Why are the civs' abilities so underwhelming?

[Deadly Dog]

In terms of "putting people in the gutter" that isn't what is happening here. This is just the basics of how almost any player improves no matter what level they're playing at. It's certainly not a criticism of people who are happy taking all the help they can get.

I beg to differ. Immediately after I posted that restarting to affirm a start bias is something a player might consider to explore a civ's strengths, another poster quotes me out of context and suggests that I have nothing to offer, indeed that I should go back and play at lower levels. That was a few weeks ago and now I see this point being taken up again.

Ridiculous. You can also doggedly play any and all starts, refusing to quit or restart, come to the forums saying the game is broken and anyone who wins must be restarting or exploiting bugs, ask for help, get pages of pages of free advice, and still not be an "expert" player. Using the restart button has nothing to do with skill, will not make you a better or worse player, and making these generalizations about other player's skills when they offer up suggestions to others seems to me a large derailing of the topic.

 

[nzcamel]

I beg to differ. Immediately after I posted that restarting to affirm a start bias is something a player might consider to explore a civ's strengths, another poster quotes me out of context and suggests that I have nothing to offer, indeed that I should go back and play at lower levels. That was a few weeks ago and now I see this point being taken up again.

It seems to me like you are taking what was said in that first conversation and seeing it in what I am saying, regardless of the fact that I am not. I have never said you have nothing to offer. I have never said that you should play at low levels.

Ridiculous. You can also doggedly play any and all starts, refusing to quit or restart, come to the forums saying the game is broken

I also haven't said the game is broken.

and anyone who wins must be restarting or exploiting bugs, ask for help, get pages of pages of free advice, and still not be an "expert" player. Using the restart button has nothing to do with skill, will not make you a better or worse player, and making these generalizations about other player's skills when they offer up suggestions to others seems to me a large derailing of the topic.

Using the restart button often does undermine ones ability to improve their game through finding ways to slog through tough starts. Just as someone who quits a game if they miss out on wonder X suffers from the lack of learning to make do without said wonder. There is nothing at all wrong with playing that way. But if anyone wants to improve at the game one of the best ways they can do it (not the only way mind you, and I have never said it is!) is to play the hand they are dealt and see overcoming that as a challenge, including less than ideal starts; be that in general or specific to the Civ they are playing.

 

[Deadly Dog]

It seems to me like you are taking what was said in that first conversation and seeing it in what I am saying, regardless of the fact that I am not. I have never said you have nothing to offer. I have never said that you should play at low levels.



I also haven't said the game is broken.



Using the restart button often does undermine ones ability to improve their game through finding ways to slog through tough starts. Just as someone who quits a game if they miss out on wonder X suffers from the lack of learning to make do without said wonder. There is nothing at all wrong with playing that way. But if anyone wants to improve at the game one of the best ways they can do it (not the only way mind you, and I have never said it is!) is to play the hand they are dealt and see overcoming that as a challenge, including less than ideal starts; be that in general or specific to the Civ they are playing.

Apologies I quoted your post only to disagree with the notion that no one is being put in the gutter. I do agree on the whole with your own comments here and above, to be certain.

Mainly though I didn't see how use of restart button or not is relevant to discussing the idea that civ abilities are underwhelming. Maybe I was wrong though, from the standpoint that if you play every map on high levels no matter what you get you will be forced to ignore a lot civ uniqueness to win every game, and be left with the impression that civ abilites don't do much. I don't find that I use restart button very often myself, unless I'm playing around with an idea and replaying a familiar civ. In order to explore a new (to me) civ's uniqueness, I rarely find the start bias lets me down in terms of giving me at least something to work with.

But if you never play Russia in the tundra...nevermind lol bad example they still rock.

 

[Archon_Wing]

As another user here once said (whose name I forget I'm sorry) the idea here with abilities seems to be "+1 yield to the thing you are going to do anyway".

That sounds pretty clueless, if you ask me. And just blatantly false.

