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

What are your "unpopular" opinions about Civ6?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Krajzen, Feb 24, 2019.

  1. Bearmanjew

    Bearmanjew Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not 100% sold, since if you have the tech pre-requisites, then it doesn't make sense for a tech to be arbitrarily harder than all the stuff leading into it just because it's in an abstractly defined "new era". I know this is a balance thing, but I always strive for things that achieve both balance and logic together. Ideally to me, what would happen is a really uneven level of development would mean that you develop techs before you have the civics to deal with the fallout of those techs, causing domestic instability - that is, getting ahead introduces new problems rather than exacerbating old ones, and getting ahead in an unbalanced way mitigates your ability to handle it. But that might be too complex for the layman's tastes. Especially when those problems start taking the form of popular will, and the game has to simulate what your people want and how you are going to give it to them.

    Expansion of how cards are restricted by government, and the legacy cards, would help with that. Right now, very few cards are restricted to only certain governments, and you only get one legacy card per government tier. If you have fewer base cards to pick from and more cards available only to your current or past governments (or even cards that depend on both, eg cards that are only enabled if you are or were both a monarchy and democratic) then they might feel a bit more permanent and consequential. Possibly also make legacy slots that must be filled and can only be filled by legacy cards, to make your past choices even more permanent and not skippable by putting in +GPP per turn cards. You could still have multiple cards granted by each government or whatnot, so you have some choice, but they wouldn't be completely bypassable, and maybe harder to change once you pick - your legacy is your legacy, after all, and it's hard to adjust the narrative.

    ...drats, now I really want that.
     
  2. Sostratus

    Sostratus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    1,651
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Mechanically I think it hits the problem behavior nicely - we want to diminish the spread between civs in tech due to science spam at the expense of the other stuff you can do. Because of civ6's dual tech trees I'm referring to both science and culture when i say tech; this is mostly for balance reasons. This penalty actually kind of exists already as of R&F, it just isn't strong enough. As a player, whether behind, at pace, or ahead, you wouldn't notice this nearly as much as you think. You would notice a more competitive field though.

    It can't be reiterated enough: people hate playing and feeling negatives directly. Like civ5 global happiness. The science penalty in that game could make more science meaning slower progress. Bad!
    This type of system I proposed preserves monotonic behavior: more always means more, it just may not be 1:1. You don't feel it the same way. Anyone with a big tech lead now would still have a tech lead. Those who are behind would still be behind. It just might be 1 era instead of 3 eras.
     
  3. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,189
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I think Kristina is prettiest of all and I can't bring myself to attack her. She's my girl. Plus she brings those sweet Nobel prize contests. I always try to make friends with her. So how's that for an unpopular opinion?
     
  4. blackcatatonic

    blackcatatonic Queen of Meme

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,111
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    UK
    Kristina is so cool. I always want to be her friend but she never likes me :(

    Mansa on the other hand always loves me and I'm just a bit creeped out by his laugh :shifty:
     
  5. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    10,695
    We have 1APT in this game, this is not a 1UPT game.
    You could change the game to allow 6 units in an army but that would change the combat mechanics which are one of the best things in the game.
    Having unlimited civilian units... have you really thought this through and the abuse it would bring. A doom Stack of apostles? Gah
    Doomstacks are dead, they may have made a far superior strategy game but they were unpopular and not without their issues.
    Using the strategic board as the tactical board has worked because of appeal. How many units you fit on a tile is fairly irrelevant unless you say unlimited.
     
    679x and acluewithout like this.
  6. Carto

    Carto Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2019
    Messages:
    13
    I don't want to go back to stacks, but I've been thinking about ways to adjust 1APT that might not break the game. I like the current mechanism of joining units, because there's only ever one health bar per tile. What I'm wondering about is joining two different unit types as a shortcut to specific promotions (e.g., a ranged units gains the ZoC promotion if it absorbs a light cavalry unit).

