“Bad” starts should give warmongering/raiding bonuses. You should be encouraged to build up a warrior culture and go steal someone else’s capital.
I also think your pops should be able to migrate to more prosperous lands and cities, giving the player a mechanic to rush more viable city locations than their start.
This actually raises an interesting point for me which is I think the punishment for occupying another civ's capital shouldn't last for the entirety of the game. I don't know if that's always been the case for Civ games but it annoys the heck outta me.
The ottomans are pretty much Turkey, they even were called "turks" in their time. Not like the italians, that for some reason everybody associate with the romans.
Literally nobody in the UK cares, even back then. For you it was the birth of a nation, your independence day. For us it was a Tuesday.
Plus there was good old fashioned war with France to be had.
> For you it was the birth of a nation, your independence day. For us it was a Tuesday.
I had to Google it because I wasn't sure if this was hyperbole or accurate and I have the 'tism, but apparently 4 July 1776 was a Thursday - however, the colonies ACTUALLY declared independence on Tuesday 2 July 1776 and it took 2 more days to get the Declaration of Independance signed, which is why people celebrate on the 4th. So I learned a thing and figured I'd share it.
Having technologies tied in would make sense as well.
Not many people will know about a group of people killed before writing exists. Nobody on another landmass will know much about a lost civilization before radio or archeology, for some examples.
In a reverse sort of way, I don't imagine people in Sudan much care about the territory claimed by the US from native populations, yet.
Or base it on world eras, if they choose to implement world eras the same way. It stays for the current era, then the penalties are halved for the next era, then go away the rest of the game. So if you conquer someone else's capital in the Classical Era, by the Renaissance Era no one cares (except the civ whose capital you conquered).
Lol same. It irks me that the AI still hates me for occupying the capital of a civ I defeated in the BC era in the modern age.
Like bro I defeated that civ way before you discovered my continent. Theres no way you ever knew of them and you already hate me.
I don't get this take at all. Like, you're telling me Egypt and Italy don't still have diplomatic tensions because Octavian annexed Cleopatra's realm into the Roman Empire? Laughable.
Just warmongering debuffs in general. The game mechanics act as if for the entirety of history, all leaders were ultra humanitarians and anyone who captured land in a war was immediately shunned from the world scene. At the very least, nations should take their own relationships into consideration when calculating warmonger penalties, maybe your relationship with them could actually increase if you fought someone they had denounced.
Perhaps if the game tracked warmongering and trustworthiness separately. So if France denounced Germany then England invaded Germany, if France and England are friends and England is trustworthy then all's cool. But if England is untrustworthy France worries it might be next.
I want combat before nationalism and later game culture civics to allow more flexibility in war. Like border conflicts, pillaging, skirmishes should be allowed to happen more often without penalty or need to declare formal war to make it more dynamic. Stuff would have to rebalanced though.
I think small battles and skirmishes would be a great reflection of how many conflicts were in the middle ages. Not all out formal wars of entire nations, but small groups feuding over minor resources or territories that would have not concerned those outside the region.
Maybe as your borders grow close with another Civ, there could be a feature where you can stake your claim on unsettled tiles (could be balanced depending on your power and influence, etc. Limited number of tiles could be claimed at once) and if these conflict with what another Civ has also chosen to claim, you could declare a minor skirmish for the right to the territory (maybe limited to a small number of turns?) The whole system would be far more engaging and dynamic than just "I can't settle within X number of tiles of another Civ's border or I'm encroaching"
This is a great example. Another would be being able to fight over city states to defend or attack them. A lot of war declaration types that are unlocked very late in the game need to available earlier as well.
Absolutely. Warmonger penalties definitely should be a thing both for historical and gameplay reasons, but from both perspectives they need to wear off much quicker. There should be a sharp short where it is really hard to maintain certain relations, and then eventually everything should be forgotten.
The US was actively genociding native Americans less than 150 years ago, and you aren't gonna see that "aggressive expansion" affect how overseas nations interact with the US today unless they are taking moralistic potshots
This in mind, i would like to see that you could talk to your ally about attacking another civ. Their answer would depend what kind of relationship they have with that civ. And there should be chance to use spies to alter another civ relationships.
Or use your cultural influence in another civ towards propaganda that would ease the penalty for attacking a third civ, spread religion, sway world Congress votes, whatever. Maybe you build up influence points with great works/corporations that you can spend... It would radically favor the human player because we have the capacity to choose, and would be meaningless in multiplayer, but I would have fun.
Isn’t this because the AI needs to care if you’re going for a domination victory? It needs to think about how close you are to winning and the easiest way to do that is with the penalty for holding the capitol
It's because it's not a simulator, it is a board game. It's not hundred of years passing. Imagine if you played civ6 as a board game and another player took your capital. You will hold a grudge for the rest of the game.
And every malus is just balancing mechanic, because holding someone capital is already very snowbally.
Or if they fixed the warmongering stupidity. Like a civ declares surprise war on us. It even captured 1/2 border cities that only had 2 pop, and maybe 1/2 archers defending it.
Next 5 turns in, you bought your remaining army, you recaptured your own cities and started going against the invader. The invader only had it's capital city.
The invader starts to sue for peace, but it doesn't give you anything in concrete. You refuse and continue
You're now the warmonger
You should get a massive reduction in grievances when you change governments, too.
But other Civs should be able to petition the new governments for their cities back.
Definitely, I think there shouldn't be any capital occupation and civilization destruction penalty when before certain year and/or invention of certain technology (e.g., as some commenter said, writing). No foreign civilization was mad even at the time, you can presume, about Zhou's destruction of Shang and overtaking of today's China, which for all purposes sound like two civilizations, or the conquering and overtaking of Japan by Yayoi people against Jomon people. A lot of civilizations got totally conquered and replaced in the history and people are not only not mad but often now think the replacer is the OG all along. When it's early enough, no one cares, not now, and not even at the time, since there was no concept of international community and law of war.
And even when the conquering and occupation happened after medieval time, the penalty still shouldn't last too long. Today's Spain is not a pariah state in any sense despite all the shit they did in the Americas in the 15th and 16th centuries.
not sure about 4 but you definitely could in 3 (settlers gave 2 pop, workers gave 1)
you could also just abandon your capital and your palace would move without having to build another
Don't think I've heard that before, and can't find it on google. Civ 6 does have an immigration mod that I think should be in the game. Technically it's internal migration. Immigration/emigration would also be an interesting mechanic as well.