I think most of the civs require you to approach maps very differently. If you play the same way with all of them, it's not the game's fault. But NFP has been pretty good in this regards as almost every civ has to be played differently. Vietnam has restricted placement, Mayans have a flipped paradigm for city placement, Babylon makes you focus on Eurekas heavily, etc.

As for the Aztecs, builders building districts is not interesting on its own, but it synergies nicely with their Eagle Warrior's ability to capture builders from units and also the civ incentivizes pursuing and improving luxuries. So builders play a key part in Aztec strategy. Raiding just to get more builders is also a thing.

It is pretty shortsighted to only look at one thing in a vacuum and not look at how all the pieces come together. I often see specific parts of civs being compared around, and that makes no sense since you are supposed to use the entire kit.

We have like 50+ leader/civ choices at this point and the fact that I haven't really run through all the possibilities after 3k hours is ... something.

 

[Wellfooled]

I'm not saying good players never have a reason for restarting. I am saying that most good players get that way in part by not restarting most games.

And that's an understandable opinion. Not restarting would likely more often put someone into a situation where they'd have to overcome more challenges, getting them extra practice at the game mechanics. Though I would argue that you can learn the game mechanics well regardless of your restarting habits and how well someone learns is largely dependent on the player and not the start.

In terms of "putting people in the gutter" that isn't what is happening here. This is just the basics of how almost any player improves no matter what level they're playing at. It's certainly not a criticism of people who are happy taking all the help they can get.

But as for claiming this whole conversation isn't putting people in the gutter-- Deadly Dog suggested playing as the Inca, but restarting if not near mountains. This is already something the game is designed to do for you, but doesn't always succeed. So his suggestion is already in line with what the developer's intend. They want Inca to start my mountains. They designed the game to do its best to put Inca by mountains. In answer to that suggestion it was said, "I think anyone who restarts a map can't be an expert at the game". Not, "I try to avoid restarting" or "I think by not restarting I can be better at the game", but rather "Anyone who restarts a map can't be an expert" (emphasis mine).

This is an absolute statement that throws anyone and everyone who restarts under the bus and into the proverbial gutter. Then, two other posters, including yourself, came along and agreed with it. It's great to want to face challenges and learn about the game because of them, but telling other people they're not "experts" for restarting is absolutely putting people in the gutter with no valid reason to. If your point was that not restarting can help a player become an expert or more quickly teach them game mechanics, say that instead of trying to push down likely, thousands of people, who have a different approach.

There are very good players who restart often. There are very bad players who never restart.

 

[nzcamel]

You missed that I clarified what I agree with? I added "often" into the line.

I can absolutely understand someone restarting a game to get more out of a Civ like the Incans. Having said that, if you choose them (like I did) in MP, and don't have the desired mountains (also like I didn't) nearby, you don't get to restart.

Pushing through even some crappy games like that is good for learning for the average player.

 

[Ravellion]

I play Civ 6 exclusively nowadays, but I have less than a 1000 hours in it, while I have 3000+ in Civ 5. I do empathize with the OP somewhat.

One of the reasons is I think Civ 6 throws so many small decisions at you, that the decisions that are affected by your unique abilities are few and far between. In Civ 5, quite a few decisions were automatic (you are going to build all buildings in each city. If you want a wonder, you build it in the city with most production, and unless you are doing a high-risk Liberty strategy, you are going to build 4 or 5 cities). That meant that the leader ability seemed to pop out more, and it was easier to identify what it did for your game looking back on it as well. Civ 6's horrible UI also means the numeric benefits of your abilities are also buried in the data somewhere.