    What I'd really like to see is a 1APT system that (1) allows the AI to better focus its production edge in combat, and (2) frees up more space on the board for the AI to maneuver its units.
     
  7. 679x

    679x Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Messages:
    219
    Gender:
    Male
    China's Great Wall improvement is quite good.

    But, only because of the tourism bonus. I agree that the Great Wall is pretty crappy prior to the Conservation civic, but once you get that, you can map out all the spots where you can make large, unbroken chains of walls, and replace farms and whatnot on the edges of your territory when needed, ideally where the farms aren't grouped up as much so you're not missing out on too much food (which doesn't really matter quite as much at that point in the game). Bulldoze through resources if you need to. You'll start producing a ton of tourism and lemme tell ya, those massive chains of walls just look awesome. I had a blast playing as China for a culture victory, and I was producing unreasonably high levels of tourism between my wonders and great walls.
     
    MisterBoomBoom likes this.
  8. Imaus

    Imaus Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2016
    Messages:
    532
    The way to deal with more than 1apt is to have a logistics modifier; which has been mused on before since CIViv if not way earlier, with a cap at around 8 units at most in the modern era to replicate the multifacted nature of units now, and starts at 3 ala armies now. Thus, a steady increase emerges throughout time that mimicries mankind's own experience with armies. There can be tons of debuffs and buffs with this as well, a cav-majority stack suffers if hindered down with infantry, a infantry majority stack can take on a few cav but not a lot, faster units are weighed down by slower units, older units - as in un-upgraded ones - become maintenance nightmares to take along, such as a galley being attacked to a carrier force, and so on.

    So you don't get 50+ unit stacks like one can churn out in IV but you also get some ability to massively amplify your own power projection.
     
    footslogger likes this.
  9. Arianrhod

    Arianrhod Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    191
    Gender:
    Male
    While I understand the sentiment behind trying to keep out political figures we have deemed as evil, this is a game where genociding as many countries as possible is the best strategy for 3-4 victory types and a good one for the remainder. Trying to pretend that "evil figures" have no place in Civ is just a way for your conscience to side-step the fact that Civ itself goes out of its way to glorify atrocities by presenting them as the generally optimal path for nearly every empire. If you don't realize how violent and disturbing this game is unless Stalin or Hitler is there, that reflects poorly on you and not the dictators in question.

    It is ultimately the actions that these tyrants took that made them "evil", not simply their visage, and trying to hide away the leaders while promoting their actions is way worse than including any amount of them in the game because it mythologizes their evil instead of demonstrating that it is a trap that any empire could fall into given the right set of circumstances.

    I would rather have a game based entirely around "bad" leaders that promotes relative peace, than a game based entirely around "good" leaders that promotes the worst of the world's ills.
     
  10. Stilgar08

    Stilgar08 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,449
    Location:
    Zeven, Germany (Lower Saxony ;)
    :deadhorse:

    Moderator Action: Please do not troll. Image only is considered spam. leif
     
    MisterBoomBoom likes this.
  11. youngsteve

    youngsteve Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    68
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England
    I am still currently playing Civ 5, as cannot get into this version at all, & in my opinion one of best things they introduced in that game was global happiness, which restricted massive expansion. The only part I didn't like was the AI wasn't affected, receiving bonuses on Settler/Chieften (not sure which) I believe whatever level you played, which is idiotic. Mods can solve that problem though. The problem with the current game there are too many exploits the player can use, making the game boring, & lacking long term playability.
     
