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

[eternalblue]

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.

That's true, for example yesterday when I finished my last journey I was triggering it with a science victory because it was so difficult to enjoy the last part and to get involved more (it's just annoying to select what to produce every turn in all 40 cities just for the sake of building something, the tiles were fine just with the districts without improvements, and every 2 turns seeing the annoying popup message for future and civics tech completion). I had lots of loyalty, production and amenities in all my cities, +1500 gold per turn, and was way better than all civs in the game without much effort. In the others victory conditions I had the highest statistics too. Don't know very much why but I enjoyed much more the CIV V BNW and CIV IV BTS in the late game than this one. At the beggining I'm excited to play and then after the renaissance era I get bored more and more every single turn.

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.

For that reason I miss the AI from CIV IV BTS, very challenging from the beggining to finish. Has his own flaws true, but it was much better. A lot to micro manage in that game, but was a nice experience to feel that you need to compete with the AI in expansion, growth, defending your cities, etc. Hope that the AI in CIV VI will get some major improvements in the next expansion, and of course to get more content for the late part of the game.

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...

Yes that too will be a nice way to improve CIV VI, going in depth much more for each era. Im a paradox grand strategy fan too, and I would love to see some random events, Ideas, more diplomacy and politics, and the culture to have much more better impact in the game (every civ to have much more authenticity). I think will be cool to have some events or something to change the late part of the game to make more sense.

 

[Sylfea]

This is going to sound trite - but I find I have to make my own fun late game - mostly for RP reasons. Victoria's cultural VC slow in coming online? Focus my energy on spreading the Proper Cuppa Tea religion to the rest of the world. Saladin going for science but just found Jerusalem? Build an army and conquer it for historical reasons. Any civ who built up a navy accidentally by getting the right Admirals? Declare war on the next (hopefully somewhat coastal) AI who denounces you and pillage them.

Or sometimes I start in later ages. Upping the difficulty makes things harder, but not necessarily more fun for me.

But yea, I look forward to a World Congress or something to add more interest to my lategame decisions.

 

[eternalblue]

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.

Thank you for your effort to show all those aspects from your perspective, very interesting to add the improvement yelds on this topic too, because it's an important part to make the game more enjoyable with more technical on the actual terrain.

 

[eternalblue]

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.

I have the same problem: lots of hours in CIV V (even now) that in some way makes me very addicted to it even in the late eras, because of the way that the game presented the new additions with the great people and other concepts in that game (expansions). Now in CIV VI the culture and the religion is not offering the same impact ( can be because of what you said, now we are more pretentious or we want improvements or something new) that was in CIV V BNW but instead diminishing that feeling slightly.

And yes you are right, as a paradox grand strategy fan I consider CK II, EU IV, Vicky II, HoI IV and Stellaris (tho is a hybrid 4x/grand strategy) one of my favorite. Don't know, in a grand strategy game the mechanics are different, because you don't have a victory condition, it's more like a "free way to lead your empire to greatness", where you can start small or big, with every nation possible on the map and you can do crazy things that can or can't be plausible in the real history (example in HoI conquer with Switzerland Europe, or in CK2 start a crusade with your little jewish religion, form nations from small provinces and then a great empire or colonize with the south americans the europe in EU IV, crazy stuff like that). Those parts in grand strategy and the random events gives a choice of a non linear path and infinite repliability for the player, where the first question when you start the game could be: I'll do a historic plausible scenario or an "what if.....?" scenario, with maximum flexibility. It's true, in CK, EU, HoI and Vic, the maps are much more the same, but you can do a lot of things because you have lots of in depth diplomatic and political tools, and I like the influence of the religion in CK and EU. The good part of those grand strategy games of Paradox is that you can enjoy them from start to finish (even with the "snowball effect" that creates sometimes) with long plays that create in your mind your own scenarios, with devs that are very dedicated fixing bugs and offering lots of content (the span life of a title with content can be 8 - 10 years), and of course they have even fun let's plays in the official paradox extra channel, but the bad part is that you need to actual buy all the content for a full experience that can cost a lot (300+€ for the latest titles), but waiting for a discount in this case is always refreshing.