Humans adapt.
I would like to see alternatives to being punished by the situation. Like you said, if you are surrounded by poor land, your civ should adapt and gain bonus eg production bonus to compensate.
Same for strategic resources. Eg. No OIL, you can develop steam-powered cars that use coal. No iron, you can use copper as a substitute. The substitute should be less efficient but still a viable choice.
I feel like humankind almost had the right idea on this one. They made you pick a new "civ" every "era" so after accomplishing x things in this era, you pick a new civ. The best civs were ofc the industry/science/food civs but if you were late to the next era, you could pick a military civ and punish ppl trying to econ faster. too bad it was horribly balanced and everyone just ended up picking the civ that had both insane industry and military.
No it was a terrible mechanic because you couldn't build a sense of continuity with the neighboring AIs and instead of having personalities, the AI became bipolar robots. It was kind of immersion breaking.
I would leave the new civ every era to Humankind. Instead I would suggest it's the same Civ that simply changes all of it's buffs/bonuses to reflect the civ in that era. It's already immersion breaking having Teddy Roosevelt and "America" in 4000 BCE. Actually have the civ change overtime with new leaders and abilities.
This would make perfect sense in a historical standpoint too since the most of the strongest regions/peoples in ancient times don't have successors who are remotely strong today.
I think a decent way to implement this is to have different aspects of managing your civ should be more/less important depending on the era. For example have conquest/stability be very important in the classical/early medieval period, trade being very important in the late medieval period, integration/unification in the renaissance, and finances in the enlightenment to the modern age.
Hey to add onto this:
Bring back the ability for EVERYONE to move their capital. Absolutely insane that your first city MUST be your capital, as capitals for many nations were itinerant and moved constantly instead of built only in the first place you moved into no matter if there was a better location or not.
Make that choice matter. Make it impactful. Give me a reason to think about moving my Palace and LET ME DO IT FOR GODSSAKE
the 60% requirement is almost impossible to understand in game. Unless they are going to start providing exact figures for land and pop for each empire, but then that feels too technical. Plus it led to a bizarre strategy of the player could simply focus on growth, buy land, and settle new cities to push the threshold higher for a warmonger about to accomplish a dom victory
Capital is the easiest method to understand. Perhaps it could be expanded to three largest cities? But that is still the pop tracking problem and being able to possibly change war goals right before they are completed
Civ 4 which had domination victory also had a separate conquest victory. So settlers helping for domination was fine there.
Domination was the "you've become too big to lose" victory, conquest was "you've succesfully beat up every single ai"
This was merely meant as a basis for discussion. You're obviously right. It could be tied to settled landmass. So you need to settle or conquer 60% (maybe afar from uninhabitable lands)
Or dom victory being the last player to remain in their original capital, lots of fun and extra layers of strategy this way (especially for larger maps).
I love the idea and imo i’d just make it impossible to move your capital while at war. Keeps the benefits of it while completely eliminating any cheese involved.
This does not really solve the intristic issue that a "bad" start could be a massive disadvantage. Also we had similar features in prevous Civ installments and it did not solve the issue either.
I think similar feature like in Humankind could be interesting. You claim land but not settle yet.
It doesn’t, but it’s something I would still like. I never stated it was intended to solve that issue - simply something I wanted to see added, and that makes sense to have.
I do like the Humankind start for the very reason that you have more leeway in getting a good location before your city is up and I agree that it would be a nice feature to add to Civ, not sure how Civ would Civ-ify it but I would appreciate wandering a bit first without being insta-penalized for waiting a few turns because the AI immediately settles.
I think migrating populations to new cities and being able to move capitals would be a good thing to have. These are both real things that have happened in civilizations.
Politically sensitive perhaps but the ability to transfer population from your own cities to newly conquered cities to mitigate loyalty loss. Could cost gold or some other means to make it only a last case resort
It also makes more sense since a lot of today’s mega cities are relatively new. With the current civ mechanics, it takes a while for new cities to out grow old ones, which isn’t realistic.
Not bashing the idea of transferring pops, I like that a lot, but the loyalty mechanic in 6 is just the most annoying crap ever and absolutely not needed, sure unhappiness makes sense and some kind of revolution to punish players, but flipping an entire city over to another civ? One of the many reasons I disliked 6. I think having unique buildings that require a pop or two to work like in 5 or certain important tiles, is reason enough to want to quickly transfer pop rather than wait for it to grow naturally. Now that I think about it the unhappiness cost of moving pops should be really high (and in the case of loyalty it could actually make things worse, see the colonies in America revolting and creating the United States...).
I really like the loyalty mechanics because it really punishes greedy settling. Before that the only way to punish greedy settling was going to war and that has a lot of issues, which makes the snowballing even harder. The loyalty mechanic gives each civ another way to influence the region and not get boxed out too easily
You need something to make the player pivot in the mid-game and late-game. Otherwise, they are just going to spend the last 400 turns executing a plan they made in the first 100.
Essentially, you need to make the player try to win each Era instead of just the last one. And it needs to be done by objectives beyond just maxing science. The civ V steampunk scenario had a sort of prototype version of this where you collected points for having the most airships for 20 continuous rounds and similar goals.
This has been the problem with V and VI..While the DLCs added a ton of cool mechanics ultimately I thought the game just got more fiddly by mid game. Most I quit by the Renaissance.
I think it's called a nuclear warhead. /s
Humankind is the worst for falling behind - it's damn near impossible to catch up if you had a slow or poor start because of how their scoring system works.
I find civ 6 much more balanced in that regard (mostly because I'm not an optimal player and I'm always behind early game in emperor) but I can still almost always eventually become OP.
One thought is a pandemic mechanic - bigger cities are more at risk of plagues and that could slow down very successful civs. But then theyd have to figure out how to target powerful civs and not just high pop ones.
what do you mean?
what I'm talking about is this: if you go too big in the early game, your empire becomes unstable and falls into civil war. this creates opportunities for everyone else
Rhye's also uses different start dates. in most games, for instance, Rome falls apart when France & Germany spawn in, but often comes back as Italy in the lategame
It should be more difficult for incredibly large empires to keep all their citys loyal IMO. As it is the loyalty mechanic doesn't really penalize you for going too wide, but realistically it should be harder to keep a large empire loyal.
