Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by acluewithout, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:17 PM.
Be sensible, we haven't even played it yet.
but if you go into something convinced you're going to hate it you're sure to find out you are right
This. It doesn`t make any sense for the World Congress to be if the players who participate in it do not even know themselves. What is that interrogation mark supposed to mean? This can lead to absurd situations where some player in a game of 12 who killed his neighbours early in classical ends up voting in a World Congress where virtually no one knows him.
Also don't understand the random proposals thing. I could just think of so many ways to do it better. Why not make one random and another one selected, for example? This is by far the feature I like the less of GS for now.
I've been to enough casinos to know that I don't like games of chance.
I think the "multiple possible outcomes" problem could be alleviated with espionage.
It would be nice if you could send a spy to an AI civ's Gov Plaza to seek information on the target's preferred outcome on the various possible resolutions that might come up, and how strongly (how much Favor they are willing to spend) they support it.
Doing this would give you a sense of how much Favor you need to spend to overcome the AI.
The general idea sounds very good, way better than civ5, with the potential to be a kinda true diplomatic victory.
It's the specific implementation i'm not that sure about: having a world congress in medieval times with unknown civs sounds wierd, and the split with options voting system looks confusing, i'm not sure i understood how it works.
Also specifically worried about that resolution to block construction in a particular district.
I'm not against harsh resolutions, it forces you to work around it. The game needs more obstacles. I also fervently hope there are more "ganging up" resolutions that focus on the lead player. The lead player needs to be introduced with handicap after handicap, to help put obstacles in front of the snowball to victory.
Well, you can expect disappointment and then hope to pleasantly surprised.
Handicap after handicap sounds like a slog.
Sure, gang up to stop a warmonger extraordinaire. That's my dream scenario! But for non-dom victory conditions, better to accelerate other civ's to create a close race.
With the random selection of resolutions, it's not apparent that there will actually ever be any "repeal" votes. It's quite possible that except for resolutions with a specified end date, all election effects are permanent.
Or if they're not permanent, then it's because there's a default end date for all resolutions. In any event, the Civ 5 system of getting control of the Congress so you can propose the repeal of a previously passed resolution wouldn't seem to be part of the Civ 6 system.
This is actually the main thing that makes me hesitant to buy this expansion. I like the new civs, but I want to be able to build the empire I want instead of just reacting to a bunch of random events. I want to play the game, not let the RNG play it for me. If the game has devolved to the point where you can't make a plan without constantly have to make major changes with each stroke of fate and ultimately being forced to go with whatever fate decides instead of what you decide, well, I have too much of that in real life already.
And as for randomization helping the AI, well, obviously increasing luck helps skillless players compete: The AI for a digital version of Candyland would be effortless to program, but that doesn't make it a good game for people over 4. If they insist on not putting much work into the AI, I'd much rather crush the AI with an empire I built to my liking and actually enjoyed building than have a competitive game of chance where I was forced to do whatever the RNG decreed.
Separate names with a comma.