[NFP] What I really hope the developers to know.

[Lily_Lancer]

After watching the newly posted update video, I have a feeling that the developers still don't understand what is needed to improve the game.

The developers seem to listen to players' advice and make adjustments accordingly. However, I'm afraid that they're actually not to the point, like they always were.

1:Trade
The developers propose to undervalue the value of diplo favors. Sure, this is a good step. The diplo favors are clearly overestimated in early game and underestimated in late game. However, the main issue on trade is trade bugs-- some combination of actions that allow you to use sth. not valuable at all, a luxury, diplo favor, joint war or Great Work, to exchange for everything an AI has.

A diplo favor worthing 5 or 10 gold may cause a moderate change on strategy, as long as the value being consistent. However, if you can buy it at 5 and sell it at 10 this is another story.

So as books, luxury, or joint war. As long as the price of sth. being a little inconsistent, there's a space to bug out the whole system.

What the developers really should do is to test thoroughly the system before releasing any updates, to ensure no such bugs exist.

2:Gran Columbia
Gran Columbia is overpowered, yes. The developers decide to nerf it.

Before celebrating the nerf of Gran Columbia, let's recall what makes Gran Columbia imba.

The General Stacking Mechanism. In fact all strength stacking mechanisms are somehow overpowered,as in Civ6 units grow exponentially stronger with power stacking. 5 strength means +20% in attack and defense, but 10 means +50% and 20 means +125%. If you suffer 125% less damage while giving 125% more damage you're actually 5 times stronger.

Units grow exponentially stronger as power stacks. Sure GC is overpowered, how about Mongolian Apostle, Byzantium Horde, Gaul UA? Why are people so diverse upon Conquistador? Some people that can stack up other bonuses consider the extra +10 a game-changer-- they already have Crusade, War of Religion, Spanish UA, Oligarchy inherent, Military Alliance and GG to make their muskets 10 times more powerful than usual, and the +10 adjusts the 10 to 22.

While people who have difficulty stacking up other bonuses call the UU useless since 2-times-stronger-than-musket still have difficulty combating.

It is the exponential stronger thing that makes strength stacking very imbalanced, every stack becomes stronger if combined with other stacks, and that leads to the imbalance of GC(also Mongolia and Byzantium). Now the nerf is only on Gran Columbia.

3:AI strategy
The developers decide to tweak the AI strategy to let them more focused on some particular wonders and districts.

This also suggests that the developer don't know the reason why AIs being so bad.

To conclude, there are 2 reasons.

1: The AI receives too little bonus. In Civ6, apart from the extra settlers, AIs only produce and research at a bonus of 80%/32% on Deity level, which is close to the bonus of Emperor level in C4 or C5. Given C4/C5 players can still counter the C4/C5 Deity there's no reason not to give C6 Deity same amount of bonus.

2: The AI research route is badly coded. They seem to always straightly beeline sth., and ignore useful small techs of previous eras.

I always find AIs leaving stones/plantation resources undeveloped until very late even on Deity.

Masonry/Irrigation are useful, however AI usually seems to ignore these techs and beeline others. This definitely leads to drawbacks. Especially when an AI is beelining the lower branch and ignore Writing. You'll see its cities have a lot of farms, no plantations, only encampments, no campus/commercial hubs, without walls(as Masonry is not on the path). Sometimes even farm on horses.

Sometimes they even don't wall up themselves until T110. The strategy definitely needs changing, at least in ancient era. Ancient era techs are cheap and vital, ancient improvements are very useful for developments. Saving the 50 science of irrigation won't help you to be much quicker to beeline Military Science.

Will focusing on particular wonders and districts helpful? Maybe. Focusing on Pyramids definitely leads to the research of Masonry as a side effect, making AIs more likely to build walls. But there'll still be no plantations on plantation resources. This is just a "happen fix". Given they have no idea about the internal reason other bugs will still be there.


4: Conclusion
In fact all of these leads to a simple conclusion-- When an imbalance occurs, the developers won't look into deeper reasons of the systematic problems and will only do small visible tweaks to the imbalance.

As systematic problems not being solved and still there, as new things proposed new imbalances will always occur one after another.

 

[_hero_]

I agree with the general points but think there's more to consider.