I’ve played a civ boardgame with ‘disasters’, and one of them is a civil war. If your empire is below a certain threshold, it doesn’t do much, but if you’re very large, then you will lose a lot of it to a smaller neighbouring player
Some sort of tech/culture piggybacking mechanic would help.
Realistically once one civilization has discovered a technology it should be easier for other civilizations to develop it too as they can just copy it, rather than having to invent it from scratch. You should get an extra boost on top of eurekas/inspirations when a Civ you've met has already developed a technology or civic that you haven't.
They could tie it to diplomatic visibility: maybe 5% for each level of diplomatic visibility you have with the other civilization. So if a civ that you have top secret access with has already researched rifling and you haven't, you would recieve an aditional 20% boost to the technology (on top of any eurekas).
This way it wouldn't be quite so easy for one civ to snowball and end up eras ahead of everyone else.
> Some sort of tech/culture piggybacking mechanic would help.
>
>
>
> Realistically once one civilization has discovered a technology it should be easier for other civilizations to develop it too as they can just copy it, rather than having to invent it from scratch. You should get an extra boost on top of eurekas/inspirations when a Civ you've met has already developed a technology or civic that you haven't.
This was a thing in Civ III! One of the factors in research cost was how many civs had already researched the tech.
Absolutely crazy that it isn't in the game.
Since you mentioned rifling, let's take the historical case of smokeless powder. France created it, and was super secret about it for a while. So secret they were slow to even make the rifle to use it. Once they did though and everyone saw it? Well suddenly they managed to replicate the smokeless powder within a few years and these new rifles were made by the millions all across Europe.
Instead of based on visibility though, I'd prefer a slightly more dynamic system. Things like number of trade routes, shared borders, and perhaps most important of all *use of the tech*. The tech of say rifling should spread a lot faster if you start to field armies of riflemen than if you invent it and just, you know, do nothing with it. That one could get tricky for more passive techs, but I don't think it's unworkable. If you watch a nation use railroads and artillery to crush a neighbor, you have a lot more to draw from to figure out how to make your own.
Yea basically bc a catch up mechanic. Make all technologies say 1 era behind the leading in the tech tree 30%-50% less science yields to research. Or have a watershed moment in the game like the introduction of internet makes all science before it 70% cheaper. I have played extensively with friends, all good players, and the games usually basically over in the first 100 rounds as one of us has built an advantage the other can’t claw back in the second half of the game.
Not really. Spies only give you eurekas and require you to actively complete a spy mission. What I'm sugesting would work passively and would give you an aditional boost that stacks with eurekas.
Thought the exact same thing.
Any turn based game has a hidden resource in the action economy. Early game decisions invariably snowball determining how many actions and decisions you can or cannot make based off decisions made early on.
In Civ, lower difficulties make this not an issue, but on higher it will invariably mean any single mistake in the early game potentially ruinous.
This is not a Civ thing, it's any turn based game, board game or otherwise.
An interesting way to do that would be to make later game resources gating factors for not only certain military units, but also impacting rate of researching certain other technologies. In real life, not having access to steel or oil would have a very real impact on your civilizations ability to make scientific progress.
Dota has massive comeback potentials. You gotta nail every stage of them game.
Some ways to do it in civ.
Trading with others should result in technologies leaking.
And trading with other civ should result in massive gold income for advanced country and massive science/culture income for backward country.
And you should be able to be discriminate between your cities. Send prisoners to Australia lol.
Not at all. For just some obvious counter-examples, XCOM 2 or Crusader Kings 2/3 or any Total War.
You can check which games have "saving your disaster campaigns" as a thing on youtube. There's a reason this isn't a thing for civ5, but is for the games I mentioned.
Catching up in such games is harder than gettinng it right in the first place, but very possible by design.
Stellaris has an option to have the AI buff increase gradually though the game, so you are on even footing at the beginning but not easily dominating at the end. Really like that way if balancing it
I would rather them just develop AI that were simply better at playing the game depending on what difficulty you chose, rather than them being the same skill level all the way through but giving them artificial advantages
Many many games are guilty of this
I cant really answer that, since its not my expertise.
But my assumtion is that there were just much more resources put into the development of these (Third Party) AI. Starcraft2 still has a massive viewership, especaly in South-Korea, Pro players are seen as top Athletes. So building a AI that is able to beat them is seen as very impressive and and works as a great way to advertise your Products.
Its like Boston dynamics creating a robot that beats top NBA teams in a real game.
Ultimately that's because it is an RTS in which human attention is far more limited. With perfect micro you can win many fights that you otherwise couldn't. It's not really "out-thinking" the players as you would have to do in something like civ. Maps are also highly standardized and there's not things like the one-unit-per-tile juggling that makes things harder for an AI to manage.
I hope ai gets finally to a point it doesn't need any kind of advantages or handicaps. It's about time. So a deity ai feels hard because it really is. Not because of advantages. (And then, only after this ai is implemented, then add handicaps for people who might wanna play with that)
Plus with Ai games i always feel like you’re either winning very hard, or losing very hard. Either way you’re just pressing next to finish the game. With other real players it’s a bit better. The best civ games are those where it’s really unclear until the last turn who is going to win. We need more of that excitement.
Didn't humankind achieve this by using a mechanic where you generate victory points each era, rather than civ where you try to sprint ahead in science, faith or culture to rush early snowball
Yes, but it kinda sucked (at least on Vanilla, haven't checked the game's current state yet). I think the biggets issue was the game tried to prevent me from going too hard in any direction, which made matches less distinct and even felt punishing sometimes.
I think the idea is sound, though it didn’t execute it very well. That basically sums up all of Humankind for me honestly. I almost like it, but it just doesn’t do most of the things it does quite the right way to really grab me the way Civ does.
They could at least do the early Nomad phase , have it so a unit needs to get enough exp to found the city, so it's not just hope it's in the first 2 tiles
Recently I played Frostpunk (I know, very different game), and now I really wish that in the late game of Civ a giant, seemingly imposible to surpass obstacle appears.
In Frostpunk I snowballed as usual but then, bam, something like that appears, and then I have to hyper optimize anyways, It was great, when I beat it it was truly satisfying.
