What are your Civilization IV unpopular opinions?

[Lennier]

Yes, that's the problem with Emancipation--the positive is irrelevant by the time you have access to it so the negative seems like the developers just pushing you into it. I don't know if moving the 2X cottage growth to Serfdom (a very niche civic) and doing something better with Emancipation (like adding a hammer to towns, zero upkeep) would improve the balance.

 

[6K Man]

I think Emancipation is an interesting Civic, in that you don't use it because it's good, but because if you don't you get punished. A stick as opposed to a carrot. That's an unusual mechanic for Civ4 - the only others like it are the AP and arguably slave revolts, both of which can be turned off.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Tribalism should remove emancipation anger. I am repeating myself because I feel strongly about this.

As it stands, if I am a small and backwards civilisation, +N unhappiness suddenly falls from the sky like a comet and the radiation keeps my cities small. Poverty trap! I will never reach the democracy tech, ever.

Just like any multiplayer game where you have friends in your place, if I am faced with a similar situation, then the rational choices that I can think of are:
1. Quit and walk away.
2. Ruin the game by making stupid decisions.
3. Become kingmaker to someone else.
4. (with alcohol) throw the pieces out the window

 

[civac]

Or you could suck it up and play the game out without pushing over the game board or kingmaking.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

@civac I said "rational" choices. One does not have to be rational in the presence of friends. Friendship is not (entirely) rational. Most people that are not psychopaths understand that. Relax.

What I mean is

In any multiplayer game with N>2 players, whenever a player enters a game state where it is no longer possible to win, then every move that player makes is, logically, kingmaking, because every move must affect the victory chance of all the other players that are "still in the game". This is a deductive argument.

If a game frequently results in kingmaking, then the game is not well-designed.

The emancipation mechanic increases the likelihood of kingmaking, therefore it is not a good game-design mechanic.

My proposal is to give the "Tribalism" civic the ability to negate emancipation anger. You miss out on the other powerful labour civics. But at least you have a chance of reaching the tech that enables emancipation.

 

[civac]

I accept that a civ in an unwinnable position influences the game by just existing. But it can reduce the kingmaking to an almost irrelevant minimum by staying out of the way of the major powers except for being as prickly and hard to conquer as possible. It's just a consequence of FFA play that this situation arises and it's largely not due to any specific property of Civ4. In practical terms one can play teamers to get around this problem. Some MP communities allow players to set their civs to AI if there are truly irrelevant to the outcome of the game (better play on low difficulties though).

The reason the non-interference thing is rational is because there are other games where you may be among the top dogs and it would feel bad to have some small power suicide their army into you or gift GP and money to your rival or whatever people come up with. Even the person profiting from the assistance may feel dissatisfied. As for Emancipation, this is not really a problem. Few MP games get anywhere close to the point anyone can even adopt it, if they do leading players usually don't use it anyway because the punisher mechanic is not worth it over Caste System or Slavery. Suppose some of the top dogs do adopt it. The irrelevant civs won't have fun. But they are not having fun regardless because they are losing. If you sign up for the FFA you agree to play out bad position for the integrity of the game. Then there is Hereditary Rule.

 

[Melchizedek]

@civacWhat I mean is... In any multiplayer game with N>2 players, whenever a player enters a game state where it is no longer possible to win, then every move that player makes is, logically, kingmaking, because every move must affect the victory chance of all the other players that are "still in the game". This is a deductive argument.

If a game frequently results in kingmaking, then the game is not well-designed.

I agree with your suggestion about Tribalism. However, the rest of this comment touches a nerve for me. [Clarification: I don't mean it angers me, just that it makes me want to answer your thoughts!] Your reasoning is deductive but you did not specify your premises. You seem to assume the primary objectives when playing a game all derive from victory conditions. I disagree completely. The objective is to have fun and also create a fun game for other players; what's fun is incredibly subjective, but many of us find the simulation/roleplay aspect of gameplay fun. In that case, even if I am incredibly unlikely to win, it is still fun to play as though I control a civilization and seek best outcome for my people.

Now, I do try to win the game, and I have no problem with people who focus like a laser on victory conditions ignoring all else, but they should not assume everyone plays like them. The reason your thinking touches a nerve is that civ 5 and 6 (and especially the good mods) tend to prioritize balance and preventing runaways over realism and variety, and although I have no problem with those people doing what they want to, they also should stop assuming all this is automatic, obvious, universal or 'deductive.' It is fine for a game to include things that are interesting even if they might lead to some civ being 'poverty trapped.' It's not like that could never happen in real history.

 

[SittinDown]

game design is tricky like that though....

Single Player games usually don't have to worry about king-making too much - if the player is in an obviously losing situation, they'll just start a new game as soon as they realize the 'lost'.
But in a multi-player game, if a player is in an obviously losing situation and the game mechanic offers no chance to come-back, they risk doing a variety of 'unsporting like things', such as rage-quitting, king-making, or whatever.

If you are marketing towards a single and multi player game, you'll have to make some compromises, that generally favor mid-late game catch-up mechanics, or more balance, because being stuck in a losing position in a multi-player game is a very unrewarding experience especially if the game takes a long time to play.