And in CIV VI, the part at the beginning is always enjoyable when you are curious to explore, to see what you will get, what neighbours you will have, defend your cities from barbarians, and get some ancient/medieval units that I enjoy much more fighting with them than with the late era units. Then the game fades slowly away, and away every turn from the beginning of the industrial era, and like you said, some random events will be always welcome or situations that gives you more flexibility in diplomacy, politics and culture. Hope will get some refreshing mechanics and cool new stuff in the next expansion.

(P.S. I like your profile photo )))) )

 

[Tech Osen]

it's just annoying to select what to produce every turn in all 40 cities just for the sake of building something

For that reason alone I prefer to play on maps with limited land space, either island plates or continents with high sea level, with standard size.

 

[Morningcalm]

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.

I meant a new continent rising from the depths. That would cause a sea change in how people spent their production in the midgame, and might give the Statue of Liberty (currently a rather weak wonder due to its time period) entirely new significance.

As UWHabs suggested, it might also be nice to have a truly random mode where you don't even know how many opponents you'll get--that may upset game balance somewhat, but it would be interesting!

I will point out that Civfanatics' Game of the Month can be interesting in that regard--some of the maps there are truly weird or challenging. (It's a shame they are so slow to upload game player rankings though.)

 

[eternalblue]

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.

Yes, there are lots of problems that makes the late game less enjoying. CIV VI, for me it's a new fresh approach in the franchise, with a nice animated art style, and some changes in the mechanics adding slightly more individual based city management with the implementation of the districts and an empire based civic tree. I like the eurekas and the social policy cards too (because are flexible and you can change governments), era score and loyalty. But with all the changes I feel that is missing some important aspects that for me are essential, like a more varied unit package (especialy in the medieval and modern era) for those who like to dominate the game via military, the culture is so bland loosing that athenticity that has in CIV V BNW (maybe because was in some way related with the wold congress cultural projects diplomacy), and the religion is mehh I can say ok with that theological combat (but needs more depth and impact in the actual game). In the other hand the diplomacy and the state of emergency system are so broken in this game, if you piss one civ off (that you can do it without no effort) you will piss off all of them denouncing you without real reason (you are a warmonger!!!!!) and declaring war (even knowing that they can't engage you in combat with undeveloped city defense, the AI maintaining the same archers in the late game and having some bombers stationed in the aerodrome just for the sake of having them). The state of emergency is so bad (you are mostly the "black sheep", and they are going to unite because you annexed one of their capital and finally they loose because of their poor choices that they will definetely make together on not). The culture and religious victories are so basically easy to achive, the science victory is in someway slightly better (because there are more steps to complete it and a spy can compromise and slow your operation), and for the domination victory, well, you just need to stack 3 tanks with the best promotion, 3 artillery units stacked, a drone, and a helicopter (just 3 units and you are unstoppable).

To conclude, I play CIV VI now mostly because of the first half of the game having some nice fun, and after that is all very difficult to enjoy. For that reason I think to start and complete a journey in CIV VI from the perspective that you need to compete vs other civs and win a victory it's just boring and unchallenging, and for that reason the only way that can be enjoyable is to think in your own sandbox scenario (mostly conquering, because the politics doesn't exist) and having fun in the late game building not because of the values of the buildings, but mostly because of the aspect of your civ on the map (cities skylines some sort). Hope will get some improvements for the late game in the next expansion.

 

[halfhalfharp]

I have tried to suggest some changes to the late game in order to save my interest in the game:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...estions-to-break-the-lategame-boredom.632402/

What we mainly lack in the late game, in my opinions, is a rewarding price for the hard work in previous eras. You work so hard to set up everything, but when it is ripe, there is nothing interesting to do, or lack of competitions. The diplomacy is surely something we normally ignore, because of the incompetence of AIs. Starting a war is the major fun in late game, yet the wars are normally un-amusing except on immortal and forward. But what if we have chances to a total war breaking out in the late game? That will surely keep us alerted and focused, because multiple nation wars can change a lot of things. And it will be, at least sth to do without sitting there for the game to win.