  12. Krajzen

    Krajzen Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    Poland
    I agree some limit on mass expansion would be nice but still...
    On the contrary, I think global happiness was probably the single worst mechanic of civ5 ;) Throwing it entirely out of the window was one of the best things civ6 did, even at cost of not enough expansion limits.
    1) It was arcade, abstract, really weird indicator utterly disconnected from history, intuition and common sense. I mean, the public opinion is civ5 worked like a binary hive mind that very literally at any given moment is either HAPPY or UNHAPPY. Seriously this mechanic would very well fit some sci fi game with telepathic alien swarm. There is no such thing as "local discontent" in this system, either the entire global hive of german cities is happy or not, doesnt matter if its spread across 10mln square kilometres. So many layers of absurd.
    - Building zoo in New York makes Delhi happy in this system
    - WW2 Soviets conquering Berlin risk rebelion in Moscow due to AVERAGE_HIVEMIND_OPINION decreasing on average due to very unhappy Germans
    - Your civ suffering nuclear holocaust raises happiness due to less pops (this is some crazy negative utilitarianism logic btw :D )
    Etc
    2) It made all sorts of localized unrest mechanics impossible
    3) It was just so damn annoying to deal the entire game with, constant pain to stay above zero, I remember how I had to constantly renegotiate luxury trade agreements or race with time to get next "more smiles" social policy, just... Such neverending pain
    4) Yeah, it limited mass expansion. It did it so well that the optimal number of settled cities was 4, there was completely no reason to colonize and tall cities were answer to any problem. I honestly consider this result even worse than unchecked expansion, at least the latter is more interesting.


    I think the proper limit of mass expansion should be the difficulty of keeping very large and/or very diverse empire stable, and political unrest, both expressed with actual risk of rebellions and resistance, not any kind of abstract numerical cap.
     
  13. Stringer1313

    Stringer1313 King

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2014
    Messages:
    859
    I want Civ leaders to change clothes with the eras, like in Civ III
     
  14. Carto

    Carto Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2019
    Messages:
    13
    Sure, sort of like how the recent TW games cap the number of active armies in play? I like the idea. After playing GS a bit, I've wondered if multiple bonus resources could feed into a single "food" strategic that maintains all basic units, or if units could cost a pop point like the Janissaries. Or have their production halt growth, like settler production did in previous games. Something to show the cost in manpower of fielding large armies.

    My only worry is that such a logistics cap would hamper the AI, which depends on yield bonuses to outnumber the player. I don't want to cap the number of units the AI can use if it can't use them effectively.
     
    Imaus likes this.
  15. Elhoim

    Elhoim Iron Tower Studio Dev

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,097
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Isidro, Argentina.
    First of all, I think it's a very good game, I REALLY like it (over 1000s hours) but since this is a bit of a rant thread I say:

    I extremely dislike the way the franchise is heading with the game becoming a permanent competition made of abstract rules:

    - Competing for religious beliefs before someone "takes them".
    - Competing for a particular "great person" with effects that create things out of nowhere.
    - Competing for city states with effects that create things out of nowhere.
    - And I'm tired of the nonsensical wonder competition*

    The emphasize, it's not the competing itself, which is nice, but the rules to force it and that go against the internal logic of the gameworld. I prefer a game in which the competition is created on a set of broad rules in which you can be more creative, instead of a formulaic strategy. And let's not go into the forced rules regarding razing, the disappearing unique improvements, tourism that has no effect except for being a bar to fill to win, etc. Same goes for policies "cards" or the design of eurekas/inspirations and era moments that reek of Facebook/mobile games. I just hope we don't get bonuses for logging in each day in Civ VII.

    Basically, the rules are closer to that of a board game, a very well designed one, instead of a broader simulation in which you try to create an everlasting empire. The latest version of Galactic Civ III is closer to what I like in a Civ game, but for me space 4X don't have the same lure as Civ.

    Yeah, but it's more about the implementation of the difficulties rather than being low or high, IMO.

    * Regarding wonders, the system I would implement was that you can invest in buildings and monuments. Which is what it was essentially. When the romans built the colisseum, they didn't want to build "a world wonder", they wanted a really big stadium. And other cities and civs had similar buildings.The same goes for the pyramids, which were built all over the world. My point is that you can invest into bigger and better buildings and monuments, and after a few eras, people look back and see which ones were the best and becomes a "world wonder". Basically, all Civs can create these things, and get effects depend on how much they invest, and the tag world wonder gets applied later and gives a reward.
     
    atTAGG, footslogger and Starwars like this.
  16. The googles do nothing

    The googles do nothing Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    426
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    I agree after 6 iterations World wonders have gotten a little stale. It sounds like your system would eliminate the odd cases where someone builds the Hanging Gardens in the Modern age. Everybody can build a granary and if they chose to can run and additional project to make a "world wonder" out the the granary. The civ that has added the most production at the end of the first age would get the Hanging Gardens.

