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

Unique abilities vs. "Geography is destiny"

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Phobetor, Jul 4, 2016.

  1. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,293
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Well, of course. If Civilization the Game were the same as Civilization the Game Development, the only victory type would be 'Economic'... ;)
     
  2. unpossible251

    unpossible251 Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2016
    Messages:
    241
    Wonder units. Boom. How's that for a stroke of genius?

    Heres a few ideas:
    Knights of the Round Table (unlock at chivalry)
    Dragon Rocket (unlock at gunpowder)
    Greek Fire (naval, unlock at optics)
    Ark of the Covenant (pottery)
    Ronin (unlock at steel)
    Ninja (architecture)
    Flying Circuis (flight)
    Navy SEALs (stealth)
     
  3. redwings1340

    redwings1340 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,408
    Location:
    Maryland
    I haven't been too active in this thread, but isn't this what start biases are for? Whether they work or not is a question for debate, that we won't really know until we play civ VI, but start biases are supposed to make your uniques work with your geography, pushing your civilizations in to different paths. So, England is supposed to have naval uniques with a costal start bias, making terrain and your uniques push you in the same direction at the start. The mongols could have a plains start bias and horse based uniques, which push them in to an aggressive, fast moving army early on.

    There are still lots of challenges and branches that are unseeable, like who your neighbors are, that will force you in to lots of strategic decisions. Still, ideally, uniques should help with making your geography destiny, not clash against it.
     
  4. Chinese American

    Chinese American Hamtastic Knight

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    432
    Location:
    Chinatown, USA
    The problem with uniques is they force you to a certain game plan or trait if you want to represent certain civ. Like what if I want to represent England, but don't like Victoria and her navies, but prefer earlier feudalism and monarchies? I have no choice to be England without being forced into Victoria's gameplan. I want to be America that is not insular Teddy, but globalist Eisenhower. I want to be Chinese that promotes literature and stabilty of Han dynasty, not bookburning and tyrant Qin dynasty.
     
  5. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,513
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    I'm a bit late, but after reading wanted to sum my view up:

    If civilization uniques force one strategy, it adds to replayability, but due to limited number of civilizations it's not that big. Map variation, on the other hand, gives nearly unlimited variation, but:

    1. This statement assumes "generic" civs have different viable strategies depending on map. It's not exactly true. Game can't be perfectly balanced, so even generic civs have some better strategies. With this in mind, variation from unique civs is a good thing.

    2. It's possible to design civs in a way their unique abilities alter strategy, but not limit it. So the amount of replayability is - map variability multiplied by civilization replayability, which is cool. In Civ5 civilization designed that way was Poland - it had additional policies, but it was up to player where to spend them. In Civ6 most of the civs are done that way. China and Egypt could shine in Wonders, but exact Wonders to pick depend on the map; America and England balance between military and tourism/culture; Japan has unique district planning and bonuses, but this could be used in all game directions.
     
  6. isau

    isau Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,068
    One thing about the Civ series I have always disliked is the intense pressure of the first city needing to be founded almost right away. I wish there was some way to ease up on that. Like, you start with a village that is not forced to be your "capital" and the "capital" only gets founded on turn 10-20 or so. Perhaps via something similar to a Great Person, who is generated from your first early camp, who then founds your capital.
     
  7. LDiCesare

    LDiCesare Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,612
    Location:
    France
    For me, unique abilities add no replayability at all.
    I've played far more games of civ than the number of civs or leaders. Unique abilities just do not matter.
    The only effect of unique stuff is to make me never choose some civs because they are either bad or I strongly dislike the chosen flavour they've been given.
    Replayability is through map (I made map script whose goals included a lot more randomness than the default ones) and different opponent personalities (agressive, trader, tech trading, culture, (un)trustworthy, religious fanatic...).
     
  8. Sansa_Stark

    Sansa_Stark Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    531
    They should do this for the base game imo (increase the weight of starting bias), and add options a) always respect starting bias and b) ignore starting bias as advanced options.

    I do not see a problem for Egypt to start near desert always, I would actually prefer such solution in my games.
     
  9. JtW

    JtW Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    575
    Location:
    Poland
    Our views are pretty similar but I guess I am a realist. It doesn't look like the uniques are going away any time soon so I am trying to find the positives in that situation and look at the bright side. I still would have preferred not to have any.

    Agreed. Whether Civ6's uniques will feel OK or not is strongly related to the quality of the starting bias algorithms. At which point you could argue they are somewhat pointless.
     
  10. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,131
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    It was a nice option in earlier games that you could move your capital if a better option presented itself. I think when corruption and maintenance increases in relation to distance from the capital were removed they also decided moving capitals was unnecessary. I do miss it a little.

    That being said, its a very rare occurrence for me to actuality find a better spot in the first few turns. Usually they start your settler in a pretty good cluster of resources. Only thing I find beneficial is moving one or two tiles to get better yields or sometimes an extra resource.
     
  11. ftl

    ftl Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Messages:
    101
    A wandering initial settler might be tough to balance. Right now they try to guarantee that the initial settlement spot is really awesome, and everyone gets a great start. If they keep that setup, then it's usually not worth it to move the settler more than one or two spaces. On the other hand, if they ditch that idea and just place settlers/resources more randomly, there could be a lot of luck of the map in terms of whether you end up in an amazing position or completely screwed.
     
  12. qadams

    qadams Bohemian

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    707
    Location:
    Ruritania
    Something that really annoyed me in Civ 5 was when the initial start location the game gave me was on a river only two or three tiles from the coast — but I couldn't see that until after my city was founded, and so I missed the option of having a coastal capital city, which can be very valuable. That's one reason I almost always use the Speedy Starting Settler mod when playing, to avoid that situation.

    In Civ 6, the ability to build harbors in cities not founded on coastal tiles seems like a great improvement, and should reduce my frustration at ineptly chosen initial start locations.
     
  13. LDiCesare

    LDiCesare Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,612
    Location:
    France
    In Civ IV, building your city where your settler spawned wasalmost always optimal because the map generation made sure you'd get enough resources in the fat cross. You might want to move it to get sea access, but usually that was about all. However, the point is that you could relocate your capital on another continent for instance.
    Civ V placement map scripts were absolutely atrocious imo. I hope Civ VI will be more like IV in this aspect: Let people create new resources in xml files and the python/lua codehandle them instead of doing everything in lua for instance.
     

Share This Page