In the case of Diplo favor, I think the AI needs to balanced around the assumption that players aren't using exploits. Exploits such as the AI trading bug do need to be fixed, but that is independent of the AI overvaluing favor in the first place. No player who is using clear exploits to win can turn around and complain about the AI. They are cheating. But players playing the game as intended and still overwhelming the AI because of legitimate game mechanics do have a legitimate gripe.

On the stacked combat bonus point, you are absolutely right, but sadly overhauling the combat system is probably the only fix and that is not something that is realistic to happen until Civ 7 is released. Instead, they can merely dial back any of the combat bonuses so that they are less substantial.

I see the main issue with the AI being that it does not heavily enough weight its decisions towards a specific victory goal. Building many encampments wouldn't be too terrible if that same AI also built tons of units and ruthlessly attacked it's neighbors until it cleared the map of all competitors. Instead, it frequently will build an encampment in nearly every city then sit back and build wonders, never attacking anyone. Likewise, an AI that is seemingly pursuing a science victory will only build campuses in half it's cities, and build just as many holy sites for no apparent reason. It will also build many wonders which serve no real benefit towards a science victory. It will also discover spaceports and build a few, but then build a bunch of other things instead of spaceship parts in those cities. A human player will build a spaceport or two and then build nothing but spaceship parts in those cities and often catch up even from a 50 turn deficit.

 

[Sostratus]

It might be better

On the stacked combat bonus point, you are absolutely right, but sadly overhauling the combat system is probably the only fix and that is not something that is realistic to happen until Civ 7 is released. Instead, they can merely dial back any of the combat bonuses so that they are less substantial

There’s nothing wrong with Civ’s combat system. Most civs lack strong combat bonuses.

It is just avoiding designs that abuse stacking. Byzantium is much less abusive on the combat strength side compared to, say, Aztec, but they clearly demonstrate a different facet of Civ- Wall resistances are insanely potent. Perhaps too potent!

If you absolutely demanded to go back to linear vs multiplicative combat, that would also be a simple change (I’m fairly certain dll is needed for that, though the effect of 1 point of strength is a parameter we can fix.)

 

[Pfeffersack]

If you absolutely demanded to go back to linear vs multiplicative combat, that would also be a simple change (I’m fairly certain dll is needed for that, though the effect of 1 point of strength is a parameter we can fix.)

For my taste the damage units suffer is a bit too high overall. I think the AI would profit from units dying not as fast. City/Encampment strikes are most problematic, but even when unit fights unit it feels to be that they are overall dying slightly too fast. Overall one more round needed for the kill wouldn't hurt IMO. The AI could profit from being able to retreat better. Currently, in most wars AIs soon lose all units and then it is just a question if you can take down their walls.

 

[RealHuhn]

@Lily_Lancer: I agree with everything you've just said. Very good analysis!

The AI receives too little bonus. In Civ6, apart from the extra settlers, AIs only produce and research at a bonus of 80%/32% on Deity level, which is close to the bonus of Emperor level in C4 or C5. Given C4/C5 players can still counter the C4/C5 Deity there's no reason not to give C6 Deity same amount of bonus.

This is new to me. Interesting. Any idea why they decided to nerf Deity bonuses? That's pretty odd.

 

[Sostratus]

This is new to me. Interesting. Any idea why they decided to nerf Deity bonuses? That's pretty odd.

Wel in civ5 it was a little weird because the AI got two sets of bonuses - one from being on the "AI" difficulty level, which was always active, and then a compounding bonus or malus based on the players chosen difficulty level.
The actual bonus for a lot of things applied due to deity was around 100% (production on units and buildings) and about 80% faster growth. But, due to being on their own AI difficulty, most production costs were reduced by 25%, so combined with a 100% boosted work rate it's more like a ~160% boost.
Oh but their tech boost was just paying 85% of the normal cost for techs. However, since they have much faster growth and pops=science in civ5, it's a different story.

 

[Victoria]

On the stacked combat bonus point, you are absolutely right, but sadly overhauling the combat system is probably the only fix and that is not something that is realistic to happen until Civ 7 is released. Instead, they can merely dial back any of the combat bonuses so that they are less substantial.

There’s nothing wrong with Civ’s combat system. Most civs lack strong combat bonuses.