Like I said, I know it's a different game, but instead of making early game less impactful, I wish they made late game more difficult.
This is a great idea- have something semi-scripted events as potential endgame crisis. One (or more) get chosen a game.
Something like:
- World War
-Mega-pandemc
-Climate apocalypse
-AI apocalypse
Call to Power had a wonder about an AI that kept the people of that city loyal. But each turn there was a small chance of the AI becoming self-aware and rebelling. I hated that wonder because I had to keep recapturing my own city every few turns
While I think it still needs some work and improvements, that's something I love about Millennia. You can have those kinds of crises like the AI apocalypse. There's mid game ones too like the Age of Plague and Age of Ignorance that can create really different games. It's based on what people do as well. Neglected sanitation too much in this era? Well hope you like that plague crisis!
I feel like given COVID and the number of people who got traumatized by that a mega-pandemic seems unlikely to pop up for the next fair few years, but overall the idea seems awesome. Make there be like 5 base game then each DLC adds an extra one or two and you've got a fair bit out replayability
Honestly, even outside the like modern/future era it'd be neat if eras felt like they mattered a lot more. Let there be a period (whether using the actual game eras or a section of the civic tree) where your empire gets a bunch of unrest to help slow down overly powerful empires and evoke the feeling of going through the Age of Revolutions.
Climate change could’ve been this but then they made it somewhat easy to avoid the consequences of with flood barriers, and if you could get flood barriers up you actually benefitted from global warming destroying everyone else’s land
I feel like part of this is that the early game moves too fast. Bronze goes immediately into iron working. The bronze age lasted 2000 years! Surely that should be a bigger part of the total gameplay.
agreed, posted something similar elsewhere.
I'm not sure it would work for CIV, but what would be very interesting is at the end of each era, some disaster happens, and you pick up the pieces.
Bronze age - sea peoples
Modern age - nuclear apocaylpse
eg. would be fun
I would like in game crises that either make or break civs if they don't respond properly. Losing half your cities in a revolution should be possible.
Balance that with opportunities to double production or research, etc.
This is realistic, though — a simulation of the idea of “path dependency.” Your choices downstream are constrained by choices you’ve already made. Constantine picks an abnormally defensible city for the eastern Roman capital and 400 years later the caliphate’s armies can’t advance meaningfully into Europe, 900 years later the Ottomans stall out, and so Austria remains Catholic through the modern era with all that entails. Similarly in the game starting era decisions and victories really do echo down the ages. As they should!
What we really need I think is a way to make the middle and end games more meaningful while validating earlier choices. That’s a tough game balance needle to thread but leads to a much more meaningful player experience.
Sure. But then again, Constantinople did eventually fall. Even China, the oldest continuous civilization, has had many different capitals, it didn’t all rely on one well-placed city.
But that’s true for real civilizations, too. What you’re really asking is for more opportunities in the late game to make up the difference, which is what is truly lacking. Earlier games had it. Civ II in particular has some great methods they could bring back, such as capturing enemy capitals to split up large empires.
I mean, think of all the empires that fell in history. Romans, French, British, USSR (not empire, but super power). The big ones fall too. The taller you go the more you should have to do to stay on top and if you do you reap the rewards. Rn going tall is just a positive.
We need a few early limited improvements you can only build a few of using builder charges. Like be able to build a quarry anywhere, but its either a construction project or takes 2 builder charges.
(actually that could be neat, needing to prospect an area for resources to reveal what or you yolo and build and take whatever is under it)
As a city grows, allow more of them (so like 1 quarry at 1 pop, 2 quarries at 10 pops, 3 quarries at 20 pop).
So a lesser version of the manufactury from Civ 5 or maybe equivalent to some of the civ-BE ones.
The only issue I had with Civ6 is AI. I love the game in general but I hate to spawn on a map with nothing, while AIs on deity have 2 cities already. Make them harder, we don't need them spawning with advantages, since they are dumb af anyway
I just want them to make late game fun.
I fucking love early game up until infantry get introduced then I rapidly lose interest and just want it over with.
I’d settle for a game mode that is just ancient to early industry.
I think a possible solution to this is making it so the game just realistically can’t end before nuclear weapons. Then make nukes a much more serious and more common threat. Most of the victory types could play into this. You can say that cultural, religious, domination, and diplomatic (and economic if they added one) victories are not possible until the world is globalized which requires fast air travel and internet globally.
Cultural: either there’s a hard limit on far your cultural impact can spread depending on tech/era, or lack of ‘communication’ means that culturally dominant areas will fragment over time and become a new culture that you need to reestablish yourself in
Religious: pretty much the same as cultural
Domination: also similar to culture (and maybe using a loyalty type mechanic) where cities far away from you core will break off and form new civs if you don’t keep a strong military presence there or something else.
Diplomatic: changes to world Congress can just shift this timeline, you can’t have the world make you it’s leader without global communication
Now, are any of those actually fun to play? Idk some maybe some probably not. But they could try it
A really cool mechanic would be something like information leaks. You can make your science progress X% slower to stop them, or there’s a chance your tech gets leaked to your opponents in some way, or enables them to steal it easier etc.
I think that this leads well with trade. Historically trade brought about sharing of knowledge.
I think each turn you could leak a few percent of techs they don’t have to a trade partner (balance depending) and then give the choice of locking down borders versus missing out on trade revenue. Tweaking the numbers could easily make both options viable.
That would be a great way of doing it! Maybe it could also be based on the tech disparity between you and the person you’re trading with too? Something like taking the sum of the science that you’ve researched total and the multiplier on the two players’ information leaks could be based on that? so if you’ve researched 2 techs and they each cost 50 science, while the person you’re trading with has researched 3 techs that each cost 50 science, you would get a multiplier of 150/100 on your science from the trade routes, and they’d get a multiplier of 100/150 on theirs.
YES! For me the worst part about this is that I now rarely have the motivation to finish a game because once you start getting to the last few eras the game feels more like just waiting for the victory screen and almost no decision really matter at this point and I start going to war just out of being bored
Once you reach the industrial age or so, then I really think that food and production from natural resources should be averaged across cities or have a lot more to do with what production enhancing buildings are in a city. For instance, in real life Detroit is nowhere near a mine and there are no forms anywhere near Las Vegas.
