Why is Old World currently sitting on "mixed" ratings on Steam?

No player wants the AI to come knocking when it was the player who cleared a site, so being able to keep it out of greedy hands with just one unit is a fine mechanic in my eyes - otherwise you'd need to either already have the settler ready or keep a ton of units there to do nothing.
 
No player wants the AI to come knocking when it was the player who cleared a site, so being able to keep it out of greedy hands with just one unit is a fine mechanic in my eyes - otherwise you'd need to either already have the settler ready or keep a ton of units there to do nothing.
Again, there are ways around such an issue. Clearing a barb camp could give you an instant claim over a city site which would mean AI couldn't just march in an settle it without earning their own claim on the site through whatever means. In fact, such a system would allow you to nuance the system a lot, so that it's not just the person who takes out the camp who holds the spot, but so that a player earns more claim on the area, the more fighting the player has done. This would mean you can't just swoop in and snipe the camp and claim the spot when the other player has almost fought it down, as sometimes happens in the current system.
 
Clearing a barb camp could give you an instant claim over a city site which would mean AI couldn't just march in an settle it without earning their own claim on the site through whatever means. In fact, such a system would allow you to nuance the system a lot, so that it's not just the person who takes out the camp who holds the spot, but so that a player earns more claim on the area, the more fighting the player has done.
You mean like the site keeps track of who does the most damage to its defenders and the player with the most damage done gets to have the rightful claim?
Apart from the occasional sniping, I would say the current system has pretty much the same effect.
 
You mean like the site keeps track of who does the most damage to its defenders and the player with the most damage done gets to have the rightful claim?
Apart from the occasional sniping, I would say the current system has pretty much the same effect.
Well maybe we are moving off topic here, but the thought I was trying to explain was some sort of, let's call it "influence" score that each player would have on a region. So you could earn influence over a certain region by different mechanisms:
  • Passive military presence in the region/urban sites could earn you points each turn based on combat strength.
  • Active military presence in terms of for instance done to barbarians could be added to our influence score.
  • Nearby cities could grant you influence based on their culture level (this would be a bit similar to Civ6's loyalty pressure).
So what I had in mind was that if you reach a certain influence score, you can lay claim on a territory even if you have not settled it. However, this claim would be less permanent than actually settling the territory, so if another player also meets the threshold, they can also lay claim on the territory.

So instead of it's just "your scout got to the city site first, therefore you can reserve it for your own forever, no matter what my military presence is, unless I DoW you", it would be more like "your scout got to the city site first, therefore you got a head start in earning influence over it, but if the site is right next to my capital or if I march a big army up to the site, I may make a claim for it as mine without DoW'ing you".
 
Well maybe we are moving off topic here, but the thought I was trying to explain was some sort of, let's call it "influence" score that each player would have on a region. So you could earn influence over a certain region by different mechanisms:
  • Passive military presence in the region/urban sites could earn you points each turn based on combat strength.
  • Active military presence in terms of for instance done to barbarians could be added to our influence score.
  • Nearby cities could grant you influence based on their culture level (this would be a bit similar to Civ6's loyalty pressure).
So what I had in mind was that if you reach a certain influence score, you can lay claim on a territory even if you have not settled it. However, this claim would be less permanent than actually settling the territory, so if another player also meets the threshold, they can also lay claim on the territory.

So instead of it's just "your scout got to the city site first, therefore you can reserve it for your own forever, no matter what my military presence is, unless I DoW you", it would be more like "your scout got to the city site first, therefore you got a head start in earning influence over it, but if the site is right next to my capital or if I march a big army up to the site, I may make a claim for it as mine without DoW'ing you".
I feel like there are a couple of problems with this approach. First is that the game already requires a lot military units as is and the number of additional units you would need to do something like this while doing all of the other things you would be normally doing in the game feels like it would push over the edge to too many. Then you have all of the extra orders needed to move units into several sites while still moving towards new city sites. You can't really just leave more than one unit around city site if you want to keep claiming more sites because you have to keep moving from on to the next to make sure you can grab as many as you can. Having to leave units behind to keep influence means you are less able to claim further sites, especially if there are already a lot of barbarian/tribal units at future sites. You could bring new units to a location to increase influence but then you run into the orders problem since you then have to either prioritize influencing old sites or claiming new ones. Then you would need to get your settlers to the city sites and then hope you get there fast enough to claim the site all the while hoping the tile you want to settle on isn't taken by an unit from another civ. So now you have multiple races, two or three depending on how you want to count, to win instead of just one on top of all of the other things you have going in the game.

