Which Civs are easy mode?

[Thormodr]

Hey Vancouver-Japan man! Long time no see!

Fun AI vs Good AI, yeah yeah, I know that speech from memory by now... the thing is, it's one thing to have a "fun" AI that does not play to win, and another to have a "boring" AI that does not play with all its own systems, and the ones it plays with, it does so very very badly. That is neither a fun nor a good AI. Its a non-existent AI.

That is NOT what Soren referred to. Gosh, how badly Firaxis needs a Soren...

And yes, it is ON topic, because that is what makes all civs easy mode, at least for me.

Hey, I agree that the AI should be able to play its own systems at least competently. For example, in Aid competitions, I never see the AI give anything. They always concede the competition from the start. It shouldn't be that easy for me to pitch a few gold and win.

Anyway, I believe the AI is merely here to provide atmosphere and facilitate my role playing/game playing experience. Make it competent and make it fun.

If I wanted a fantastic AI, I'd play chess.

Just my opinion, of course.

As Sid, the creator of Civ said once, "Everyone plays a game for a different reason." He gave an example of someone who played Railroad Tycoon but wanted nothing to do with the trains but just played the stock market. It wasn't the way the designer had envisioned the game to be played but he respected it and learned from it.

So, my way is not the only way to play the game but thankfully for me, it seems to align pretty close with the developers. They aren't going to jack up the AI to 11 and frankly I don't think they should. Just a bit more competent is fine.

 

[Leucarum]

The Voyages of Marco Polo. All the characters are broken on purpose. That's part of what makes the game so fun.

Disclaimer: I like to stick board games out until the end even if I'm not enjoying them... Marco Polo is the only game which I disliked so much that I had to say "I'm out..." and left the table. I don't think it's a bad game, it's well designed for sure, it's just the polar opposite of everything I consider fun.

That said, I think there is an interesting game design point there in relation to Civ6.. Marco Polo's mechanics revolve around creating punishing limitations on what you can do, and the characters provide distinctly OP ways to break those limitations... Civ6 has mostly avoided punishments like the plague, and given that the AI is bad at exploiting loopholes and planning ahead, while the player has little in the way of speedbumps... Maybe Civ7 does need a dose of punishment mechanics to try and slow down steamrolls...

Just please don't take inspiration from Marco Polo. It would break me.

 

[Thormodr]

I am sorry you didn't like The Voyages of Marco Polo. I like the theme and find the gameplay fun but it isn't everyone's cup of tea, admittedly. There are certain board games that I dislike such as Terra Mistakea. (sic)

Anyway, you raise a good point in regards to game design. Do you punish the player in an attempt to reign him/her in or have other means of keeping him/her in check?

Punishments and limitations have never gone over well in Civ. Pollution was the first in Civ I. Civ III had diminishing effects for cities to the point that you could build a city that didn't do anything at all. cIV had anti rex mechanics, too. Civilization 5 was the worst, IMHO, with global happiness. *Yuck*

We'll see what Civ VII brings. Hopefully not too much in the way of punishment but hopefully an AI that can use the game mechanics and systems adequately.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Civ 5 was plenty punishing in some aspects, and is why I can't really go back to the game anymore.
The global happiness system (which tended to always be negative), gold struggle and punishment in science/culture for settling more cities was just terrible design imo.
Playing domination and having to raze every non-capital, as well as every happiness wonder being mandatory, felt very very bad design wise.

 

[Leucarum]

I am sorry you didn't like The Voyages of Marco Polo. I like the theme and find the gameplay fun but it isn't everyone's cup of tea, admittedly. There are certain board games that I dislike such as Terra Mistakea. (sic)

Anyway, you raise a good point in regards to game design. Do you punish the player in an attempt to reign him/her in or have other means of keeping him/her in check?

Punishments and limitations have never gone over well in Civ. Pollution was the first in Civ I. Civ III had diminishing effects for cities to the point that you could build a city that didn't do anything at all. cIV had anti rex mechanics, too. Civilization 5 was the worst, IMHO, with global happiness. *Yuck*

We'll see what Civ VII brings. Hopefully not too much in the way of punishment but hopefully an AI that can use the game mechanics and systems adequately.

I guess we are at risk of veering off topic, but it is quite interesting to ask what board game mechanics Civ could draw upon - especially as it's considered a digital board game itself.

The other big issue with punishment in Civ I think is that the game is kind of the gateway 4x game, and new players struggle with punishment mechanics more I think...