Chess is a fairly fast game, so people don't mind that the more skilled player usually wins. So no problems.
A battle-royale FPS is a fast game, and an average player can occasionally get a victory here and there. So no major problems.
A long-running multie-player game where the most skilled player will always win, and you have hours of being in a dead-hand position. Big problem.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

The real problem is that victory is "binary". Either you win, or you lose, nothing in between. Imagine, instead, that someone is sponsoring a free-for-all multiplayer game, and that, when the game ends, the winner gets some prize money, but all surviving players get US$ equal to final score divide by 100. The problems are still not completely solved and there will be new problems but not as serious as before.

The emancipation trap may be realistic but not consistent with all the other mechanics in Civ4:
- AIs have +diplo towards you if you are small and non-threatening.
- Civilisations at the bottom of the scoreboard get +diplo towards each other.
- advanced civs occasionally gift you free technologies
- the rate of research for technologies are reduced when other civilisations know the technology

 

[civac]

You are interleaving two arguments one of which is fine and one which is wrongheaded.

Yes, current Emancipation is terrible. It would be far better if the punishing mechanic were removed and replaced by something positive and balanced.

No, this is not a problem in MP. Not even a little bit. Few MP games get that deep into the tech tree. If they do people don't use Emancipation anyway most of the time because Slavery and Caste System are much better.* Kingmaking is not a significant problem in the MP games I play. It's kept in check by agreed upon ethical guide lines. If you were awarded points for game success that could make the problem worse actually because the best to catch up for also-rans is to cooperate with the leader(s) against their rivals/closest pursuers. (Not entirely sure about that last point.)


* Maybe, you are used to how the AIs all switch into Emancipation in the late game. But that's because they are programmed to do so. For each individual empire, switching into Emancipation means hurting all other empires a bit in an unfocused/spread out way while either losing the ability to whip or decreasing the output of their workshops and reducing the ability to make GP for a late game GA. That is very obviously a bad deal. There is also no snowball effect because you can sustain the effect of one maybe two others being in Emancipation. It's only if a significant number of other Empires switch into Emancipation that you are forced to do so too. Since it's a bad idea for each Empire individually that basically never happens.
tldr: AIs switch into Emancipation because they are coded to do so. Rational actors wouldn't.

 

[SittinDown]

What if there was a classical wonder that unlocked all labor civics? With spiritual, it might be situational to sometimes use the 100% cottage -> town boost. Feels like a stretch.

 

[Pepo]

My unpopular opinion is that goody huts are actually a good mechanic specially for civs that start with scouts and hunting tech, and bit of early game randomness can be good for the game. Ofc there are some issues, specially with Ai getting scouts on higher difficulties and rewards being unbalanced between them, but I don't think it is a bad concept.

 

[Lennier]

My unpopular opinion is that goody huts are actually a good mechanic specially for civs that start with scouts and hunting tech, and bit of early game randomness can be good for the game. Ofc there are some issues, specially with Ai getting scouts on higher difficulties and rewards being unbalanced between them, but I don't think it is a bad concept.

I play emperor level (huge/marathon). If I'm play a civ that starts with hunting, I'll enable huts. In my current game I managed to pop Astronomy from a hut.

 

[Fippy]

Anything that can be turned on/off counts as good mechanic. More options.

 

[drewisfat]

*Declares war on Fippy*
The more fixed settings the better, allows better comparisons and more competition. The replay value is already fine with randomized maps, different AIs, and dozens of leaders to choose from. HoF is a mess because of all the ways you can rig the map to your favor. No normal game could ever get a record. It doesn't even feel like the same game when you play a micropangaea with rigged worker stealing and no barbs, or pop astro from a goody hut. Records aren't competitive when there's over 1000 slots to vie for. Nobles Club games are more interesting. S&T general agreement on settings like regular barbs, no huts, no events, normal speed, std map, normal tech trading, vassals on, etc., is vital.

 

[Fippy]

true buuuut HOF makes little sense anyways (if going by what fame actually could or should mean), since those games are never "difficult".
Hall of exploits would fit, and i dun mean that disrespectful (i also enjoyed it sometimes).

So i wouldn't give it much consideration when thinking about game options, for 99% of all players more options are imo a good thing.
Take gotm instead, here everybody plays the same and more options create variety for mapmakers.

 

[lymond]

Only liked cause of "Declare on My!"

Agree S&T agreed settings best for comparison and competition.

HOE () is a different animal. Consider a playground to mess around with these options, and have fun with them. There are so many factors that go into playing HOF to achieve success, if that is your desire, but I do not consider it a mess. All the tools are their to succeed in HOF and have fun.

 

[topsecret]

Team Options!

 

[AdamCrock]

I have been out on CIV 4 for such a long time It is my all time beloved game and let me tell You this : My all time unpopular opinion is that looks matters ! The looks of Your precious cities !! Your precious little dudes doing their jobs there ! ^^ I love for my city to look cool and astounding ! (I am a builder at heart - war does not give me such giggles )

Fudge efficiency ! Fudge productivity ! As long as my cities look cool - like a pretty jewel ! I love it ! There ! - that's pretty unpopular among power-gaming achievers who do not give a damn unless it is useful xD

 

[AdamCrock]

And believe You me if the all-efficient, non artistic people have all the "say" - we would be all living in barracks !!