I am also eager to know how to play an enjoyable late game without dragging on because I have to drag on.

 

[eternalblue]

I have tried to suggest some changes to the late game in order to save my interest in the game:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...estions-to-break-the-lategame-boredom.632402/

What we mainly lack in the late game, in my opinions, is a rewarding price for the hard work in previous eras. You work so hard to set up everything, but when it is ripe, there is nothing interesting to do, or lack of competitions. The diplomacy is surely something we normally ignore, because of the incompetence of AIs. Starting a war is the major fun in late game, yet the wars are normally un-amusing except on immortal and forward. But what if we have chances to a total war breaking out in the late game? That will surely keep us alerted and focused, because multiple nation wars can change a lot of things. And it will be, at least sth to do without sitting there for the game to win.

I am also eager to know how to play an enjoyable late game without dragging on because I have to drag on.

Thanks for this suggestion page. I am 100% with you in this aspect. Firaxis needs to focus on giving us a better experience in the later eras, and will be great to have multiple nations organizations (like different unions of nations ONU or EU in the game that you can rename them if you are a leader, proceding to conflicts of insterests for the resources of the map and diplomacy, starting a "world war era" or some cool stuff like that) but with a more agresive AI.

For that reason it will be cool to have this thread with lots of opinions and others too, like you mentioned. In that way Firaxis can watch our feedback, and they can implement some new fresh ideas in the next expansion to reward us and keep us engaged as players in the later part of game.

 

[Morningcalm]

One way to make the modern era more appealing in Civ VI would be to include more modern music--Civ IV had plenty of that (not always to people's taste), and cool aesthetic touches. Civ IV had some neat modern wonders (Rock n' Roll!) and UN resolutions that were quite flavorful.

Similar aesthetic touches would be nice for the Industrial Era. (Also, I note that era transitions are less interesting in VI--V had those cool quote screens upon entering a new era which was a nice aesthetic touch. No such majesty accompanies era transitions in VI.)

 

[Hammurabbit]

... But what if we have chances to a total war breaking out in the late game? That will surely keep us alerted and focused, because multiple nation wars can change a lot of things. And it will be, at least sth to do without sitting there for the game to win.

I really like the idea of ideology drive or religiously driven full scale wars in the late game. Get the city states in there as well!

 

[halfhalfharp]

I really like the idea of ideology drive or religiously driven full scale wars in the late game. Get the city states in there as well!

Thx!

Dun worry, City states always follow their suzerainship and normally most of them are owned in late game. So they will surely fight.

 

[eternalblue]

One way to make the modern era more appealing in Civ VI would be to include more modern music--Civ IV had plenty of that (not always to people's taste), and cool aesthetic touches. Civ IV had some neat modern wonders (Rock n' Roll!) and UN resolutions that were quite flavorful.

Similar aesthetic touches would be nice for the Industrial Era. (Also, I note that era transitions are less interesting in VI--V had those cool quote screens upon entering a new era which was a nice aesthetic touch. No such majesty accompanies era transitions in VI.)

Yes, I remember that CIV IV and V have those nice transitions with the music for every era and related to civs (peace + war), and like you said, its cool to see that little presentation new era screen that is offering a nice touch when it's the beggining of a new era (feels like you have completed some part of the game and start the next one). In terms of presentation CIV VI lacks so bad because of those unique parts that are missing, but doing great in others like historic moment, tho I feel them more like a mechanic in the game (era score) and not like a part of the presentation. The sound and music related to civs in the game are meh (but the soundtrack and the narrating voice is fantastic), much better in IV and V, because here desn't captivate me and it's not related to every civ, its just a mixed combo (for example playing with other country and different culture, and I heard in the modern era native american music, the same in peace or war time). So, those parts and the late game gameplay for me kills the complete experience that have CIV IV and V for the moment. Hope will get some improvements in the last expansion, because overall CIV VI it's far from a complete experience.

 

[MonkeyPaw]

The problem is Civilization is mostly an Ancient Empires game that happens to continue into the present. For Civ VII, they should really design the modern era first, make that fun and interesting, then work backwards from there.