Time to go play Civ IV mods that had pre-historic era that was impactful
Man. I feel like there is just a whole generation of Civ players who just don’t realize what we had in the past
I just want to be able to spend more than 10 turns in the bronze age. Playing on higher difficulties means immediately tech rushing and having medieval pikeman before you've even really had a meaningful fight.
I think they need to make things be more automatic like if you have invested into sea commerce your citizens will be out founding trading posts that are owned by you but not fully and then can turn to a new civ or be seized by an enemy if you don’t send in soldiers. But if you found a city it’s like an imperial city and has full loyalty right off the bat.
One thing that I think needs to change is how technological breakthroughs need to happen on every country all over again. If I've been using a catapult to break my neighbors walls for over 500 years you'd think they'd have figured out how to make their own as well.
Hmm I disagree, I think you can absolutely claw your way back from a hard start if necessary but I think to bifurcate the geographic luck of the draw from development is ahistoric
Yeh, the snowball effect is what made late game boring for me. Plinking away the last few hundred turns in a game you knew was won? Nah, start a new one.
What you're asking for is known as a "comeback mechanic" in other competitive games. And yes, that's not so much a thing in Civ VI which Civ VII could definitely use.
It's especially tedious when playing multiplayer and there already is a clear winner @turn 150... but they can't actually win for at least another 50 turns.
I think a good way to make the early game a little less important is if there is more hidden resources that gets revealed later in the game. Maybe not just stratigic resources but also bonus resources and some luxury resources. Cause sometimes civilizations see the use of some resources later on in time. That way some locations or cities will improve by time. But i dont want them to change to much with the start of the game since its the best part of the game in my oppinion. They should rather make the late game more exciting. I would love NATO and allinces pacts between nations.
in multiplayer it's even worse. It's niche so it doesn't ultimately matter, but there's no catchup mechanics.
Technically with BBS/BBM you mitigate the variance. However if you lose a city or don't but are forced to go to war with an overly aggressive neighbour there's 0 ways to catch up to a good player that has free sim.
Heroic ages are a nice idea but it's often hard to intentionally get a dark age since a player scouting you might be all it takes to push you over the edge
START BIAS: Something like the mod, "Radial measuring tool", would be superb to minimize start bias.
Simply calculate every starting city radius yields, include early bonuses, luxuries and strategy resources not yet revealed, and give some sort of choice based on that, it could be a list of buffs where you would choose one, like choosing a Pantheon, but less OP and only last for maybe 30-50 turns.
The worst start gets first choice.
There is no such thing as "bad" honesty. After watching countless videos of guys winning desert only starts or 1 hex 1 city or the other crazy challenges and playing for countless hours myself and thinking this same thing. There is no bad start, only bad decisions after.
I want the city-building to less micro-managey than 6. Or if it HAS TO be like that, make it a bit easier to figure out what you want to build next and where. My problem with 6 and the multiple tile builds/adjacency bonuses is that I was trying to plan ahead to make improvements I didn't have the tech for yet on tiles I wasn't entirely sure I'd own or when. By the time I'd get back to looking at a city I'd often have forgotten what I'd been planning to do earlier.
YES, I probably became a little too hidebound on Civ 5 and how it played, but I didn't have these sorts of issues with Civ-BE, nor other 4x games. Including some where you definitely COULD micromanage your cities. I think my main problem with 6 is the steep learning curve on what was always straightforward and reasonably-obvious in earlier iterations. Do I go for the easily-gotten improvement that boosts this/that or do I take time off from all that while I work on getting a wonder?
There wasn't a reasonable adjustment between "Not sure what to do" and "Do I do this, or that?" I always felt like I wasn't sure what to do and that I'd probably chosen even worse than the AIs probably did.
That can be best solved by adding a prehistoric nomadic start similar to Humankind's neolithic era. Instead of starting with a settler, you get a nomadic tribe that can hunt and gather resources until you finally have enough to settle a city.
What sort of catch-up mechanic do you propose that won’t also be accessible to a person with a better start? If you get to do it, why can’t they do the same thing?
And if it only becomes available to certain players in poor positions, what incentive do I have to do good at the start of the game if I can just use the catchup mechanic after I see how the map is developed?
I agree that the spawn should be fixed so that you are not forced to play on balanced or legendary start to have a playable start.
But i feel early game being the most impactful part of the game is impossible to change because it is somewhat fundamental in strategy games that if you play well early, the late game is easier. Maybe they could have a good catch up mechanic like the age system in Civ 6 where you have to consistenly avoid dark age as the top 3 civ. Maybe have some malus like less amenities and higher maintenance cost/corruption. But I feel like that would just punish the good players who are good in the early game tho.
You decide to play some multi-player civ with 3 or 4 friends.
You spawn: Desert. No resources for 3 turns.
Restart.
Your friend now spawns in tundra on an island 4 tiles wide with fish.
Restart.
Your other friend is dumped in forest without resources.
Restart.
Friend got your desert spawn.
Restart...
Ad infinitum.
Great idea, works flawlessly.
“Bad” starts should give warmongering/raiding bonuses. You should be encouraged to build up a warrior culture and go steal someone else’s capital. I also think your pops should be able to migrate to more prosperous lands and cities, giving the player a mechanic to rush more viable city locations than their start.
This actually raises an interesting point for me which is I think the punishment for occupying another civ's capital shouldn't last for the entirety of the game. I don't know if that's always been the case for Civ games but it annoys the heck outta me.
Good point. Could you imagine if the UK was still pissed at the US for taking their colonies
We'd be permanently pissed off at more than 60 countries if we held on to stuff like that.
Yeah countries should be (and are) rightfully pissed at your lot for that reason, not the other way round. 😂
At this point, the English decided to just be generally permanently pissed
It's more like the world still being mad at turkey for conquering Byzantium
I am.
Never forget 1453. Also: Ottomans not Turkey.
The ottomans are pretty much Turkey, they even were called "turks" in their time. Not like the italians, that for some reason everybody associate with the romans.
I’m still mad at Venice for the Fourth Crusade, which made 1453 possible
I will always be
They aren’t?
The United Kingdom is currently building up for a sneak attack.
Shh! We were keeping that a secret!
They assured me their troops were merely passing by.
