gdr_willter
Korean Civ Fan
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2024
- Messages
- 706
I think he wanted to talk about policy cards.Just for confirmation, what do you mean by this? I’m not aware of what you are referring to.
I think he wanted to talk about policy cards.Just for confirmation, what do you mean by this? I’m not aware of what you are referring to.
I do want these arbitrary end points. Time/score is long and boring, I'm not interested in conquest, so I should only have science left? I would not play that game anymore.But the game ending because somebody built a world fair, or somewone built a bank? Yeah, no, I'm not okay with that kind of arbitrary end point. And that's what all those other victoryc onditions are: arbitrary end points, which do not reflect any inherent limits of the game mechanism, but just the desire to have some sort of victory conditions for players who don't want to wait for the score victory.
I mean Policy Cards. Sorry for the inaccuracy.Just for confirmation, what do you mean by this? I’m not aware of what you are referring to.
Policy cards are meant to switch in and out fast. Because of this they leave little lasting impression.I mean Policy Cards. Sorry for the inaccuracy.
Civilization is one of, if not, the highest selling strategy titles on the market. 6 currently IS the most played strategy title on Steam. Working "just fine" isn't selling many games, because most fans are bored by time/score victories.There's countless games out there that end at a set point to calculate score, and work just fine. If Civ's time/score victory is long and boring, it's a failure of the devs to properly develop what should be an integral part of the game, not an indictment of the idea of score victories as a concept.
You have always been able to change your government (Civics/Policies) in Civ whenever you wanted as it is kind of part of the point of a game about human civilization so that is not really a good comparison. Leaders have tended to represent a personality not have Montezuma be aggressive & organized and then operate with completely different traits. Teaching the AI to do this would be a train wreck and we already have enough trouble on that front in this franchise.This is a good example. I am not saying to change it every 5 levels but before the new era, when you swap Civilization.
BTW We don't mind swapping civics in the game but suddenly have a problem with leader abilities?![]()
Immediately, I want to address that we don't know how common this problem will be of being forced to pick an undesirable civ. We are assuming "worst case" scenario here. Which is fine, it could happen theoretically.If you were playing Science Civ in your previous era and invested your science legacy points in a science tree and the next Era you got only Cultural and Economic Civs to choose you would probably want to spend some or maybe all of your legacy points in an economic tree. Specifically, if it's the final era. So the game should give us such option. If you don't want to do it nobody force you. It just makes the game nice and smooth. The same with Civs. Perhaps you would like to choose a Science Civ you cannot. Again An option to choose one of all Civs in this era.
If you start with a cultural Civ and in the next era you cannot pick cultural Civ, or cannot rearrange your leader talent tree it's punishing and limiting for the player. The same way Covenants were in WoW Shadowlands.
And let it be my summary.
This kind of strategy will be narrow and defined largely by picking the most effective path of Civs for a certain win condition. This is what era system had to change and I am afraid it doesn't. (hope I am wrong). Instead, it is stucked halfway. Either abolish limitations in Civ combinations and make the game all-out-race for the strongest science path (which is a weaker option IMO), or lose up the legacy point system and let me play around those forced choices. (than I will be ok with them)What I do not understand about your perspective is you keep giving these examples that you are playing strong in 1 or 2 areas early on and suddenly in your example you are wanting to switch. However, the game rewards you in those areas for doing well so why switch? Win this game and then start a new save and play a cultural strategy game.
Statistics say it will be very commonImmediately, I want to address that we don't know how common this problem will be of being forced to pick an undesirable civ.
If you want to play a game where that minor system of bonuses is dedicated entirely to increasing Culture yield instead of shoring up any other category, you could always pick a Cultural leader, as Leader attributes stay for the entire game.This kind of strategy will be narrow and defined largely by picking the most effective path of Civs for a certain win condition. This is what era system had to change and I am afraid it doesn't. (hope I am wrong). Instead, it is stucked halfway. Either abolish limitations in Civ combinations and make the game all-out-race for the strongest science path (which is a weaker option IMO), or lose up the legacy point system and let me play around those forced choices. (than I will be ok with them)
Statistics say it will be very commonSome possible Civ transitions are limited (Greece can go into A or B. not all) there will be a very limited number of "must play" Civs. To show it on hard numbers we must wait for more info about Civ transitions.
