Will Civ ever conquer its late-game malaise?

[Chibisuke]

I know this has been previously mentioned as well, but I'll reiterate for emphasis that the emergency system for whatever reason seems to almost always result in 1 on 1 situations. I believe in all the time that I have tried out the expansion, there has been at most one or two instances where I joined an emergency and there was an AI joining it with me. In all other cases (many dozens) it has been me alone. Maybe this was done to make emergencies harder to succeed on, but it does make them seem more phony too.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I know this has been previously mentioned as well, but I'll reiterate for emphasis that the emergency system for whatever reason seems to almost always result in 1 on 1 situations. I believe in the all the time that I have tried out the expansion, there has been at most one or two instances where I joined an emergency and there was an AI joining it with me. In all other cases (many dozens) it has been me alone. Maybe this was done to make emergencies harder to succeed on, but it does make them seem more phony too.

I have the same experience too. Emergencies always seem to be just me vs one AI.

 

[shaglio]

I know this has been previously mentioned as well, but I'll reiterate for emphasis that the emergency system for whatever reason seems to almost always result in 1 on 1 situations. I believe in all the time that I have tried out the expansion, there has been at most one or two instances where I joined an emergency and there was an AI joining it with me. In all other cases (many dozens) it has been me alone. Maybe this was done to make emergencies harder to succeed on, but it does make them seem more phony too.

I probably shouldn't keep droning on about my World War idea, but based on the above assessment, there should be a caveat that there needs to be at least 2 civs joining each side for a World War to materialize. Otherwise it would just devolve into your typical war or joint war.

I should desist before this thread gets relegated to the Ideas & Suggestion forum to wither and die in loneliness.

 

[Chibisuke]

The sad thing is, I'm not certain if there is a whole lot of creative process going into this game right now. Civ is a gemstone property, but an aging one. Look at what happened to Sim City, which has now been thoroughly laid to rest and replaced by Cities Skyline (which had a simple plan for success really... just give people what they want i.e. take the things people like from previous games and refine and expand on those!).

I feel like Civ is kinda failing in that regard as Sim City did. I think Civ 6 was a great game at launch, definitely better than the last Sim City was, BUT it still is holding back on things that the fans have enjoyed from previous games (UN being one example, and another example is the way they changed golden ages and only brought them in in a paid expansion. Golden ages were MUCH better in Civ 5, and I believe were in base game).

I get that they are looking for ways to innovate, but I don't think the overall game play experience of Civ 6 is better than Civ 5 was. It's just different, and in some ways worse (i.e. loyalty system).

They need to learn to build more on the great stuff while introducing new things or we will be headed for Sim City territory... rant over.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I love the idea of a world war mechanic. It would be a great late game mechanic to have all the civs get into a big brawl with each other. I would suggest that the governments be put into 2 camps, say "liberty" and "authoritarian". This way, instead of civs hating your government, they would get a negative diplo modifier against your government camp. This would make the diplomatic aspect of civs hating your government make more sense. And then also, if a civ of one gov type attacks a civ of another gov type, there would be a chance of a "world war" emergency where civs would get a chance to join into a special alliance with other civs of the same government type. So the "liberty" governments would go into one alliance and the "authoritarian" civs into an opposing alliance. The world war emergency would only end when one side has captured a capital from the other side. I feel that would be a good mechanic for a world war.

 

[Rosty K]

I know this has been previously mentioned as well, but I'll reiterate for emphasis that the emergency system for whatever reason seems to almost always result in 1 on 1 situations. I believe in all the time that I have tried out the expansion, there has been at most one or two instances where I joined an emergency and there was an AI joining it with me. In all other cases (many dozens) it has been me alone. Maybe this was done to make emergencies harder to succeed on, but it does make them seem more phony too.

It might have something to do with how the emergencies are designed.

For example, religious emergency. Well, someone has converted a Holy City. Now, the founders of other religions obviously don't care (one less to eliminate to win), those who have no religion can't do anything about it.

Or a City-State one. Who except the former suzerain cares?

 

[Chibisuke]

I think the purpose of the domination emergencies is supposed to be like, "oh crap, X civ is starting to get too powerful. They need to be stopped!" When that is indeed the case, why is it that none of the other AIs seem to care and it is always up to the player to stop them?