 

[Thormodr]

Civ 5 was plenty punishing in some aspects, and is why I can't really go back to the game anymore.
The global happiness system (which tended to always be negative), gold struggle and punishment in science/culture for settling more cities was just terrible design imo.
Playing domination and having to raze every non-capital, as well as every happiness wonder being mandatory, felt very very bad design wise.

Agreed. It was way too restrictive. Stay in your lane or get punished hard! The swimming lane civ.

That's why Civ VI, even though it isn't perfect, is such a breath of fresh air. There is much more freedom to do and explore things.

I am having a lot of fun in my current Portugal game. It is on a large archipelago map so I am off settling little islands all over the place, making scads of money with my trade routes. That would never happen in Civilization 5.

 

[Aristos]

In other words, they went from too much "punishment" to no "punishment" at all... which is bad, and I would think a 30-year experience franchise would be out of the period of crazy oscillations by now...

Strategy involves, by definition, an analysis and weighing of costs and benefits. Both have to be present, or there is no strategy. The case of Civ 5 is more a case of very bad design and implementation of the costs part, but that does not mean having costs is bad; yet they decided they were synonyms, and went full no-cost with Civ 6. Some here said the costs are costs of opportunity, but that is not the same. Every strategic decision has a cost of opportunity, but also a cost in and by itself. If not, then it is not a strategic decision. That is why I think Civ 6 should just stop pretending it is a strategy game, because to me, it ceased to be in big part due to the above.

This is also why Civ 4 was the pinnacle of the franchise. It managed to achieve a sweet spot between costs and benefits, and they are both present in all decisions (SMAC was even more so, remember Social Engineering?). I fear that fine balance between costs and benefits will never come back to the franchise, in part due to the target audience they chose since Civ 6.

 

[Thormodr]

Certainly there needs to be some balance.

Still, I'd rather veer towards the non-punishment side rather than the slap your hand everytime you try to do something, Civilization 5.

I'd rather have a sandbox game where I can be creative and do fun things. If some people find that to be easy mode then make up some challenging restrictions. Like winning a conquest victory with Georgia or a cultural victory with the Zulus. Perhaps a scientific victory with Genghis, etc.

I am currently trying to see how much gold per turn I can make in my Portugal game. Perhaps the next one will be trying to grow a city to 40 population with a limit of of 4-6 trade routes. After that, maybe it will be the most productive polder competition. Maybe there needs to be a challenge thread.

That way, the goal shifts from merely winning (which isn't that hard to do) to doing really cool stuff.

Just my thoughts, anyway.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Still, I'd rather veer towards the non-punishment side rather than the slap your hand everytime you try to do something, Civilization 5.

Absolutely.
Civ 5 for me is almost unplayable atm because of that, and I feel civ 6 is closer to the sweet spot on this particular point. Maybe they could have made amenities more important, sure, but overall I like it.
Civ 6 allows for a variety of different playstyles, whereas with civ 5 you were kind of forced to play the 3-4 city tall Tradition meta, because you were the least punished by it.
And oh boy does 3-4 city tall Tradition get boring after a while.

 

[civac]

Funny thing is that there are still a bunch of people playing Civ5 4 city Tradition every game.

Civ6 is full of punishing mechanics. Escalating cost of settlers, the huge cost of everything in general, growing cities is incredibly hard. There are, however, semi-cheesy ways around these obstacles (chops , Monumentally, pre-planted free cities).

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Funny thing is that there are still a bunch of people playing Civ5 4 city Tradition every game.

I haven't played civ 5 in a few years, but yes, 3-4 city tall tradition was the way to go for the smoothest games as it was the most comfy way to mitigate the punishments. I did occasionally play wide with Liberty and even dabble into Honour at times, but they werent my idea of fun at all. The happiness problem just became too pronounced in Liberty, and I hated how I had to calculate whether or not it was worth it to settle another city when also considering the increased tech cost. It also became ridiculous in that settling often wasn't worth it if the city didn't have a unique luxury either, and I disliked that particular aspect a lot. An empire shouldnt stagnate based on whether or not you acquire sugar in that new settlement.

 

[shaglio]

I haven't played civ 5 in a few years, but yes, 3-4 city tall tradition was the way to go for the smoothest games as it was the most comfy way to mitigate the punishments. I did occasionally play wide with Liberty and even dabble into Honour at times, but they werent my idea of fun at all. The happiness problem just became too pronounced in Liberty, and I hated how I had to calculate whether or not it was worth it to settle another city when also considering the increased tech cost. It also became ridiculous in that settling often wasn't worth it if the city didn't have a unique luxury either, and I disliked that particular aspect a lot. An empire shouldnt stagnate based on whether or not you acquire sugar in that new settlement.