The current system works fine, even if it is a little gamey or frustrating at times. Its not perfect but I feel like it has more advantages over Civ6's pump out settlers as fast as you can to claim territory at the expense of doing other things. You need lots of military units in the game already and leaving some units behind to claim sites works well with the general flow of the game, at least with how I play it. Anything else feels like it would just add "busy work" to the game for little gameplay advantage, something I feel the game has little too much of as is. Maybe giving military units the ability to "contest" a claimed site that starts an event chain with several types of outcomes might work but I feel like contesting sites outside of events would unbalance the game in ways detrimental to its core gameplay loop.
 
I think using units to raise "influence" would unduly impact orders too much. You would be taking away from exploration, improvements and character building, for the sake of "my stick is bigger than yours". I think using the event and mission systems are a better idea. Events for incoming contests from the AI, and a mission for contesting with an AI.
 
I feel like there are a couple of problems with this approach. First is that the game already requires a lot military units as is and the number of additional units you would need to do something like this while doing all of the other things you would be normally doing in the game feels like it would push over the edge to too many. Then you have all of the extra orders needed to move units into several sites while still moving towards new city sites. You can't really just leave more than one unit around city site if you want to keep claiming more sites because you have to keep moving from on to the next to make sure you can grab as many as you can.
Well I'm not going to say what I suggest here is a perfect or finished system, and no such change can be seen in isolation, but I just want to add that your argument can be turned around to argue that my suggestion would exactly have the intended effect: Instead of having to rush to "secure" as many city sites as possible in the first - howmany, 30 turns? - you'd have to prioritize on securing maybe one or two city sites for your first cities, and then once you have those settled, you can move on to focus on new city sites. Which is kind of the effect I was aiming at: A game where map is settled and claimed more gradually rather than the instant mad rush we have now, and where you have to actually choose and prioritize the city sites that are beneficial for you for tactical reasons or for resources.
 
Well I'm not going to say what I suggest here is a perfect or finished system, and no such change can be seen in isolation, but I just want to add that your argument can be turned around to argue that my suggestion would exactly have the intended effect: Instead of having to rush to "secure" as many city sites as possible in the first - howmany, 30 turns? - you'd have to prioritize on securing maybe one or two city sites for your first cities, and then once you have those settled, you can move on to focus on new city sites. Which is kind of the effect I was aiming at: A game where map is settled and claimed more gradually rather than the instant mad rush we have now, and where you have to actually choose and prioritize the city sites that are beneficial for you for tactical reasons or for resources.
That's kind of the problem though. The game is designed with the fast pace of the early game so slowing that down would mean having to rebalance the rest of the game. My biggest problem with the game right now is the real lack of a proper end game so unless some new mechanics are adding to help differentiate the late game from the rest of the game I don't think slowing down or prolonging the game is right direction to move in.
 
I had a similar idea about influencing map regions but these would be natural wonders/ historic sites (rather than city sites). Whoever had claim to the sites would slowly earn science beakers towards a specific tech and would get the option of skipping that tech as a prerequisite.

Was thinking that civilian units in the vacinity would determine control. Scouts would influence a bit, workers a bit more, and settlers even more.
 
I've heard too many people say it always comes down to a military ending to want to bother with it.
 
I've heard too many people say it always comes down to a military ending to want to bother with it.
I heard that too, I even agree with it.
The thing is though, you could always just conquer the map, in all (or most) editions of Civ. It's even the most straight-forward way to win. The only reason you could also play peacefully is that the AI was rarely a threat.
You can still play peacefully in Old World, it does require you to set AI aggression levels (and/or AI development) appropriately in game setup options though. Because if the AI DoWs you, and you have no army, you are in trouble because the AI is actually competent in moving its units to kill yours. Very much unlike some other 1UPT-Civ-iterations I had the questionable honor of playing for a short while.
For me, competent AI is really a most desired feature, not a point of criticism.
 