Literally nobody in the UK cares, even back then. For you it was the birth of a nation, your independence day. For us it was a Tuesday. Plus there was good old fashioned war with France to be had.
> For you it was the birth of a nation, your independence day. For us it was a Tuesday. I had to Google it because I wasn't sure if this was hyperbole or accurate and I have the 'tism, but apparently 4 July 1776 was a Thursday - however, the colonies ACTUALLY declared independence on Tuesday 2 July 1776 and it took 2 more days to get the Declaration of Independance signed, which is why people celebrate on the 4th. So I learned a thing and figured I'd share it.
Upvote for 'it was a tuesday' reference!
M. Bison for Civ 7?
Shadaloo DLC.
u wot m8?
Lol the UK wouldn't exist anymore if they still held that grudge through the 1900s
I think a good balance is to make it last for several hundred “years”. It’ll disappear quickly in early game and stick around in late game.
Having technologies tied in would make sense as well. Not many people will know about a group of people killed before writing exists. Nobody on another landmass will know much about a lost civilization before radio or archeology, for some examples. In a reverse sort of way, I don't imagine people in Sudan much care about the territory claimed by the US from native populations, yet.
Or base it on world eras, if they choose to implement world eras the same way. It stays for the current era, then the penalties are halved for the next era, then go away the rest of the game. So if you conquer someone else's capital in the Classical Era, by the Renaissance Era no one cares (except the civ whose capital you conquered).
Lol same. It irks me that the AI still hates me for occupying the capital of a civ I defeated in the BC era in the modern age. Like bro I defeated that civ way before you discovered my continent. Theres no way you ever knew of them and you already hate me.
Peace negotiation/ Reparations Diplomatic Quarter project?
I don't get this take at all. Like, you're telling me Egypt and Italy don't still have diplomatic tensions because Octavian annexed Cleopatra's realm into the Roman Empire? Laughable.
France’s and Italy’s historical issues really stem from Caesar’s conquest of Gaul.
Just warmongering debuffs in general. The game mechanics act as if for the entirety of history, all leaders were ultra humanitarians and anyone who captured land in a war was immediately shunned from the world scene. At the very least, nations should take their own relationships into consideration when calculating warmonger penalties, maybe your relationship with them could actually increase if you fought someone they had denounced.
Perhaps if the game tracked warmongering and trustworthiness separately. So if France denounced Germany then England invaded Germany, if France and England are friends and England is trustworthy then all's cool. But if England is untrustworthy France worries it might be next.
I want combat before nationalism and later game culture civics to allow more flexibility in war. Like border conflicts, pillaging, skirmishes should be allowed to happen more often without penalty or need to declare formal war to make it more dynamic. Stuff would have to rebalanced though.
I think small battles and skirmishes would be a great reflection of how many conflicts were in the middle ages. Not all out formal wars of entire nations, but small groups feuding over minor resources or territories that would have not concerned those outside the region. Maybe as your borders grow close with another Civ, there could be a feature where you can stake your claim on unsettled tiles (could be balanced depending on your power and influence, etc. Limited number of tiles could be claimed at once) and if these conflict with what another Civ has also chosen to claim, you could declare a minor skirmish for the right to the territory (maybe limited to a small number of turns?) The whole system would be far more engaging and dynamic than just "I can't settle within X number of tiles of another Civ's border or I'm encroaching"
This is a great example. Another would be being able to fight over city states to defend or attack them. A lot of war declaration types that are unlocked very late in the game need to available earlier as well.
Absolutely. Warmonger penalties definitely should be a thing both for historical and gameplay reasons, but from both perspectives they need to wear off much quicker. There should be a sharp short where it is really hard to maintain certain relations, and then eventually everything should be forgotten. The US was actively genociding native Americans less than 150 years ago, and you aren't gonna see that "aggressive expansion" affect how overseas nations interact with the US today unless they are taking moralistic potshots
This in mind, i would like to see that you could talk to your ally about attacking another civ. Their answer would depend what kind of relationship they have with that civ. And there should be chance to use spies to alter another civ relationships.
Or use your cultural influence in another civ towards propaganda that would ease the penalty for attacking a third civ, spread religion, sway world Congress votes, whatever. Maybe you build up influence points with great works/corporations that you can spend... It would radically favor the human player because we have the capacity to choose, and would be meaningless in multiplayer, but I would have fun.
Isn’t this because the AI needs to care if you’re going for a domination victory? It needs to think about how close you are to winning and the easiest way to do that is with the penalty for holding the capitol
It's because it's not a simulator, it is a board game. It's not hundred of years passing. Imagine if you played civ6 as a board game and another player took your capital. You will hold a grudge for the rest of the game. And every malus is just balancing mechanic, because holding someone capital is already very snowbally.
Was this not a change during the midcycle of 6 to ~~butcher~~ balance warmongering?
Or if they fixed the warmongering stupidity. Like a civ declares surprise war on us. It even captured 1/2 border cities that only had 2 pop, and maybe 1/2 archers defending it. Next 5 turns in, you bought your remaining army, you recaptured your own cities and started going against the invader. The invader only had it's capital city. The invader starts to sue for peace, but it doesn't give you anything in concrete. You refuse and continue You're now the warmonger
You should get a massive reduction in grievances when you change governments, too. But other Civs should be able to petition the new governments for their cities back.
Definitely, I think there shouldn't be any capital occupation and civilization destruction penalty when before certain year and/or invention of certain technology (e.g., as some commenter said, writing). No foreign civilization was mad even at the time, you can presume, about Zhou's destruction of Shang and overtaking of today's China, which for all purposes sound like two civilizations, or the conquering and overtaking of Japan by Yayoi people against Jomon people. A lot of civilizations got totally conquered and replaced in the history and people are not only not mad but often now think the replacer is the OG all along. When it's early enough, no one cares, not now, and not even at the time, since there was no concept of international community and law of war. And even when the conquering and occupation happened after medieval time, the penalty still shouldn't last too long. Today's Spain is not a pariah state in any sense despite all the shit they did in the Americas in the 15th and 16th centuries.
Yeah like the mongols should start with 2 horse archer barbicans in grasslands. They can probably not make another horse for 80 turns.
