[R&F] Unenjoyable after Renaissance Era. Tips???

[eternalblue]

Hello fanatics,

I wanted to open a new thread, this time to talk about the late part experiences of CIV VI R&F. At the beggining when I start a CIV VI game I enjoy very much the first part: exploring the map, planning (wich city will be specialized in what..., what part to explore, deffending of barbarians, etc), the type of victory that I want to focus my civilization (going to a cultural, sicience, regligious or military), enjoying the tech tree and the civics tree, having contact with lots of barbarians and the first civs meeting, doing some trade, my first religion (if it's the case) etc. I like very much to feel the challenge, that I have in count the influence of the every era score in the ancient and classical part of the game, because I love to have a good start and, even if I'll fall in a dark age then just to work hard for a heroic age.

All those parts that I mentioned are making me to get very involved in the game having fun and a good experience, but after the renaissance era, I feel that the game is lowering its standards and without offering that "surprise" feel of doing something that actualy couts. After playing several games, I just notice the "snowball effect", that is unenjoyable not just because is there, but just because the late game is lacking in content, and I feel a boring repetition procees to finish the game in the fastest way possible. The lack of units types in the late game, the automated process of the cities (producing buildings just to see them there, because your city have all that it needs from the buildings of the previous eras), and the lack of exploration is just one of the parts that for me makes the game not so interesting in the late eras. In addition the "state of emergency" is just bad implemented in the game (just to have a game mechanic with the pretext to "unite the civs" and no other good idea is just bland), the governors are too overpowered ("fee loyalty + social policy" moving from city to city), and the great difference between techs and years (in 1820 I had modern era technology and units on the standard game pace, the AI with ancient walls and bowman). I just produce , produce for the sake of production because every part of the city have all that it needs, build new trade route, build, and thats all the city management... In the combat part I just stack 3 artilery units with a drone, 3 tanks units with the best promotion and a helicopter that moves fast on tiles, and I can destroy everything on the map taking minimal damage. And of course, if you can control half of the map in the industrial era you will just crush the AI in culture and religion because of the archeological sites that are abundand on the map, the culture that generates from all your cities with lots of great person points per turn, and the religion if you just buy temples in all the cities, monasteries or whatever to just produce and spread even more the religion with your apostoles.

So to conclude my opinion, you can just have all the victories asigned without much challenge, repeating a process again and again that it's not giving after the renaissance era satisfaction or new experiences with a fresh aproach, and after entering in the industrial era the game just tells you "finish me!!!".

For this reason I would like to see your opinions here about this late part of the game, and what do you think will be the necessary ways to improve the gameplay that finally can change the boring part after the renaissance era?

Thank you.

 

[Rosty K]

There were a few recent threads which ended up discussing this, though maybe with somewhat misleading titles. This one is a notable recent attempt: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civ-is-about-the-map-until-it-isn’t.632332/ . And this one had some of it too https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/can-we-reframe-the-ai-discussion.632372/ .

 

[Hammurabbit]

On a high level, I agree. The game gets less and less interesting and peaks around the time when you have discovered most of the world and settled the majority of you cities (and settling new cities means 20-40 turns of transportation). Of course, there is still a "one more turn"-feeling, but it's mostly because you want to see that wonder being built, or see how much production you can get. One of the few "triggers" for changing strategy are the new strategic resources, that may lead to new settlements or conquest.

With Hic Dracones + Statue of liberty I sometimes can revitalize my games, and settle some new cities (for more luxury / strategic resources or to base for an invasion).

A specifically agree that there is a lack of content for later eras. It's very much "more of the same". I think emergencies are a nice idea, but still have some way to go to be impactful. I'd love to see a second part of the game where diplomacy / alliances / joint wars, becomes a factor. Perhaps combined with other disrupting mechanics, such as internal wars splitting up empires. I also believe it could be interesting to be able to do more with copies of luxuries and strategic resources. For example, by having access to 4-5 uranium, you'd get some additional bonus for your space projects, which could incentivise even more conquest/settling, or change power balance, because some weaker civ happen to get access to more strategic resources.