    I do think very early on in history leaders did know the concept of a 'world wonder' - a building that would project thier power. Especially Rome. I still got that impression when seeing the Colisseum.
     
  17. Krajzen

    Krajzen Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    Poland
    I get why many people like this idea, but I have a particular big problem with this idea.

    You see, in civ3 "changing clothes with eras" meant that all cultures of the world were adopting Western style elegant clothes by the late game :) And abandoning their cultural heritage :) Personally I imagine most of the world leaders wouldn't wear Western style clothes, if it was dominated by some other culture, with its own concept of appropriate clothing. For example, if Arabs dominated the world the way Western Europe did IRL, world leaders from various other continents would adopt turbans as signs of being "modernized" and "civilized" in this world. Or if advanced Africa colonized Europe, then European postcolonial leaders would wear African clothes. You get the idea. I really dislike the idea of leaders of succesful information era Aztecs, Kongo, India and Maori all wearing tuxedos.

    Maybe if Firaxis actually bothered with imagining such alternate fashion evolution, and late game Maori leader would wear clothes "looking modern but still very Maori", with "Maori style" metropolis in the background... Yeah, then I could support such thing.

    One thing I definitely dislike about current model, however, is when you meet some late leader (goddamn colonial civs) in the ancient era and they are wearing modern uniform and for example glasses. It just... always feels so out of place. Pedro, Teddy, Laurier, Curtin, Wilhelmina, so out of place before renaissance. Wilhelmina is peak fail in this regard as she even has an umbrella :p

    EDIT
    Oh and also Kristina with her book and di Medici with her glass of wine, in 3000BC, before books and glass existed. Geez. I have always thought it'd be super badass to have FDR in the wheelchair as American leader in modern civ games, but this would feel so wrong in the same way.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2019
    Karmah likes this.
  18. Furycrab

    Furycrab King

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    900
    Feels like the risk vs reward on this idea would be seriously skewed. The reward being most people end up loving the feature and all the work that went into it, and the risk being that they offend more people than it was ever worth. People get offended when a Civ they judge shouldn't be in the game gets added, I can't imagine the potential backlash.
     
  19. Ferocitus

    Ferocitus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,893
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    1. Civ6, R&F and GS are boring rubbish on anything except the largest Terra maps in Ynamp and against fewer than 20 civs.
    2. Leader animations and Sean Bean's announcements etc are a ridiculous waste of time and effort.
    3. The AI will never be to everyone's taste, so get a mod instead of clogging up the forum with
    (a) ridiculous, ignorant comparisons to AlphaGo,
    (b) suggestions for improvements at the highest levels and/or one style of play without taking all other levels/styles into account.
     
    youngsteve likes this.
  20. pkaem

    pkaem Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2016
    Messages:
    101
    Gender:
    Male
    I serously want bismark and a tank back. The fat ginger sucks, his submarine... Okay. The hansa?? Well yea this was a trade federation, but okay, let's build factorys inside it.

    Napoleon rules france.

    I like the pick of trajan for rome. They should have an ability to force alliances, ir some diplomatic at least.

    Cultural start bias was nice. Why not anymore?

    Era score should be done diffrently. Less random more in the dedication direction.

    To add a tactical layer, battles should last several turns with combat events that display the tactical strengh or weakness of the choseb unit in the front line. Example: cav with a break through chance or spearmen and heavy inf with strong defense boost. This way we would use more than knights, rams and curassiers. Taking cities will still be the hardest part in this idea due to heavy defense bonuses.
     

Share This Page