 

[Rosty K]

I love the idea of a world war mechanic. It would be a great late game mechanic to have all the civs get into a big brawl with each other. I would suggest that the governments be put into 2 camps, say "liberty" and "authoritarian". This way, instead of civs hating your government, they would get a negative diplo modifier against your government camp. This would make the diplomatic aspect of civs hating your government make more sense. And then also, if a civ of one gov type attacks a civ of another gov type, there would be a chance of a "world war" emergency where civs would get a chance to join into a special alliance with other civs of the same government type. So the "liberty" governments would go into one alliance and the "authoritarian" civs into an opposing alliance. The world war emergency would only end when one side has captured a capital from the other side. I feel that would be a good mechanic for a world war.

I've had a nice world war in my current game, when someone declared war on Poundmaker, and the chain of alliances went mad. The bad thing is, there was no action except my lonely privateer wandering around the world and pillaging stuff

 

[agonistes]

This is something I suggested in another thread. "Future tech" should be something amazingly powerful, whereas it is valueless since it does nothing except up your score. I would suggest something like each level of future tech giving your units +5 combat strength, and each level of future civ increasing all your production by 5%. That ought to speed up the end of the game.

Holy moly! That's a lot of combat stength.

@KayAU For some, micromanagement is part of the fun. Succesful micromanagement is also what seperates many very 'good' players from merely good ones.

And I enjoy the clicking. Late game with 30+ civs, I want my turns to last. Cause there is a bit of a wait between them.

 

[Patine]

I've had a nice world war in my current game, when someone declared war on Poundmaker, and the chain of alliances went mad. The bad thing is, there was no action except my lonely privateer wandering around the world and pillaging stuff

This "chain of alliances" thing going mad sounds very reminiscent of a RW event (Austro-Hungarian King and Emperor Franz Joseph declaring war on Serbia after his ultimatum of cooperation in the assassination of his nephew and heir, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo, with at least 3 clauses King Petar I and Prime Minister Nicola Pasic of Serbia would not or could not accept, expired on July 28, 1914), so it has some realism as a phenomenon right there.

 

[Patine]

This "chain of alliances" thing going mad sounds very reminiscent of a RW event (Austro-Hungarian King and Emperor Franz Joseph declaring war on Serbia after his ultimatum of cooperation in the assassination of his nephew and heir, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo, with at least 3 clauses King Petar I and Prime Minister Nicola Pasic of Serbia would not or could not accept, expired on July 28, 1914), so it has some realism as a phenomenon right there.

I love the idea of a world war mechanic. It would be a great late game mechanic to have all the civs get into a big brawl with each other. I would suggest that the governments be put into 2 camps, say "liberty" and "authoritarian". This way, instead of civs hating your government, they would get a negative diplo modifier against your government camp. This would make the diplomatic aspect of civs hating your government make more sense. And then also, if a civ of one gov type attacks a civ of another gov type, there would be a chance of a "world war" emergency where civs would get a chance to join into a special alliance with other civs of the same government type. So the "liberty" governments would go into one alliance and the "authoritarian" civs into an opposing alliance. The world war emergency would only end when one side has captured a capital from the other side. I feel that would be a good mechanic for a world war.

Of course, this classic example of huge war with most of the world dragged in by big chains of alliances or later offers and deals was not at all centred on a "liberty" vs. "authoritarian" divide, so, in my opinion, this particular idea would have to be more comprehensive in scope.

 

[Rosty K]

This "chain of alliances" thing going mad sounds very reminiscent of a RW event (Austro-Hungarian King and Emperor Franz Joseph declaring war on Serbia after his ultimatum of cooperation in the assassination of his nephew and heir, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo, with at least 3 clauses King Petar I and Prime Minister Nicola Pasic of Serbia would not or could not accept, expired on July 28, 1914), so it has some realism as a phenomenon right there.

Yes. But the AI needs to actually fight, which it very rarely does

 

[MantaRevan]

Maybe civ needs a Realm Divide mechanic. As much as I love to hate it in Total War, it does establish a positive difficulty curve that civ certainly needs. Currently civ 6 has a reverse difficulty curve where if you survive the initial warrior/archer rush from your nearest ally before you have any walls your chances of winning the game skyrocket. To make it fair, Realm Divide should apply to any late-game hegemon to make it feel fair, not just the player.