 

[eleven11]

The AI needs to be improved across the board to make the late game more enjoyable. They need to improve their production tiles, build more units, use policy cards that make sense, and attack their victory condition more aggressively. Right now I'm in a deity game and am starting to pull away at 400BC. I destroyed Germany who overextended their warrior rush after downing 2 city states. They thought they could match me and my Pitati. The AI will be no match to me for the rest of the game... on Deity. And I'm not that great of a player.

I also think the mid and endgame need something new to keep it fresh.

 

[Rosty K]

Basically the trouble with the post-mid-game in Civ6 for me is that at that point there's almost nothing you (or the game) can do (or fail to do) to screw yourself up, while the early game offers plenty of such opportunities.

 

[bbbt]

The options at this point are to up the difficulty level (though that might make you enjoy early game less), or just do a 'late era start' from say industrial (which doesn't change anything fundamentally, but let's you enjoy some of the early era vibes like exploration but with late game units)

 

[Tech Osen]

It doesn't bother me as much as some of you but I understand what you're getting at. What I feel is lacking is a real impact of the Industrial Revolution. It's called a revolution for a reason. The invention of the steam engine, the petrol engine and flight should have a much more profound impact on the game. Now it's more like jay, a factory, three more cogs...

 

[Rosty K]

By the way, a simple trick could be reducing the turn limit (we can do that, if I remember correctly?). Cut it to say 2/3 or more of the default, so if you are runaway leader, there will be less clicking 'next turn' till the victory condition is met (just win on score), or if there's an AI that's doing better than average, there'll be a race against the clock near the end, which could make things slightly more entertaining, might even force you to embark on a late conquest...

I think I'm trying that for my next game.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

Part of it is definitely that the AI is not a threat by that time. If I don't get taken out or severely hampered by the time I hid the Medieval techs I'm pretty much good to go for the rest of the game. Even if an AI happens to beat me to an end game its still not fun because it's just a race to the top with little/no interaction.

But another part of it is that you really have nothing major to look forward to. Each tech is so incremental or the effects so muted that you just can't get excited to get there. For example you get to what should be an important discovery like Astronomy and do you get anything cool? Nope, just unlocks the Potato Palace ( ) which I know I'm not going to build anyways. And that is repeated for tech after tech...some minor unlock or wonder.

 

[shaglio]

There were a few recent threads which ended up discussing this, though maybe with somewhat misleading titles. This one is a notable recent attempt: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civ-is-about-the-map-until-it-isn’t.632332/ . And this one had some of it too https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/can-we-reframe-the-ai-discussion.632372/ .

Here's another one that I thought was more recent, but it slipped down to page 3 already:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/will-civ-ever-conquer-its-late-game-malaise.631255/

 

[UWHabs]

I think a big flaw is that as a builder, there's not a lot to do late. Cities seem to take forever to get online, and a new city will almost certainly never manage to catch up to an older city.