The problem with GC is the combination of +1 MP and combat bonuses and it is not such a problem to me because I do not play multi player. In SP the AI just does not use these benefits like a human.
They really don’t need a nerf, they cannot stack GG in the ancient era. But fine, I may play them again if they are not so strong but I do like coming across them in a game, it makes me worry what general I cannot see in the fog.

 

[criZp]

Exponential strength increase from stacked bonuses can be dealt with simply by putting an upper limit on how much bonus a given unit can have. Same as the OP russia + work ethic + the faith adjacency card can be fixed by putting an upper limit on the adjacency bonus that a district can have.

 

[bengalryan9]

A diplo favor worthing 5 or 10 gold may cause a moderate change on strategy, as long as the value being consistent. However, if you can buy it at 5 and sell it at 10 this is another story.

So as books, luxury, or joint war. As long as the price of sth. being a little inconsistent, there's a space to bug out the whole system.

I get what you are saying, but how many players are really going to sit there and take advantage of this? It seems so tedious... this would be way down on my list of concerns, personally.

 

[_hero_]

There’s nothing wrong with Civ’s combat system. Most civs lack strong combat bonuses.

It is just avoiding designs that abuse stacking. Byzantium is much less abusive on the combat strength side compared to, say, Aztec, but they clearly demonstrate a different facet of Civ- Wall resistances are insanely potent. Perhaps too potent!

If you absolutely demanded to go back to linear vs multiplicative combat, that would also be a simple change (I’m fairly certain dll is needed for that, though the effect of 1 point of strength is a parameter we can fix.)

The change may be simple in terms of changing something in the coding. That's not what I meant. I meant that the entire combat system is built upon how it works now. Everything would need to be reassessed as a result.

 

[Victoria]

I get what you are saying, but how many players are really going to sit there and take advantage of this? It seems so tedious... this would be way down on my list of concerns, personally.

Oh plenty of people, GOTM is a good example.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Oh plenty of people, GOTM is a good example.

I personally don't think GOTM people are "plenty" compare to the majority of the players.

 

[Aurelesk]

Gran Colombia has multiples strength:

• It has +1 Movement at all times, meaning faster exploration, deals quicker with Barbarians, improve faster the tiles, and settling cities is faster and safer.
• It can stacks 2 Generals with Comandante General, so 2 Movements and +10 CS
  • Comandante General cannot be obsolete, and works with Ancient era units, contrary to Great General that need to be renewed.
  • Having +3 Movement in total also means all units can Pillage and moves in the same turn.
• Contrary to the Zulu and Mongolia (well, it has Trading Post instantly) , Gran Colombia isn't a pure Domination civilization. Its unique infrastructure allows to ignore Housing limitation and have Production on flat land.

I do hope they are not going to reduce its power too much. Something like this:

Spoiler :

Simón Bolívar

• Campaña Admirable: Earn a Comandante General when the game enters a new era. +1 Great General point from Encampment. Promoting a unit does not end that unit's turn.
  • Comandante General: +5 Combat Strength and +10 HP healing for the player's units within 2 tiles. Each has a unique Retire effect.

Gran Colombia

• Ejército Patriota: +1 Movement to all units if starting turn within 8 tiles of a friendly city. All units ignore Zone of Control when moving in their home territory.

Gran Colombia still have a greay early game. They are still good at exploration, but can't reach too far away, still beat nearby Barbarians but can't chase them all over the world, and still have faster and safer settlers as long it is not too far than their home territory.
The Builders are even better, since they could ignore ZoC even in war time or during a barbarian attacks. The conditionnal Movement leads Gran Colombia to plan more carefully, have allies, settling cities far away, have suzerain... to enjoy that bonus.

They are less mobile offensively, since the Comandante General trade the +1 Movement for a healing (can stack with Medic, cannot stack with other Comandante General). This is even more tricky since you need to halt your war for healing, leading the invaded to build up defense. The healing is twice less than powerful than a Medic, but reach 2 tiles. In the end, Gran Colombia should be less effective in a Pillage or Blitzkrieg tactics, but can wage a longer war. Plus, healing is more synergetic with promoting units.

To compensate the downgrade, Gran Colombia can have Great General more easily. They also have amazing tools to defend their territory since they will always have that +1 movement, enjoy healing-and-stalling with Comandante General, and move freely to save units or quick support/flanking bonuses.

