Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by salty mud, Aug 17, 2020.
Your post hits the nail in the head
I've been thinking back to some of the original prelaunch promotional material when, if memory serves, a lot of the emphasis was on the district-system as the standout innovative mechanic that would impose new strategic choices on the player. And in a sense, it did, and offered something interesting, but I think it was on this point that the lack of penalties for going wide hurt most, since it minimised the trade-offs that the district mechanic promised. Districts shift the balance of city-management away from the old managing citizens sliders. I don't think that was a bad impulse, though perhaps expertise in district-placement requires less finesse than the more active forms of management necessary for deity play in older versions of the game. But I seldom feel that I am particularly constrained by limitations on district placement as it stands. Since then many new mechanics have been added, some more compelling than others, but I still feel like this is probably the root issue in terms of balance and difficulty.
Good thread! I left Civ a long time ago because the AI was to dumb given the complexity of the game. I still check in once a year or so to see if this has changed cause I am willing to come back if they make the AI somewhat better or simplify the game so the AI appears to be better. Reading through this thread obviously this hasn't happened.
I am hoping Humankind can make some AI that can give a challenge.
Agreed. Ergo VI is the most complex in the series.
I'd argue that VI has done more to rid us of "memorizing gameplay patterns" in the series. Between the eurkas/inspitration, CS quests, and the map the game has less obvious paths than ever. At any given point your choices are more situational than they ever have been in Civ.
I agree with this critique. But rather than see them remove the ability for districts and their buildings to give science etc; I'd rather see it that they can give up to the yields they currently do; but getting the full amounts is still population dependent. That or they just magnify the yield that population would give to science with no cap.
While it looks like they're doing it slightly differently (your units are combined in an "army" of sorts, and spread out only in a conflict situation...?); it still is 1UPT as far as I can see. I'm dubious that they'll have much better luck; unless they have poured far more resources into AI.
Since most of these branches are edge cases, they hardly represent everything one needs to consider, making the presentation seem like a disingenuous semblance of nuance. "Wonders Requirement"? "Civ-specific abilities"? CS suzerain powers? These aren't part and parcel of every decision regarding woods.
Woods present a couple of major considerations:
They're in the way of improvements and districts.
Chopping lets you trade off long-term production from a mill for rushing a build out near-term.
That's pretty much the meat of it. Appeal should rarely drive any decisions, limited to when you're in an edge case like with Earth Goddess and Bull Moose Teddy. What most civ's will get for appeal is far outweighed by the cost of maintaining appeal. Adjacency bonuses for HS's and IZ's tend not to matter because the bonuses are the same as what you'd get for putting districts there.
Sure, as players gain experience they learn to appreciate more considerations. They see more branches on the tree that they hadn't spotted at first. This is the lovely part of learning a game, when doors are unlocking and possibilities seem vast ("Oh, I just realized I can keep these two woods around to give my future IZ another +1 adjacency. New tactic!"). But then they gain even more experience and become jaded as they find hat all roads lead back to certain well-traveled core principles, causing them to prune branches and drill down to what is optimal in the majority of situations ("Oh, never mind. I can put chop the woods and put down districts that will provide a +1 adjacency triangle.Tried and true wins again.").
True, but the comment to which I replied was not so qualified. It was an inherently unfair generalization dismissive of all criticism.
EDIT: In the interests of fairness, I'll toss out some things I think have a good amount of nuance (and aren't so compromised by flaws as to be disqualified from mention):
The approach to great persons is a very good implementation of non-military competition taking the form of its own nuanced mini-game. The confluence of earning GP through buildings, through projects, through stockpiling currencies, all lead to a good mix risk/reward strategy and sometimes flat-out pushing your luck. Then you have to take into account the World Council getting involved here and manipulating the process.
The museum system is pretty good. The decision whether to go for artists or artifacts based on things like city production, how many GP points you generate, and the more generous GA points afforded by artifacts. And the various tricks to theming. You groan whenever you get a sculptor. Religious art is common and easy to theme early but peters out. You have to decide whether archaeology is competitive enough to prioritize chasing artifacts outside your borders, or if it's safe to go ahead and rip up those artifacts that are clogging up your own tiles. Ancient and classical artifacts are common initially, so later-era artifacts are annoying--until shipwrecks come along and change the commonality.
Separate names with a comma.