be tedious though as it'd just be an inconvenience, but with a strong AI it could be fun to see them try to pick off your supply units and vice versa.
     
    ZubieMaster likes this.
  3. BTSeven7

    BTSeven7 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Gender:
    Male
    That's probably a good quote. I don't know of any game with a smart community like Civ where the AI is still outplaying everyone or hasn't been exposed. Besides the AI war machine has been taken on by how many players over how many hours? How good you think your game would be under that kind of exposure?

    War is the easiest path to victory for Civ 6 for better or worse. We know how to beat the AI at it. No matter what they do, we will figure out how to beat them. Chances are the only interesting games are games where you make mistakes and play it out. If you want something different that's why it's modded. Now, the discussion of opening things up to Modders more is probably a better one. Sure Firaxis could "do its job" but its job is to sell video games to a mass market.

    You're going to have to make a few house rules and maybe use a few mods to get the experience you want just right. The base game can definitely improve (i.e. bugs are annoying), I wish they hot fixed major exploits more often for sure but the pace at which they do major changes seems about right (4-6 months). War in Civ6 is fun, peaceful play is fun, sandbox play is fun. Open minded tweaks are best for the game from Firaxis' point of view and interesting mechanics that change the game every year are probably best.

    They need to open the game more to modders and possibly even introduce paid mods (I know insane and upsetting) that allow people to improve the game for hardcore players.
     
  4. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,361
    Also, for fun. I'd love to capture a tonne of cities, and then have to fight to maintain their loyalty! It really should be harder to hold conquered cities. And there should be knock on consequences for the rest of your empire.

    Stepping back a bit, I think Civ has all the pieces it needs to make war v peace more balanced. It just needs some work. Loyalty in particular is not yet pulling its weight here, nor is war weariness. Improving the AI really is just one aspect of all this, and not the be all to end all.
     
  5. Lily_Lancer

    Lily_Lancer Deity

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,279
    Location:
    Berkeley,CA
    I'd like to say about some mechanics in Civ6
    1: Chopping. In Civ6 chopping yields 10 times more than in Civ4 or 5, making most of your production actually comes from chopping and overflow instead of turn-based production, so Civ6 is a game for chopping trees and harvesting resources. The more you chop/harvest decides your efficiency.
    2: Linear district yield/amenity setting, this makes every point of production value almost the same instead of varying a lot.
    This is important since in Civ4 or 5 buildings always produce +% yield so that production in big cities become more efficient in some situations. Also, every point of amenity only influence % yield of a single city instead of your whole country. Suppose you have 30 cities and -60 amenity, that's not a thing in Civ6 and you grow normally with -5%/10% yield in every city, but in Civ5 even -20 make your whole country tough with -40%/100% yield and constant rebellion.
    In Civ6 production value almost the same so that the goal is to get as more production as possible.
    3: Combine 1 and 2 the best solution is to get as much trees as possible. AI cities have border growth bonus and usually have a lot of trees/resources and you get them for free. Also building settlers to settle in places with a lot of trees is never a bad choice.
     
  6. manarod

    manarod Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Messages:
    92
    Location:
    italy
    For me the great problems are the cost of units and the free healing of units. I never saw a game where two armies fight and the one that wins lose anything. In a game like stellaris when the winning army lose like 90% power you have to repair it, the same goes for heroes of might and magic or in civ4 where armies where composed by multiple units. In civ6 the winning unit is fixed free and very quick too in the enemy territory while in the other games that army have to retreat.
     
    tzu, eleven11 and acluewithout like this.
  7. Flaxton

    Flaxton Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    153
    Location:
    London
    If they just added increasing penalties to loyalty and amenities for having more cities (reduced by later governments or specific government buildings). If fact exceeding your limit a lot means rebel troops automatically appearing when a city is conquered would help a lot. War wariness as discussed should be harsher (although this in turn would make Gandhi and Alexander more powerful.) Perhaps also increase trade routes returns according to the size of the city, thereby allowing 'tall' to accelerate somewhat whilst meaning that would be an amenity issue for wide.

    Also remove heals on promotions.. Upgrading should only happen in an encampment with the appropriate level of building (i.e. tanks require a military academy, not a barracks!).

    This would reduce speed of the war blitzkrieg, increase unrest, reduce efficiency through unhappy cities and force warmongers to use government building to maintain the core empire, instead of solid bonuses. An unhappy large empire could be brought down easily then by a few strategic luxury pillages.
     
  8. Flaxton

    Flaxton Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    153
    Location:
    London
    And another thing, nerf chopping according to era, chopping trees should not mean you get a spaceport quicker! Trees: Ancient, Classical and Medieval, Stone until Industrial. Copper - entire game. Factories need to be buffed (like +1 production per citizen), for obvious tall production bonuses.
     
    eleven11 likes this.
  9. sixty4half

    sixty4half Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    Messages:
    405
    It also doesn't help that the AI appears to avoid chopping except for district placement. Usually there are 2-5 forest/jungle tiles in a newly conquered city. As soon as I take a city, I have 2 new units popping out within the next 5 turns. It just leads to more and easier warmongering.