Completed a test game yesterday that was a peaceful ambition victory, despite the higher AI aggression of high difficulties - it's very much possible, though one of the factors was me keeping a large army nonetheless to discourage attacks. That's something that actually works in OW, which I like.

Yes, the game is more conflict-oriented than Civ, that's by design. We do provide options for more peaceful play, including a "Passive AI" setting where the AI is guaranteed to just sit back and never attack you, but the main design involves conflict. The intention is that you will have to go to war, or, with some luck, avoid war by managing marriages and religion well, while keeping a strong deterrent army. But the AI provides opposition, and if it comes to war, the AI will kill your army and take your cities if you don't have enough to defend with.

This does contrast with modern Civ, where you can ignore the military part if you wish to. Even at the highest levels, after the early game. I've definitely had my share of Civ6 games on Immortal/Deity where I defeat the initial AI rush, conquer a few cities to have the space, and then go to a peaceful Space victory without maintaining an army - launching the spaceship when my most modern units are Swordsmen I built early on. This approach will fail in Old World.
 
This does contrast with modern Civ, where you can ignore the military part if you wish to. Even at the highest levels, after the early game. I've definitely had my share of Civ6 games on Immortal/Deity where I defeat the initial AI rush, conquer a few cities to have the space, and then go to a peaceful Space victory without maintaining an army - launching the spaceship when my most modern units are Swordsmen I built early on. This approach will fail in Old World.
I have yet to be able to launch my spaceship in OW regardless of the makeup of my military ;)
 
Completed a test game yesterday that was a peaceful ambition victory, despite the higher AI aggression of high difficulties - it's very much possible, though one of the factors was me keeping a large army nonetheless to discourage attacks. That's something that actually works in OW, which I like.
I do think peaceful play is possible in Old World, but I don't think it's particularly fun. Coming from Civ6, I must admit I really miss the city planning element of that game - I know you can get some benefits by putting down some buildings next to each other, but between the huge number of buildings you have to place and the various map obstacles, I find that most times I just plop down buildings whenever they become available without much further thought to what goes where except following the in-game suggestions at a given time. Civ6 districts certainly had a huge advantage here.

I do enjoy the resource management aspect of Old World though, and I also think the specialist system is great. Religion ... I still don't really understand it, I must admit.
 
I know you can get some benefits by putting down some buildings next to each other, but between the huge number of buildings you have to place and the various map obstacles, I find that most times I just plop down buildings whenever they become available without much further thought to what goes where except following the in-game suggestions at a given time.
The only ones that really matter are that the Oden and Bath line of buildings get bonuses for adjacent Hamlet buildings and then Barracks and Ranges get bonuses from the Garrison line of buildings. Resource improvements (Wood, Food, Stone, Iron) have adjacency bonuses from the same improvement as well.

I still don't really understand it, I must admit.
All four religions have specific requirements to be founded that are kind of annoying to get. For example, to found Zoroastrianism, you need to have unlocked Divination and then have two Acolyte specialists. Its kind of a pain and I just use the Cleric family if I really want a religion. Anyone can add a tenet to any faith so long as it is their state religion. You use religion units to convert cities, add new tenets, and building religious buildings, which aren't half bad all things considered. I like the fact that the game represents pagan religions but overall I find the system kind of boring and not terribly great but, honestly, I can mostly say the same for Civ6 and CK3. I've yet to play a historical strategy game where religion doesn't feel vestigial and like it is only in the game because religion has to be represented on some level.
 
I do think peaceful play is possible in Old World, but I don't think it's particularly fun. Coming from Civ6, I must admit I really miss the city planning element of that game - I know you can get some benefits by putting down some buildings next to each other, but between the huge number of buildings you have to place and the various map obstacles, I find that most times I just plop down buildings whenever they become available without much further thought to what goes where except following the in-game suggestions at a given time. Civ6 districts certainly had a huge advantage here.