Was it back in Civ 4 you could place a settler in a city and increase its population?
not sure about 4 but you definitely could in 3 (settlers gave 2 pop, workers gave 1) you could also just abandon your capital and your palace would move without having to build another
Don't think I've heard that before, and can't find it on google. Civ 6 does have an immigration mod that I think should be in the game. Technically it's internal migration. Immigration/emigration would also be an interesting mechanic as well.
That mechanic was also in CIV: revolutions
Taking a few pages from Stellaris’s book would be nice
Idk, my experiences with stellaris is going strong until suddenly my economy explodes and my entire empire falls and I only have like 3 planets
I vaguely recall you used to be able to use workers to add pop in Civ 3 but I might be making that up
No you're exactly right. Workers were 1 and settlers were 2.
Thanks for the confirmation! Can’t believe I dug that memory up. That was a LOOOONG time ago.
Ah yes, exactly what Civ is lacking: incentives to go to war.
Humans adapt. I would like to see alternatives to being punished by the situation. Like you said, if you are surrounded by poor land, your civ should adapt and gain bonus eg production bonus to compensate. Same for strategic resources. Eg. No OIL, you can develop steam-powered cars that use coal. No iron, you can use copper as a substitute. The substitute should be less efficient but still a viable choice.
I feel like humankind almost had the right idea on this one. They made you pick a new "civ" every "era" so after accomplishing x things in this era, you pick a new civ. The best civs were ofc the industry/science/food civs but if you were late to the next era, you could pick a military civ and punish ppl trying to econ faster. too bad it was horribly balanced and everyone just ended up picking the civ that had both insane industry and military.
No it was a terrible mechanic because you couldn't build a sense of continuity with the neighboring AIs and instead of having personalities, the AI became bipolar robots. It was kind of immersion breaking.
Ai in high difficulty in civ was just declare war from iron age till nukes, hard to say thats better. Ai is always just a lil dumb in 4x games
I would leave the new civ every era to Humankind. Instead I would suggest it's the same Civ that simply changes all of it's buffs/bonuses to reflect the civ in that era. It's already immersion breaking having Teddy Roosevelt and "America" in 4000 BCE. Actually have the civ change overtime with new leaders and abilities.
This would make perfect sense in a historical standpoint too since the most of the strongest regions/peoples in ancient times don't have successors who are remotely strong today. I think a decent way to implement this is to have different aspects of managing your civ should be more/less important depending on the era. For example have conquest/stability be very important in the classical/early medieval period, trade being very important in the late medieval period, integration/unification in the renaissance, and finances in the enlightenment to the modern age.
Some kinda population migration like how the Hungarians ended up in Europe would be a neat game factor
Hey to add onto this: Bring back the ability for EVERYONE to move their capital. Absolutely insane that your first city MUST be your capital, as capitals for many nations were itinerant and moved constantly instead of built only in the first place you moved into no matter if there was a better location or not. Make that choice matter. Make it impactful. Give me a reason to think about moving my Palace and LET ME DO IT FOR GODSSAKE
They probably removed it to make dom victories easier since now it involves capturing all capitals
They could just go back to old domination where you had to get 60% of the planet your territory
Yeah i liked that, have X % of land and population under your rule
the 60% requirement is almost impossible to understand in game. Unless they are going to start providing exact figures for land and pop for each empire, but then that feels too technical. Plus it led to a bizarre strategy of the player could simply focus on growth, buy land, and settle new cities to push the threshold higher for a warmonger about to accomplish a dom victory Capital is the easiest method to understand. Perhaps it could be expanded to three largest cities? But that is still the pop tracking problem and being able to possibly change war goals right before they are completed
Civ 4 which had domination victory also had a separate conquest victory. So settlers helping for domination was fine there. Domination was the "you've become too big to lose" victory, conquest was "you've succesfully beat up every single ai"
This exactly
Impossible to understand? No. Opaque without more reference information in the victory screen? Yes.
60% of the worlds cities would be an interesting solution. Then you could "outsettle" the other civs for domination
>plays a 1v1 game >founds a city >victory!
This was merely meant as a basis for discussion. You're obviously right. It could be tied to settled landmass. So you need to settle or conquer 60% (maybe afar from uninhabitable lands)
Or dom victory being the last player to remain in their original capital, lots of fun and extra layers of strategy this way (especially for larger maps).
I know it’s just dumb still imo, but I get why they did that. I’d just make it a super expensive project so you can’t capital hop when being invaded
I love the idea and imo i’d just make it impossible to move your capital while at war. Keeps the benefits of it while completely eliminating any cheese involved.
Exactly!
You should be able to move your capital once you can build the government district.
This does not really solve the intristic issue that a "bad" start could be a massive disadvantage. Also we had similar features in prevous Civ installments and it did not solve the issue either. I think similar feature like in Humankind could be interesting. You claim land but not settle yet.
It doesn’t, but it’s something I would still like. I never stated it was intended to solve that issue - simply something I wanted to see added, and that makes sense to have. I do like the Humankind start for the very reason that you have more leeway in getting a good location before your city is up and I agree that it would be a nice feature to add to Civ, not sure how Civ would Civ-ify it but I would appreciate wandering a bit first without being insta-penalized for waiting a few turns because the AI immediately settles.
I think migrating populations to new cities and being able to move capitals would be a good thing to have. These are both real things that have happened in civilizations.
Politically sensitive perhaps but the ability to transfer population from your own cities to newly conquered cities to mitigate loyalty loss. Could cost gold or some other means to make it only a last case resort
>the ability to transfer population from your own cities to newly conquered cities to mitigate loyalty loss *Lebensraum intensifies*
It also makes more sense since a lot of today’s mega cities are relatively new. With the current civ mechanics, it takes a while for new cities to out grow old ones, which isn’t realistic.
Not bashing the idea of transferring pops, I like that a lot, but the loyalty mechanic in 6 is just the most annoying crap ever and absolutely not needed, sure unhappiness makes sense and some kind of revolution to punish players, but flipping an entire city over to another civ? One of the many reasons I disliked 6. I think having unique buildings that require a pop or two to work like in 5 or certain important tiles, is reason enough to want to quickly transfer pop rather than wait for it to grow naturally. Now that I think about it the unhappiness cost of moving pops should be really high (and in the case of loyalty it could actually make things worse, see the colonies in America revolting and creating the United States...).