I wish there were more things to get done late in the game, and potentially more ways that things could change. Some options:
-Let me plant crops, like you can plant forests. So maybe there's a big plains section that's not settled. Fine. But if I can settle a new city and plant wheat on all those plains tiles, that gives a little extra food to get them going. And since it's "new", I'm more likely to be able to get farming triangles. You'd have to limit it - so somehow the game would have to know that a certain field was suitable for wheat, whereas another one was suitable for cows or sheep.
-Have more things that come with cities in the later eras. I mean, it's only 500 gold to buy the monument+granary, so that's not bad, but still feels like they should come free with every city settled after the, say, medieval era. I would even consider giving cities a free district if settled after the industrial era - or maybe a policy card to do that, instead of just giving bonus production and cheaper tile buying together?
-Have some game mechanisms that change over time. Part of the problem with the late game is that basically everything that's good late is also good early. So, for example, a mine is essentially always at least as good as a forest/lumber mill (unless riverside). So what that means is that a city that's a strong production city early will almost certainly still be a good production city late in the game too. But if there was some sort of game mechanism that changed over time, then the balance of power would shift. Another example could be something like a campus - if it actually changed adjacency bonuses over time, then there's a real decision there. So maybe early game mountains and jungle make sense, but maybe in the middle of the game it would lose some of those bonuses, and new adjacency bonuses could come into play. Then at least you have a legit decision about taking an early bonus, or maybe putting it in a better spot for later.
-Chopping - it makes for a bad mini-game where the decision whether to chop stops being a decision. Early game, there's a legit argument - that 1 production from trees may actually be a tile that I'm using, and debating getting 40 hammers now vs saving the tree for later is a tough call. But in the late game, 150 production right now, or save that tree for what? A little appeal and maybe 30 turns of production? It just makes it not a decision. For stuff like this, I always come back to the games that I thought did it well, and Alpha Centauri always come back at me. In that one, forests actually had a better late-game yield in many cases than other terrain types, and the ecologic damage of chopping them all really was a pain.

Now, these are all things that need tweaks from the devs to fix, and focused mostly on building. I do think that there being more bonus to settle new cities late game and get them online quicker would be a big benefit to the late game malaise. It won't solve everything, but even legitimately having a civ that I kicked down to 2 cities in the classical empire rebuild and becoming at least something to care about could have a huge impact on how to actually manage the game.

Otherwise, my only suggestion is to try to play the game and make fun things. So strive to build those +4 campus sites because it's cool to have a bonus like that. Settle that tundra city because it has a little inlet section that polders up beautifully. Play the appeal game to get those national parks or seaside resorts online, even if not going for a culture game. It can be at least a somewhat interesting mini-game as your army is storming through the world.

 

[Bojevus]

I think another opportunity for a late-game mechanic is to actually have political and economic systems.

In the mid game, if you adopt a theocracy you've got to actually build churches, go on crusades, not fight your co-religionists, etc. If monarchy, your governors get their own agendas and demands (and can't be removed); if merchant republic, you'll have to maintain a certain level of economic activity to remain out of anarchy, etc.

In the late game it can actually take two tracks: if you opt for a free market or democratic approach, add MUCH bigger bonuses to general productivity (meaning all outputs) but balance that with the fact that the means of that productivity is a citizenry that isn't actually completely under your control - cities start to place their own districts, etc. If you opt for communism you get to remain in control of the economy but with lower productivity. Politically, if you go democracy you'll actually have to meet the demands of the citizenry. If you go fascism . . . something else.

It's weird that a game all about civilization and being a world leader, that actually has a bunch of policy options, doesn't have a lick of politics in it.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Win before that.

 

[Jarms48]

I would personally love to see the World Congress / United Nations return, it could even tie in with the Envoy / Emergency systems. Envoys could be used as the new "delegates", and Emergencies could be voted on via "emergency summits",

 

[nrh]

True. I think it would be wonderful if they added a world-base building diplomatic nuclear-standoff at the end. This way things stay true to reality and very exciting. There are a number of ways they could execute this to make every turn full of tense diplomatic standoffs and relations: having civilizations stash troops at the borders, build bases in city-state territories, form ally/axis relationships, and try to influence others culturally to win the nuclear standoff. It would be really great, and much better than the current version.
But Civilization is such a great series, without a doubt. Sorry that you lose interest after a while. Sometimes, I do too. So I see where you're coming from. Good luck happy civing.

 

[Gehennas]

I was thinking a lot about this lately: mostly in context of why I still can't get into Civ VI, while I have spent hundreds of hours in Civ V. Answer to this question is simple: I became more pretentious. Civ V had the same problems. In comparison, Civ VI even does more to resolve the "late-game malaise" by presenting you more choices: you have to swap policies, pursue the dedication bonus and get inspirations/eurekas - that's already much more than choosing buildings and improvements for 200+ turns in a row. However, this is not enough.

