1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Will Civ6 punish players for expansion?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by historix69, Jun 23, 2016.

  1. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,667
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    Ok, so you consider the "tech broker" as an exploit. Could be, although I think that for the first people who came up with this idea, it certainly was a "stroke of genius" and an ingenious way of winning the game, so it may as well qualify as a "strategy".

    But what about the "strategy" to set science to zero at some point in order to use the extra gold for a large military to quickly conquer the world? Does that count as a "strategy" in your opinion? It is definitely a way to win the game quickly and efficiently, so would qualify as a "strategy" in my book. (And it is also something no longer possible in Civ5, because in Civ5 the beakers can't be converted into gold, as can be done via the slider in Civ3.)

    PS: and it even involves an element of risk, like most strategic choices do, because if the military is not enough to carry you through to victory, you risk falling severely behind in tech. So you have to evaluate the pros and cons, before doing it, which in my eyes shows that it is indeed a "strategic choice".
     
  2. Ricci

    Ricci Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    Can I answer that? :wavey:

    Well, clearly when you are in promptly need of a certain tech, and don`t want to delay your reseach goal even further to optimize your longer term science.
    Another situation finds you building gold, espionage, culture buildings as well, for whatever circumstances in the specific game, so playing this trick doesn`t really help.
    Actually, I would say not too often I found myself in the position to apply this strategy profoundly, but from time to time I managed to; it is nice.


    I would like to include one other slider strategy which won me a MP game some time ago and I believe wasn`t mentioned already. Going for cultural victory, I got the internet and spent like 80+ turns almost at 100% culture expenditure of my slider, I had good culture anyhow but risking that tech lead surprisingly (for my opponents) got me to vic. Very nice game it was.
     
  3. m15a

    m15a Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,471
    Thanks, Ricci. Reading these different strategies from Civ IV, it seems like the big thing that sliders offered that's not available in Civ V was the ability to shift quickly from a balanced approach with excess going probably into science to going full speed ahead on science, gold, or culture. Is that right?

    I guess in Civ V, the best way to shift your focus quickly is to change where specialists are placed. So maybe if Civ VI has less focus on pop=science and more on specialists assigned to districts (maybe with government making global shifts), then some of the flexibility will be back in Civ VI.
     
  4. historix69

    historix69 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,241
    Having a slider for culture is much more powerful than the 3 guilds with 2 culture specialists each in Civ5 ...
     
  5. m15a

    m15a Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,471
    Yeah, I agree. Like I said, the sliders give the ability to change your focus quickly in a way that is not possible in Civ V. And in BNW in particular, culture is even more inflexible than science or gold because there are guilds with only one of each. The planning and effects are more long term.

    But suppose in Civ VI a city had a number of citizens it could assign to districts such that they could definitely not max out all of the districts. Say you had 5 citizens to assign to 3 districts (science, gold, culture) and a district could hold 4 citizens. Then, you can shift your focus quickly. Maybe there's even a policy that gives you +1 slot in all your science districts, so you can choose that and "max out" your science.

    Then, you can make the quick adjustments in focus while still needing to develop long term by establishing districts, researching civics for the right policies, growing your cities (to have enough citizens to be specialists), etc.
     
  6. JtW

    JtW Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    575
    Location:
    Poland
    And this is the strongest argument against them. Being able to turn around state policy in a few years is completely unrealistic.
     
  7. historix69

    historix69 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,241
    Slider is equal to budget ....

    In Civ games you can switch population from farming to mining to specialist slots without problem which is as realistic as sliders ...
     
  8. King Jason

    King Jason Fleece-bearer

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,027
    It's a game. Also, the fact that you couldn't swap focuses easily in civ5's policy system is one of the reasons they're implementing the fluidity of the civics system of civ4 into civ6. In fact, from the looks of things it's even more fluid than ever before.

    Ed Beach cites the inability to switch the focus of your empire as a flaw, not a perk. I agree with him. Also, like the above poster mentioned, assigning specialists on a dime is just as "unrealistic" as sliders - It's also unreleastic that you were able to complete a work of construction that should have taken you 500 years in only 10 just because Archimedes showed up and helped you build it. Along with a host of other things within Civ that's unrealistic.

    Good thing it's a game.
     
  9. Denkt

    Denkt Reader

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,045
    Location:
    Not in a Civilization City Atleast
    I don't like sliders, I rather have well defined resources such as gold and science then a universal resource such as commerce.