That brings me to my perceived second reason. If I look back at my most recent game with Ethiopia, the decisions that won me the game were that Petra city I settled, letting a few barb camps live to get some extra city states, and using the mountain range nearby to build lots of campuses and holy sites. I only built 2 rock hewn churches; one for the era score, and one next to a volcano later (beause I was swimming in faith already, so I'd rather had mines), and also built only one copy of my UU for the era score (no clear need for war by then). The only really big change is that I really focused settling on hills. This meant that my cities were sometimes one-tile off from what normally would be ideal city placement. That didn't feel too impactful - but it likely was. IIRC one of the designers of the third edition of D&D once stated that it is better to give players one big ability that has obvious effects rather than many small ones, simply for psychological purposes. The impact should be significant and clear. Maybe that is why I too, just like the OP, sometimes feel that the civ abilities in civ 6 matter less, despite the fact that they have an effect on my game. Do I know how much faith and science I gained from Ethiopia's abilities in my last game? No, not a clue. Probably a lot, the game did seem easy, but it was a small and hidden benefit er city.No tooltips clearly tell me what was added. In contrast, I really noticed the +2 faith on my monuments in Civ 5! They got me an early pantheon and religion, and due to Civ 5's faith yield per city being quite low, that +2 faith was tangible. I also saw it clearly each time I opened the city screen.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I play Civ 6 exclusively nowadays, but I have less than a 1000 hours in it, while I have 3000+ in Civ 5. I do empathize with the OP somewhat.

One of the reasons is I think Civ 6 throws so many small decisions at you, that the decisions that are affected by your unique abilities are few and far between. In Civ 5, quite a few decisions were automatic (you are going to build all buildings in each city. If you want a wonder, you build it in the city with most production, and unless you are doing a high-risk Liberty strategy, you are going to build 4 or 5 cities). That meant that the leader ability seemed to pop out more, and it was easier to identify what it did for your game looking back on it as well. Civ 6's horrible UI also means the numeric benefits of your abilities are also buried in the data somewhere.

That brings me to my perceived second reason. If I look back at my most recent game with Ethiopia, the decisions that won me the game were that Petra city I settled, letting a few barb camps live to get some extra city states, and using the mountain range nearby to build lots of campuses and holy sites. I only built 2 rock hewn churches; one for the era score, and one next to a volcano later (beause I was swimming in faith already, so I'd rather had mines), and also built only one copy of my UU for the era score (no clear need for war by then). The only really big change is that I really focused settling on hills. This meant that my cities were sometimes one-tile off from what normally would be ideal city placement. That didn't feel too impactful - but it likely was. IIRC one of the designers of the third edition of D&D once stated that it is better to give players one big ability that has obvious effects rather than many small ones, simply for psychological purposes. The impact should be significant and clear. Maybe that is why I too, just like the OP, sometimes feel that the civ abilities in civ 6 matter less, despite the fact that they have an effect on my game. Do I know how much faith and science I gained from Ethiopia's abilities in my last game? No, not a clue. Probably a lot, the game did seem easy, but it was a small and hidden benefit er city.No tooltips clearly tell me what was added. In contrast, I really noticed the +2 faith on my monuments in Civ 5! They got me an early pantheon and religion, and due to Civ 5's faith yield per city being quite low, that +2 faith was tangible. I also saw it clearly each time I opened the city screen.

I think it depends on how to see some civs. Sure, some civs might be underwhelming, but stating that all civs are is a gross misrepresentation.

I mean, when I play Rome, I already notice my free monument and the free roads. When I play Mali, the first 6 faiths are already visible. When swimming in faith and GWAM with bigger territories as Russia, I already noticed them. I notice how I lack production when not near mountains as Incas. I certainly feel the contraints of the Seowon.

While your statement is not entirely wrong, I think most of the backlash came from the absolutism of your statement and what appears, to us, as short-sightedness and bias confirmation.

 

[Unmitigated Gaul]

I think depending on how you look at it, a lot of things “win the game”.

In my last game as Georgia (dramatic ages, barb clans) I started close to Mt Roriama and settled my first city there.

The faith got me religious settlements which helped me get an earlier than usual religion and choral music, and the science catapulted me through the tech tree and guaranteed a golden classical era- the faith paired with that to give a very successful monumentality.

It would have won the game for any Civ.

But I was also able to use Tamar’s leader ability to plug in Monasticism during a golden age, and after I finished settling, to plug in Isolationism during a golden age. Later in the game I was also able to use robber barons during a golden age.

All of these boosts were huge and supercharged my empire.