 

[Gehennas]

Now in CIV VI the culture and the religion is not offering the same impact

Actually, now, when you say about it, I also think that it is because culture and religion path does not provide the significant interaction with other aspects of the game, like culture/diplomacy did in CivV.

Vanilla CivV culture victory was simple and straightforward, but quick policy aquisition gave you the tools to negate the lag in other areas. Accumulating culture was important for any other path.
Tourism made culture victory weird, though. However, great works culture output at least provided you the better progression in policy/tenet trees.

CivVI culture tree is awful and it has the negative impact on other game aspects: if your culture ouput is too high, you may find yourself without the production policies for your era! Being forward in culture gives you almost nothing: you can build some wonders and unlock governments earlier.

Personally, I would prefer to see something like the Civilization: The Board Game (the one with CIvV art style) approach: when the culture is used to purchase Great People and strong one-time use abilities. I think CivVI tech tree can be thrown away and the culture can be used as a some sort of "mana" to "cast spells" (production boost, tech exchange, unit generation out of thin air, etc.), purchase Great People and Great Works.

And... I have no idea how to make religious game more interesting. Religion was good as a supplement in CivV, but as a victory path it it is very boring.

I meant a new continent rising from the depths. That would cause a sea change in how people spent their production in the midgame, and might give the Statue of Liberty (currently a rather weak wonder due to its time period) entirely new significance.

Even without the continent, settling after the mid-game is not useful. The later the city was settled, the less effective it is (it will produce the smaller amount of everything during the lifetime). It is made even worse with the progressive district and settler cost.

 

[Za01phod]

A 4x civ style game without a terra map is ridiculous. Makes you wonder if the designers ever played and enjoyed civ-games. Discovering new continents and places to settle breathes new life into a game after renaissance. I have played all civ games since the very beginning, in my opinion this is one of the better until industrial, but completely and utterly boring after that. I hardly ever finish a game anymore.

 

[cinattra]

The game needs to change totally then for its second half. When would the change begin...Industrial Revolution? How could the game begin to differ?

 

[eternalblue]

The problem is Civilization is mostly an Ancient Empires game that happens to continue into the present. For Civ VII, they should really design the modern era first, make that fun and interesting, then work backwards from there.

Yes, for that reason I prefer instead of having ever 3 or 4 years a new CIV game that can have its own problems, I prefer just one game named "CIVILIZATIONS" with a large life span in development that can contain lots of expansions and dlcs, improved with the players feedback along the years. Look for example at the paradox titles, that are not just improved via players feedback, and having actual content from start to finish, but the devs are doing actual "let's plays" for the players. It's true, are not for everybody because are niche titles, but I can see the fun and the variety in their content and the love that they put in their games (6+ years span in development and fixing). At first when released, every paradox title is just a core element without much to do but over the years they implement a lot with distinctive expansions (for example in CK2 if you play with a norse ruler that was implemented in one expansion, it's a distinct type of game than with a western ruler, or in EU nations with expansions focused on regions changing everithing if you are from other part of the globe, not excluding the fact that you can change where you want to be or create your own nation/ruler how you want). For that reason I want to mention in Civ games that will not be enough to change just a specific era, but instead changing the mechanics of every civ that can gain and do distinct actions depending on eras, and not just having bonuses or units.
I know, that those two types of game can't be compared for obvious reasons, but in my opinion that will be the first step, to have just one single game with lots of new stuff and improvements over many years, and no a CIV VII 2020, CIV VIII 2024, etc.

 

[eternalblue]

Personally, I would prefer to see something like the Civilization: The Board Game (the one with CIvV art style)

One of my reasons to enjoy so much CIV V it's the nice looking map, units, sounds, etc that gives a nice feeling that is so pleasing to watch and enjoy the experience. Talking about board games of video games, Paradox announced board games for his grand strategy games on PDXCON a few days ago, and will be nice a good CIV board game from Firaxis (enjoyed very much what I was seeing in the CK2 Board Game presentation). Personally I enjoy much more the new culture tree and the eurekas or inspiration moments, but like you said in terms of mechanics the game suffers from this part (the span life of the culture and tech tree, short eras).