 

[Patine]

Maybe civ needs a Realm Divide mechanic. As much as I love to hate it in Total War, it does establish a positive difficulty curve that civ certainly needs. Currently civ 6 has a reverse difficulty curve where if you survive the initial warrior/archer rush from your nearest ally before you have any walls your chances of winning the game skyrocket. To make it fair, Realm Divide should apply to any late-game hegemon to make it feel fair, not just the player.

Forgive my lack of knowledge (or interest, after an underwhelming try at Shogun Total War 1 years ago) about the Total War games, but could you please explain what a "Realm Divide' mechanic means exactly?

 

[MantaRevan]

Forgive my lack of knowledge (or interest, after an underwhelming try at Shogun Total War 1 years ago) about the Total War games, but could you please explain what a "Realm Divide' mechanic means exactly?

(This is based on my experience with Total War 2) Once it becomes clear that the player will win the game without some sort of serious intervention, all of the other players in the game (sometimes including your own allies and vassals) will turn on you and declare war to try and prevent you from winning. The - diplo relations modifier from Realm Divide is so large that it's pretty much an irreversible mechanic.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

(This is based on my experience with Total War 2) Once it becomes clear that the player will win the game without some sort of serious intervention, all of the other players in the game (sometimes including your own allies and vassals) will turn on you and declare war to try and prevent you from winning. The - diplo relations modifier from Realm Divide is so large that it's pretty much an irreversible mechanic.

So even your allies would DoW you just because you are winning? I feel like that would be too gamey. It would also make diplomacy rather pointless. Why even bother making friends if they are all going to turn on you in the end?

Of course, this classic example of huge war with most of the world dragged in by big chains of alliances or later offers and deals was not at all centred on a "liberty" vs. "authoritarian" divide, so, in my opinion, this particular idea would have to be more comprehensive in scope.

Yes WW1 happened in part because of a chain of alliances. WW2 however was centered around the Allies fighting back against the Axis which was authoritarian. I think both should be represented. In fact, I think the game should represent several different ways a world war could happen. For example, if 3 civs are all one religion and 3 other civs are all a different religion, that could cause a religious world war too. A chain of alliances, religious blocks, cultural blocks, should be factors that can cause world wars in the game.

 

[MantaRevan]

Why even bother making friends if they are all going to turn on you in the end?

Allies are very helpful in prosecuting wars and defending yourself in the meantime, yes you do know that they will eventually turn on you though. To be fair, it's rational behavior, especially in domination games where the AI sits around like ducks watching their neighbors get devoured.

 

[Chibisuke]

I don't think the game needs a mechanic that causes all AI to declare war on you. That would just be too much of a gimmick to me and despite what some people have said, I don't think there is a difficulty problem with Civ 6. The game should be fun, not nearly impossible to win. But I often see people complaining about the fact that they can win the game and declaring that it needs changes to make that more difficult.

When I look at the expansion for example, the loyalty system seemed to have the primary goal of adding another layer of difficulty to the game. I think this was accomplished, but I don't think it made the game more fun. World wars would be fun I think but wouldn't necessarily make the game harder.

 

[Abaxial]

Holy moly! That's a lot of combat stength.

... intentionally so. The aim is to finish off the game rapidly. Besides, future tech should be amazing stuff like giant death robots (abstracted).

 

[Disgustipated]

Yes. But the AI needs to actually fight, which it very rarely does

I'm seeing this as well. My current game has had several World Wars, but not much action. Too bad the AI can't be poked with a stick and forced to fight.

Though the Mongols did have some action late game, and took a couple of cities, which they then lost to loyalty. That was enough to send Romans last city to free cities. Those 3 free cities were conquered and lost a few times, and eventually settled into the Mongol and Aztec empires. Poor AI can't manage loyalty at all.

I'm still in the middle of my conquer the world game, but wait for the information era to do it (I actually just waited until I finished the tech tree, the world hasn't quite hit information era yet). So we'll see if I can manage the loyalty. I've had to delay a wonder (and a ship and plane) in the Modern era to the Atomic era to ensure I can get golden age for the last age of the game