The use case we have:
Rome is cultural and militaristic and can change into Spain (militaristic, expansionist) or Normans (diplomatic/militaristic). So if you start a cultural game like Rome you are at a dead-endNeither Spain nor Normans can follow it up and build your cultural legacy tree that will help you in the last era with your cultural game. On top of that if you already played a culture Roman game for like 2 hours at this point you know you are kinda screwed
Reasonable is to play Rome militaristic and then change into either Spain or Normans. If you pick militaristic Spain you can change to Mexico (Cultural, Diplomatic) -> another dead end
You get the pattern. So how many Civ combinations will fit the pattern? (whatever it will be) A few. If you don't believe me just wait for the first build tier lists and see all those "unplayable" civs
That is why more flexible legacy points are needed. To make a Civ-path in the for example cultural game more... playable and less predictable. To be as you believe in![]()
That’s why Rome can often go to Abassids or Hawaii or Ming or Songhai or Mongol if you play right with gameplay unlocks.This kind of strategy will be narrow and defined largely by picking the most effective path of Civs for a certain win condition. This is what era system had to change and I am afraid it doesn't. (hope I am wrong). Instead, it is stucked halfway. Either abolish limitations in Civ combinations and make the game all-out-race for the strongest science path (which is a weaker option IMO), or lose up the legacy point system and let me play around those forced choices. (than I will be ok with them)
Statistics say it will be very commonSome possible Civ transitions are limited (Greece can go into A or B. not all) there will be a very limited number of "must play" Civs. To show it on hard numbers we must wait for more info about Civ transitions.
The use case we have:
Rome is cultural and militaristic and can change into Spain (militaristic, expansionist) or Normans (diplomatic/militaristic). So if you start a cultural game like Rome you are at a dead-endNeither Spain nor Normans can follow it up and build your cultural legacy tree that will help you in the last era with your cultural game. On top of that if you already played a culture Roman game for like 2 hours at this point you know you are kinda screwed
Reasonable is to play Rome militaristic and then change into either Spain or Normans. If you pick militaristic Spain you can change to Mexico (Cultural, Diplomatic) -> another dead end
You get the pattern. So how many Civ combinations will fit the pattern? (whatever it will be) A few. If you don't believe me just wait for the first build tier lists and see all those "unplayable" civs
That is why more flexible legacy points are needed. To make a Civ-path in the for example cultural game more... playable and less predictable. To be as you believe in![]()
And that makes it interesting…is the benefit of Mongolia (in this game/map) worth the costs to unlock Mongolia (in this game/map)I think it might take a lot longer for tier lists to emerge.
The strong players will work out (and post here) good three-civ+leader sequences among the automatic unlocks.
But if (just to make up an example) Egypt, Mongolia, America+Franklin is the best package for science, that might not be discovered right away if people's games don't give them the secondary paths (I don't know if they have their own distinguishing name) for choosing those other civs. Presumably not every Egypt game is going to give you 3 horses, so you're closed out of exploring how much Mongolia might do for you until you get a map where you are allowed that pathway.
You are earning leader atributes points in culture tree by culture gameIf you want to play a game where that minor system of bonuses is dedicated entirely to increasing Culture yield instead of shoring up any other category, you could always pick a Cultural leader, as Leader attributes stay for the entire game.
Seems legit. Perhaps I am overestimating the Internet. Nevertheless, sooner or later they will appear. There is a high demand for it.I think it might take a lot longer for tier lists to emerge.
The strong players will work out (and post here) good three-civ+leader sequences among the automatic unlocks.
But if (just to make up an example) Egypt, Mongolia, America+Franklin is the S-tier* package for science, that might not be discovered right away if people's games don't give them the secondary paths (I don't know if they have their own distinguishing name) for choosing those other civs. Presumably not every Egypt game is going to give you 3 horses, so you're closed out of exploring how much Mongolia might do for you until you get a map where you are allowed that pathway.
And this will impact people's testing posted strategies. So some CFCer posts "Egypt, Mongolia, America gives sick yields for science," I can't automatically go play that game to see if that poster is correct.
*am I using that correctly?
And prey for RNGesusAnd that makes it interesting…is the benefit of Mongolia (in this game/map) worth the costs to unlock Mongolia (in this game/map)
To me, working within your limitations is one of the most fun aspects of these games.OK guys and how about this?
View attachment 713828
What if one of those above was:
"Reasign 4 of your leader Attribute Points in any way" Cost 1"