In the end, I have no idea what I am doing. I am just throwing ideas. Maybe those changes will lead Gran Colombia to be even more powerful. In my mind, I think it has more tools but is less powerful in the same time.

(I change the "Promoting a unit does not end that unit's turn." to the leader ability, because it match better the Agenda of Simón Bolívar. It made no sense to him to want to promote units and have Encampment when its ability have nothing to push for this. It is just for aesthetics.)

For trading exploit, can we have some explanation. I am not able to replicate it. I know they ask/give more Gold for trade when friendly, and add a Gold penalty when unfriendly. So I guess you could buy DF to neutral civilization with no diplomatic trait, and sell it more than double to a friendly civilization with a diplomatic trait. Except you can't trade more 20 DF at the time, and they are not willing to sell any if they go under a certain number of DF (sometimes 100, sometimes less).

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I only think if the general lower difficulty level of Civ VI (including some AI weird and inefficient decisions) is not intentional by devs to make the game general easier and more accessible for new and casual players. Is lower difficulties (prince and lower) are also easier?

 

[Starina]

I would say that the tech tree is not balanced. either the top branch or the bottom ... and you follow it. either planes or tanks ... Why does the infantry need oil when tanks also need it and they are in the same era? And if you have no oil at all?
Moreover, the social technology tree is better balanced.

I am looking forward to the changes at the GC))

 

[bengalryan9]

Oh plenty of people, GOTM is a good example.

I get that, and that was the one example where I could think of people really abusing it since you're basically playing a single player game but competing against others, but as pointed out we're probably talking about a pretty small group of players in the grand scheme of things.

Maybe the game should keep some type of "trade log" detailing every trade that was ever made in a game that others could see if they loaded a submitted game file? Not ideal but it might help a little.

 

[leandrombraz]

I get what you are saying, but how many players are really going to sit there and take advantage of this? It seems so tedious... this would be way down on my list of concerns, personally.

That's probably the reason they didn't take the time to fix it yet. How many people actually use this exploit? I rarely see people talking about this as a strategy they use, and I'm taking into consideration every place where Civ VI is discussed, not just Civfanatics. I don't watch a lot of let's play on youtube, but I don't think that's something that the most popular youtubers use either, which would help this exploit become popular. If people aren't using it, which is something that might show up in Firaxis' telemetry, it would be a low priority exploit for them to fix, mainly if it isn't an easy problem to solve (I assume an overhaul of the trade system would be necessary to achieve that). It's like that neighborhood exploit. Since I first heard about it, I've seem 2, maybe 3 people that use it, all on Civfanatics. I never seem anyone even mention it somewhere else, so I'm not surprised that it wasn't fixed yet, and it probably never will.

I agree that it should be fixed and I hope it will, but the fact is, that's an exploit that doesn't have any impact on my experience, since I don't use it, and it doesn't seem to have much of an impact on the Civ community as a whole. Meanwhile, selling favors is a common strategy that most Civ VI players use, so fixing that has a lot more impact on people experience.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I wish Diplo Favor can be unsellable but bribe-able, as a special currency for bribing AI to do things for you (rather than tell them not to do things), like how bribes work in Civ5 - bribe them to vote, to go to war, etc. It is Diplomatic Favor after all.

But that requires a complete reworking of a core mechanism and I don't see it happen in the current development cycle.

 

[The googles do nothing]

@Lily_Lancer I've really enjoyed your posts lately.

1. This is arbitrage. I'm not sure if you are asking for it to be totally removed or made more difficult to do. I don't like leader trading and don't see why it's doesn't at least require a trade route to complete before the trade if finalized.

2. Vanillia civ abilities only had limited period of being able to stack more combat bonuses then other civs. The exception was America and it was map limited. The combat bonuses being handed out now seem to be game long and with conditions that are easier and easier to meet. The imbalances now are intentional.

3. This is the real tragedy for lack of a better word of the data gathering fiasco. There's a huge amount of information being generated by players on how to weight if going for a technology or improving a tile is worth it and it's all going to waste because somebody was greedy. I personally doubt the people making the game wanted the data gathering.

 

[hhhhhh]

AIs only produce and research at a bonus of 80%/32% on Deity level

I think they boosted deity bonus to 100%/40% already, it's not 80/32 any more.