    I like the Unrest state conquered cities had in CiV where you couldn't do a thing with them for as many turns as they had population left.
     
    Trav'ling Canuck likes this.
  10. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,932
    Gender:
    Male
    That's an interesting thing, though. I think the development team may have been sucked into thinking that tall vs wide was still a useful dichotomy in Civ 6. I'm not sure it is.

    I'd say that there are two tier 1 government plaza options for peaceful play, and one option for war; or, alternatively, one for peace, one for war, and one hybrid.

    If playing peaceful, you need to decide if you're going to have enough space and time to make full use of the Ancestral Hall. That would be the ideal choice to get self-founded cities up running as quickly as possible. If not, then the Audience Chamber will at least provide benefits for the full game. The decision about which to choose isn't really about what type of game you want to play - it's more about whether Ancestral Hall will pay for itself or not on your map.

    If playing all out aggressively, you don't need more cities than the ones you conquer, and Warlord's Throne is clearly best. Maybe, on a sliding scale, if you're making war early and then switching to peace, Ancestral Hall could work, too, because you'll have carved out a big territory and it lets you fill that void faster.
     
  11. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,932
    Gender:
    Male
    If I thought for a moment that this could even remotely be balanced within the Civ system and not befuddle the AI, I would love to see this! I can't imagine a better way to reflect the true vagrancies of war than to have the effectiveness of your front line troops vary with their morale, which in turn depends on the state of your empire. Civ should be the perfect vehicle for depicting this, since as you point out as it's systems cover loyalty, amenities, war weariness, etc., but as a practical matter, tying them all together in a balanced way at this point in the development cycle would be more work than the development team could possibly justify, I'm sure. Great idea, though!
     
  12. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,361
    @Trav'ling Canuck It's interesting Warlords Throne is tied to conquering cities rather that declaring war... Fits you idea about capturing cities v not capturing cities very well.
     
  13. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,716
    Tall vs wide was a cancer concept from day 0. Interesting choices in the game are largely those that influence the outcome of the game. By creating a model where avoiding rather than pursuing conflict offers greater rewards, you necessarily cut into choices as your decision points involving interaction with opposition are necessarily less.

    For a game that allows war to be a good game, it's hard to get away from a setup where war is riskier than peace but more lucrative/contributes more towards winning when successful.
     
  14. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,932
    Gender:
    Male
    [QUOTE="TheMeInTeam, post: 15140862, member: 136315"it's hard to get away from a setup where war is riskier than peace but more lucrative/contributes more towards winning when successful.[/QUOTE]

    Is war currently riskier than peace? If so, do you think the balance is right as things are now, i.e. are the benefits appropriate relative to the amount of risk involved?
     
  15. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,716
    Is war currently riskier than peace? If so, do you think the balance is right as things are now, i.e. are the benefits appropriate relative to the amount of risk involved?[/QUOTE]

    When everyone is actually playing civ 6, war is riskier than peace in civ 6. When you have fewer of your military resources near your cities, your cities are at greater risk than they would be otherwise.

    There is no credible case that the typical AI choices in civ 6 are attempting to optimize a victory condition, so SP considerations are completely out when considering if present benefits are appropriate. What does competitive MP data suggest? I'd rather see people fight than everyone turtle until nukes and win on land spawn RNG.
     
  16. Uncle_Joe

    Uncle_Joe Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Simple fact is that most players want the benefit of conquest and amassing a huge empire but they don't want the penalties or difficulties of trying to administer such an empire.

    All previous attempts to introduce drag mechanics have been decried by the majority of the player base as 'un-fun' and eventually removed in later editions (Corruption, Science Penalty, Global Happiness, etc).

    Let's face it, most of the 'Great Empires' in history have been forged by conquest. At the very least each throughout history has had to defend itself from outside (and inside!) aggression. And each in turn has eventually fallen. But in the game, players would not tolerate having their empire 'fall'. So the benefits for conquest can't be high as they were in reality to balance out.

    In any case, as mentioned, the AI's inability to defend is part of the issue but to me one of the bigger issues is that the AI does not seem to realize benefits of conquest either so it's amazingly passive past any initial rush (at least where the player is concerned).
     
    Stringer1313 likes this.
  17. Kyro

    Kyro Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    What you're just summarized is the very definition of a war game, which Civilization is not.

    It is still however a competition and what may I ask is the greatest edge a player can possibly get in any competition? Better opportunities? Greater Advantages?

    No the greatest edge in a competition is the very removal of the competition itself, although in many sports that would be deemed as cheating, for various reasons you could consider yourself.