I do enjoy the resource management aspect of Old World though, and I also think the specialist system is great. Religion ... I still don't really understand it, I must admit.
One thing missing from Civ is having specialized cities. When playing OW, I generally spam buildings in every city. There is no reason (or even mechanic) to make a specialized research or financial city.
 
One thing missing from Civ is having specialized cities. When playing OW, I generally spam buildings in every city. There is no reason (or even mechanic) to make a specialized research or financial city.
I partly disagree here. You can get away without specialization and yes, the nature of OW's ressource system allows you to get everything everywhere on the map (or at least almost everything if it comes to quantities, with wood being an edge case in some vegetation-poor areas. But you can compensate that by trading), similar like in Colonization. There are mechanics though that reward spezialiation - not enough to actually enforce it, but I think you can get more out of your cities, if you pay attention to terrain, the families you have access to and the buildings you construct. Some of the latter don't only offer flat boni, but also a percent bonus on city output. And when building units, I found it useful to specialize cities of one of the warlike families for it. Not only because of the free ability or concentrated barracks and ranges speeding up recruitment, but also because you are more likely to find a lot of potential generals among the family members. Governor traits are another reason to focus (I'm refering to the ones boosting the output of improvements)

So "no reason or even mechanic" isn't my impression, but it is surely debatable if the impact of specialization should be greater.
 
I'm thankful for the advice you give at the end, but I didn't have the feeling I was lagging behind per se, and if I did I didn't feel stressed because of it. I just feel the game says "This is your opening move, now do it.", and that does not make me feel like playing. It's like the first part of the game needs to be: build army, rush spots, sit there and wait until you can develop. If you don't, the AI will do it and you will have to wage war with them to get the territories. It's nothing bad per se, and I'm sure others could like that, but to me it felt too forced, and that lack of flexibility is what for me is a huge reason not to play it (that much) any more. Would I still recommend it? Maybe, with a caveat.
Right, I don't care for the notion that it's the player's fault because they "were too slow". Especially when peaceful relationships with tribes are actually possible. In practice, that's simply allowing somebody else to come along and encroach. And that settler that gets planted there can come from way across the map to take a spot within the heart of the player's territory. Nothing deters this other than war. Nothing makes this a bad idea that will only result in getting the foolishly-planted city taken away from them. Otherwise, first come, first serve.

For what it's worth, I very much share your feeling on this part of the game. The rush to occupy city sites with scouts or whatever unit feels a bit silly to me, frankly. I'm all for a way to "claim" a territory before settling it - it's something I've asked for to be added to Civ as well - but the fact that the person who gets first to the rather arbitrary "city site" holds uncontested rule over it (unless you DoW, obviously) seems quite shallow.

I'd rather see a mechanism where placing military units in any of the urban tiles give you legitimacy in your claim over this region, but giving you the option to contest another civs claim on a region by moving your own military units into the urban area. One could have various diplomatic options centered around such a system, i.e. you could demand another civ to give up and leave a contested region - which may in turn lead to a DoW - or maybe you could trade them to yield the claim on a region without confrontation.
Well-said. Maybe some way to plant the initial outpost that costs training based on the other cities within proximity. Cheap if within one's "eminent domain". Expensive if encroaching on some other nation.

Thing is, they don't even want the camping to cost an order. They patched that out.
 
I do think peaceful play is possible in Old World, but I don't think it's particularly fun. Coming from Civ6, I must admit I really miss the city planning element of that game - I know you can get some benefits by putting down some buildings next to each other, but between the huge number of buildings you have to place and the various map obstacles, I find that most times I just plop down buildings whenever they become available without much further thought to what goes where except following the in-game suggestions at a given time. Civ6 districts certainly had a huge advantage here.

I do enjoy the resource management aspect of Old World though, and I also think the specialist system is great. Religion ... I still don't really understand it, I must admit.
I'm the opposite. I find combat very deficient in OW. High-Charisma ambassadors are a priority, and will drive heirs into being diplomats if necessary.
 
Top Bottom