    I don't really like the concept of rushbuy with gold, I would rather have production being the sole resource for building stuff, I think you should be able to transport production from city to city instead of rushbuying with gold.
     
  10. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    Never been a major fan of rushbuy either. Feels cheesey. Planning out production by turns seems so much more in spirit with a tiurn-based strategy game.
     
  11. Denkt

    Denkt Reader

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,045
    Location:
    Not in a Civilization City Atleast
    Atleast they got rid of the works which was to be honest one of the worst part of the civilization series. They did not add anything interesting to the game in my opinion, builders are far superior both in a strategic viewpoint as well requiring far less micromanagement.
     
  12. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,667
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    Not necessarily. It has happened in real history, one example: in the 1930s (probably right up to 1938) Great Britain had completely neglected her military arms programs/budget, even demobilizing large parts of the army and air force. Then, within two years she made a huge effort in re-armament, not only in terms of production, but also in terms of research, so that in 1940 she was able to defend herself successfully in the "Battle of Britain", standing all alone against the Nazi Empire. (France had already been defeated at that point, the USA were still neutral and the Soviet Union still had the Hitler-Stalin Pact at that time.)

    I think this is a pretty amazing feat of a "180° turn-around".
     
  13. JtW

    JtW Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    575
    Location:
    Poland
    Good argument, thank you.
     
  14. CivScientist

    CivScientist Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    125
    Honestly, I hope both ICS and Tall empires end up being equally viable and powerful strategies in the game where the choice between the two depends on your starting position and what civics path you choose. When there's only one mode of play it gets kinda boring once you figure out the optimal strategy.

    I'm hearing the devs of Civ6 talking about how you need to play the land. Hopefully that also means whether you play expansive or tall depends on the land around you.
     
  15. historix69

    historix69 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,241
    Between the two World Wars the British and French Empires were the mightiest empires on earth. USA had a mighty fleet but had reduced its army and Soviet Union was still in transformation from agrarian to industrialized society.

    Between 1933 and 1939 Nazi-Germany expanded its military force from 100.000 men police-force to 1.100.000 (mobilized 4.500.000) soldiers. Still in beginning of 1940 the British and French Troops were superior in number and equipment ... after Dunkirk and the Fall of France, situation had changed since the ca. 300.000 british soldiers had to destroy/leave behind their complete equipment when being evacuated back home ... As far as I know the British Air Force was hold back by Churchill during Battle for France allowing Germany an easier victory due to Air Superiority.

    During Battle of Britain, the british pilots had a home advantage that downed pilots were not lost and could reenter the battle with new equipment while downed german pilots were killed/captured. Germany had no strategic bombing doctrine and used tactical bombers which were easy targets for british fighter planes. The campaign was "successfull" for the germans while they concentrated on the british airfields but failed when they targeted London (as revenge for a bomber raid on Berlin on 1940-8-25).

    According to the Civ6 video footage, there might be some heavy strategic bombing in late-game Civ6 ... (probably depending on range of the fighter / bomber units)
     
  16. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,667
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    Yes, this is what I was referring to. Do you have more detailed information about when exactly the above mentioned "large expansion" was started? Already in 1934? Up to now I was under the impression that large scale rearmament programs started only relatively late after the events of 1938 (Anschluß of Östereich, Sudenten Crisis) when it became more and more clear that in the end Hitler would not be "appeased".
    (On the other hand: the famous Spitfire fighter plane was designed already in 1935/36, and also the installation of the first radar stations along the British coast ("Chain Home") started in 1936, so research and preparations apparently started already earlier than 1938?)
     
  17. historix69

    historix69 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,241
    When Germany started rearmament in the early 1930s, the british tried to keep parity between the Royal Air Force and the new german "Luftwaffe", so they started in 1934 (Plan A and following) with continuesly modernizing and enlarging the RAF, developing new types of fighters and bombers, also looking at results of air warfare in Spain 1936.

    You find some info in "The Royal Air Force - Volume 2: An Encyclopedia of the Inter-War Years 1930-1939 by Ian Philpott" Google Books
     
  18. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,667
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    Thanks, a good tip! Looks like an interesting reading for the summer vacation... :yumyum:
     
  19. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
  20. Brianstorm

    Brianstorm Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    177
    Problem is there is not revolution type of mechanic. The empires of Alexander and Genghis were too large to sustain so they broke up into various Kingdoms and Hordes, and Rome collapsed into various states in the East and West. Not sure how you can counter this except to have the player be able to lose (or win) early and midway through the game, which is fine by me.
     

Share This Page