I should also say that not only Civ suffers from being boring mid-to-lategame. You can see other Grand Strategies (is this the correct term?) there with the same issues: Stellaris, Endless Legend and GalCiv III for example.

On the other hand, games which are closer to the "classic" 4X do not have this problem: take Age of Wonders III or any Total War title. The reason is that these games have only one path to victory: warfare, which is evolving during the game. Of course, you can always have "unifier" victory in AOWIII or Cultural Victory in Rome II, but you achieve it through combat as well. In Civ VI there are four different victory types, which result in different strategic layers.
First of all: they are very loosely tied to each other. Of course, war is an universal answer to everything (and your war effort greatly depends on science output), but once you have picked the victory type you want to pursue, you have only straight narrow path ahead. As a result, each civilization plays a different game. Btw this is even more absurd in Endless Legend/Space series, where basically anything has a victory type of its own.
Secondly, three of these victory types seriously lack the action. Science and Culture do not have any significant player interaction and religious unit wars are limited and incredibly boring.

Another problem is related to the balance between "the randomness" and "the fairness". Beginning of the game is quite random and not fair, so you should "improvise, adapt, overcome" (c). Thus it presents you with a lot of choices, which you have to do just because your settler spawned between these mountains and that sea with a Monty and Gilgamesh nearby. Once the initial game phase ended, you won't see anything unexpected and each choice you face is a result of your previous decisions. Compare this with Crusader Kings II, where gameplay is driven by the random stuff happening around you. Of course, this game is not competitive in any sense (it doesn't even have a victory condition!), but it generates a lot of interesting situations to solve.

My opinion is that the repetitive lategame torture can be solved, but, unfortunately, it won't be the same Civilization game as we know it.

 

[eleven11]

Win before that.

I actually enjoy the industrial and modern era and want the sandbox to be full of sand when I play in it.

 

[Morningcalm]

There really isn't much exploration past the medieval era--game events where you hear rumors of a new continent and suddenly a new continent appears on the map would change that somewhat. But I'm unsure if we would see such drastic changes to gameplay in the future.

More likely we will get some UN type structure with international voting in the next expansion to keep the late game vaguely interesting.

 

[UWHabs]

There really isn't much exploration past the medieval era--game events where you hear rumors of a new continent and suddenly a new continent appears on the map would change that somewhat. But I'm unsure if we would see such drastic changes to gameplay in the future.

More likely we will get some UN type structure with international voting in the next expansion to keep the late game vaguely interesting.

A big part of the problem is that since I get to choose my options, I know how many opponents I have, and what my map will give me. I mean, sure, every now and then, you may get a map with people crowded and you end up with an "uninhabited" continent that you can settle late, but you also know that there's never really that much to find there. Okay, maybe a few new resources, but it's not really enough to shift the balance of power or anything like that.

Would be cool to have a game mode where you don't know exactly how big the map actually is, you don't know if there's 6 AI players or 9, etc... At least then you'd have a bit of a question of whether it's worth it to detour your science to explore, or just focus on your "old world".

 

[Rosty K]

There really isn't much exploration past the medieval era--game events where you hear rumors of a new continent and suddenly a new continent appears on the map would change that somewhat. But I'm unsure if we would see such drastic changes to gameplay in the future.

I think those who like the exploration part would hate such change. I for one want to discover things myself, not them just to pop up on me. For this reason I avoid having alliances with Poundmaker until I'm mostly done with exploration.

(You have transgressed Rosty K's agenda - Explorer) (That's meant to be a 'denounced' face)

Or do you mean a new continent rising from the ocean depths?

There were goody huts that would 'tell stories of the distant lands' revealing a random bit of the map in previous Civ games, that might be something that I'd like to come back maybe.