I recently went back to Civ 5 and the first thing I did was go into the Global Defines file and change the Happiness Per Population and Happiness Per City values. It has made the game much more playable for me, and I don't have to ALWAYS go for Tradition every time.

 

[aieeegrunt]

In other words, they went from too much "punishment" to no "punishment" at all... which is bad, and I would think a 30-year experience franchise would be out of the period of crazy oscillations by now...

Strategy involves, by definition, an analysis and weighing of costs and benefits. Both have to be present, or there is no strategy. The case of Civ 5 is more a case of very bad design and implementation of the costs part, but that does not mean having costs is bad; yet they decided they were synonyms, and went full no-cost with Civ 6. Some here said the costs are costs of opportunity, but that is not the same. Every strategic decision has a cost of opportunity, but also a cost in and by itself. If not, then it is not a strategic decision. That is why I think Civ 6 should just stop pretending it is a strategy game, because to me, it ceased to be in big part due to the above.

This is also why Civ 4 was the pinnacle of the franchise. It managed to achieve a sweet spot between costs and benefits, and they are both present in all decisions (SMAC was even more so, remember Social Engineering?). I fear that fine balance between costs and benefits will never come back to the franchise, in part due to the target audience they chose since Civ 6.

I agree, Civ6 is an instant gratification zero consequences sandbox. Basically a sim game. The only strategy is “how do I win and how quickly”.

 

[pkaem]

I agree, Civ6 is an instant gratification zero consequences sandbox. Basically a sim game. The only strategy is “how do I win and how quickly”.

This is right when you have everything down with your plans and roll the right map and civs. You will win anyways if you can defend yourself and get out some cities in a reasonable amount of time. There are two things in my experience that can catch you off guard. 1) not properly prepared against the turn 12 warrior carpet and. 2) the backstab RV by AI when you don't pay attention. I just lost a game to this, when I really needed one last turn for Lady six skies cap in turn 186 to win domination,she score RV. I just laughed. But it feot good to lose a game that was (for my Standards) played well. So yes, speed of victory displays on which level you executed your plans. So just take a T250 SV as a loss

 

[Aristos]

The fact that the franchise went from "how do I win this?" to "how fast do I win this?" speaks volumes all by itself.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The fact that the franchise went from "how do I win this?" to "how fast do I win this?" speaks volumes all by itself.

It does

This is right when you have everything down with your plans and roll the right map and civs. You will win anyways if you can defend yourself and get out some cities in a reasonable amount of time. There are two things in my experience that can catch you off guard. 1) not properly prepared against the turn 12 warrior carpet and. 2) the backstab RV by AI when you don't pay attention. I just lost a game to this, when I really needed one last turn for Lady six skies cap in turn 186 to win domination,she score RV. I just laughed. But it feot good to lose a game that was (for my Standards) played well. So yes, speed of victory displays on which level you executed your plans. So just take a T250 SV as a loss

Other than nonsense like you cited where the AI is cheating to a ridiculous degree it never poses any sort of challenge at any time.

 

[Thormodr]

The fact that the franchise went from "how do I win this?" to "how fast do I win this?" speaks volumes all by itself.

That doesn't make any sense, sorry.

If anything, Civ VI is about how do I win this? There are a myriad of options on how to win. It's more sandboxey and it's great.

Sure there is a subset of players who are minmaxers that seek to win as fast as possible. I've seen videos of turn 130 wins.

But you know what? Good for them if they want to play that way. It's not for me, generally, although I have had sub 200 turn conquest victories a few times. Anyway, it's a perfectly valid way to play.

I love that there are many ways to play Civ VI. Sooooooo much better than the straightjacket they put you in the last iteration. *Ugh*

 

[Kotofei]

Khmer, wetlands, River Goddess, Voidsingers. Explosive early population growth and faith makes any victory condition much easier.

 

[aieeegrunt]

That doesn't make any sense, sorry.

If anything, Civ VI is about how do I win this? There are a myriad of options on how to win. It's more sandboxey and it's great.

Sure there is a subset of players who are minmaxers that seek to win as fast as possible. I've seen videos of turn 130 wins.

But you know what? Good for them if they want to play that way. It's not for me, generally, although I have had sub 200 turn conquest victories a few times. Anyway, it's a perfectly valid way to play.

I love that there are many ways to play Civ VI. Sooooooo much better than the straightjacket they put you in the last iteration. *Ugh*

The game being a foregone conclusion and a Next Turn Simulator makes it a boring exercise in futility for people who want actual adversity

Unless you get extremely unlucky in the first few turns, even on Diety the game is basically impossible to lose.

 

[civac]

Go play MP.