    That in itself would have sufficed as conquering's only reward for the greater risks it presents. It is worth noting though that the cheapness of current units thanks to policy cards and state of AI really offers a risk-free opportunity without opportunity costs. That's not where it stops though; the benefits go on to the extent of overpaying that risk to ridiculous margins.

    Turtling in Civ 6 should be given honour equivalent to that of all out offensives , not shame like it is viewed in war games. Not doing so would be to imply that warmongers are more skillful than the peacemakers and that is making a mockery of what Civilization encompasses.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2018
  18. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,454
    Location:
    Toronto
    Yes, it's true, it's a game that people don't want to lose, but if they could bring in a mechanism that allows moderated expansion through war that you can overcome, that would be fine.

    Like, for example, civ 4 had a decent enough mechanic where you simply had very high maintenance costs for captured cities. So as long as you're keeping your economy running, you can conquer. But I know at least a few games where I would too quickly take out an AI, and my economy simply crashed afterwards and ended up with all my units disbanded. Whether the current game did something similar with amenities or loyalty or what, basically there needs to be something that costs you for going on a big capturing rampage.

    As to the AI, they're just dumb sometimes. Like, in my last game, I went to war with Genghis in an emergency, and he decided to send like a knight and a horseman to go after one of my cities. Maybe he sent more, but he walked them through the English, who he was at war with. Had he consolidated his units, he probably could have actually taken out more English cities en route, but he sent enough that I had to upgrade a unit and move some crossbows around, but not enough to even think about taking a city. So yeah, not sure if it was incompetent AI or some bad decision making, but it means when I actually sent my troops to his lands, he didn't have many units left for me to worry about.
     
    tzu likes this.
  19. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,716
    No, it is. It might purport otherwise, but until the mechanical tradeoffs actually *function* otherwise it's a lie. The only way any non-war victory condition is relevant to a civ 6 game where all competitors are trying is to break what is essentially a military tie. Even that is questionable, because it's pretty darned hard to operate a sustained defensive against nukes.

    Exactly right, and in the case of civ 6 considering this "cheating" without extra house rules in place would be inane. Knowing this, how is it not a war game again?

    Lose an offensive war against a human player while other human players want your cities and try demonstrating such a scenario has "zero risk". Such an assertion is not consistent with reality.

    In a game where you have competitors and a winner, doing nothing is not worthy of "honor" nor is it conducive to meaningful interactions between players. It's degenerate design and it's part of the reason Civ 5 was crappy. Rewards were not consummate with risks...heck winning could penalize you outright even with outlier-cost effectiveness in military performance (IE fast wars where attacker loses nothing). That design is not something to be given honor, it's something to hold in disdain.

    I would rather an alleged "mockery of what civilization encompasses" (nevermind what historical parallels there are to make such an assertion) than to make a mockery of reality. In reality, who has better outcomes and more control over attaining a victory condition: warmongers or "peacemakers"? Which approach is more predictive of success in Civ 6?

    And aside from success, what measure would one use to evaluate "skill"? If one guy wins 80% of the time and the other 50% of the time, concluding the former is more skillful is the outcome of basic reasoning given evidence.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2018
  20. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,361
    The issue really isn’t “should war be nerfed”. It’s “is how war [not war] works now actually fun?”.

    I don’t think the current meta is that fun.

    War is not fun, because (1) capturing cities is too easy and there’s not much variety in how you do it (basically, either Knight rush or Sword rush; loyalty flipping isn’t much of a strategy really) (2) capturing cities is OP, so the rest of the game is not challenging enough, (3) capturing cities doesn’t lead to more interesting game play (eg you basically get cut out of the diplomacy game, and there is no “challenge” from holding all your new cities together).

    But Peace is also boring. You often can’t expand peacefully, because your home continent is too crowded, and by the time you can settle off continent it doesn’t provide enough benefit to be worth doing (see the “it’s all about the map” thread), there’s again no challenge managing your existing empire (see the “lots of government but not governance” thread and the “Industrial Revolution” thread), and there’s no other good ways to interact with other Civs other than war and conquest (eg no vassal states) and no one to interact with really other than the other civs (see the map thread again).

    Less War is not (necessarily) the solution. You don’t have to nerf war to make the game more fun (and indeed just merging war alone isn’t a solution anyway). Instead, any of the following would could make the game more fun: (1) make conquest more challenging (not just harder) and so more fun (which probably requires better AI); (2) make holding and managing captured cities more challenging (not just harder), so what happens after the war is more interesting; (3) make managing your empire more interesting overall; (4) create new and more involved vectors for interacting with the AI; and or (5) improve more of the role playing elements, so they can pick up some of the entertainment slack if the game isn’t otherwise challenging enough.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2018

Share This Page