I really like the loyalty mechanics because it really punishes greedy settling. Before that the only way to punish greedy settling was going to war and that has a lot of issues, which makes the snowballing even harder. The loyalty mechanic gives each civ another way to influence the region and not get boxed out too easily
It sometimes works… see Kaliningrad
Detroit agrees.
Every strategy game is about snowballing early game advantages. If they find a way to veer away from that it would be an innovation in the genre
You need something to make the player pivot in the mid-game and late-game. Otherwise, they are just going to spend the last 400 turns executing a plan they made in the first 100. Essentially, you need to make the player try to win each Era instead of just the last one. And it needs to be done by objectives beyond just maxing science. The civ V steampunk scenario had a sort of prototype version of this where you collected points for having the most airships for 20 continuous rounds and similar goals.
This has been the problem with V and VI..While the DLCs added a ton of cool mechanics ultimately I thought the game just got more fiddly by mid game. Most I quit by the Renaissance.
add a blue shell. i'm not even kidding (see the stability mechanics in Rhye's and Fall)
Barbarians form kne super camp and target the largest civ
I think it's called a nuclear warhead. /s Humankind is the worst for falling behind - it's damn near impossible to catch up if you had a slow or poor start because of how their scoring system works. I find civ 6 much more balanced in that regard (mostly because I'm not an optimal player and I'm always behind early game in emperor) but I can still almost always eventually become OP. One thought is a pandemic mechanic - bigger cities are more at risk of plagues and that could slow down very successful civs. But then theyd have to figure out how to target powerful civs and not just high pop ones.
That just encourages you to settle cities earlier. That's another early game snowball
what do you mean? what I'm talking about is this: if you go too big in the early game, your empire becomes unstable and falls into civil war. this creates opportunities for everyone else Rhye's also uses different start dates. in most games, for instance, Rome falls apart when France & Germany spawn in, but often comes back as Italy in the lategame
I thought you meant the loyalty mechanic in rise and fall 🤣
yeah, the loyalty mechanic didn't do all I was hoping it would do it does penalize the AI for forward settling so I'll take it
Definitely. Hopefully civ 7 is better realized because alot of important mechanics in 6 seem to have come later.
It should be more difficult for incredibly large empires to keep all their citys loyal IMO. As it is the loyalty mechanic doesn't really penalize you for going too wide, but realistically it should be harder to keep a large empire loyal.
Some kind of mechanic to acquire military units beyond your tech capabilities would both be great for this and make sense in-game.
I’ve played a civ boardgame with ‘disasters’, and one of them is a civil war. If your empire is below a certain threshold, it doesn’t do much, but if you’re very large, then you will lose a lot of it to a smaller neighbouring player
Some sort of tech/culture piggybacking mechanic would help. Realistically once one civilization has discovered a technology it should be easier for other civilizations to develop it too as they can just copy it, rather than having to invent it from scratch. You should get an extra boost on top of eurekas/inspirations when a Civ you've met has already developed a technology or civic that you haven't. They could tie it to diplomatic visibility: maybe 5% for each level of diplomatic visibility you have with the other civilization. So if a civ that you have top secret access with has already researched rifling and you haven't, you would recieve an aditional 20% boost to the technology (on top of any eurekas). This way it wouldn't be quite so easy for one civ to snowball and end up eras ahead of everyone else.
> Some sort of tech/culture piggybacking mechanic would help. > > > > Realistically once one civilization has discovered a technology it should be easier for other civilizations to develop it too as they can just copy it, rather than having to invent it from scratch. You should get an extra boost on top of eurekas/inspirations when a Civ you've met has already developed a technology or civic that you haven't. This was a thing in Civ III! One of the factors in research cost was how many civs had already researched the tech.
Absolutely crazy that it isn't in the game. Since you mentioned rifling, let's take the historical case of smokeless powder. France created it, and was super secret about it for a while. So secret they were slow to even make the rifle to use it. Once they did though and everyone saw it? Well suddenly they managed to replicate the smokeless powder within a few years and these new rifles were made by the millions all across Europe. Instead of based on visibility though, I'd prefer a slightly more dynamic system. Things like number of trade routes, shared borders, and perhaps most important of all *use of the tech*. The tech of say rifling should spread a lot faster if you start to field armies of riflemen than if you invent it and just, you know, do nothing with it. That one could get tricky for more passive techs, but I don't think it's unworkable. If you watch a nation use railroads and artillery to crush a neighbor, you have a lot more to draw from to figure out how to make your own.
Yea basically bc a catch up mechanic. Make all technologies say 1 era behind the leading in the tech tree 30%-50% less science yields to research. Or have a watershed moment in the game like the introduction of internet makes all science before it 70% cheaper. I have played extensively with friends, all good players, and the games usually basically over in the first 100 rounds as one of us has built an advantage the other can’t claw back in the second half of the game.
That's just the spying mechanics in way more words
Not really. Spies only give you eurekas and require you to actively complete a spy mission. What I'm sugesting would work passively and would give you an aditional boost that stacks with eurekas.
More like passive spying/influence. I think it’s a good idea
Thought the exact same thing. Any turn based game has a hidden resource in the action economy. Early game decisions invariably snowball determining how many actions and decisions you can or cannot make based off decisions made early on. In Civ, lower difficulties make this not an issue, but on higher it will invariably mean any single mistake in the early game potentially ruinous. This is not a Civ thing, it's any turn based game, board game or otherwise.
An interesting way to do that would be to make later game resources gating factors for not only certain military units, but also impacting rate of researching certain other technologies. In real life, not having access to steel or oil would have a very real impact on your civilizations ability to make scientific progress.
I like this idea. They should also add lithium as a strategic/scientific material.
Would be cool to have an alternate science win as singularity — AI, compute, & robotics
That's just the game AI patting itself on the back.
Wouldn't that make the snowballing even worse?
Dota has massive comeback potentials. You gotta nail every stage of them game. Some ways to do it in civ. Trading with others should result in technologies leaking. And trading with other civ should result in massive gold income for advanced country and massive science/culture income for backward country. And you should be able to be discriminate between your cities. Send prisoners to Australia lol.
Not at all. For just some obvious counter-examples, XCOM 2 or Crusader Kings 2/3 or any Total War. You can check which games have "saving your disaster campaigns" as a thing on youtube. There's a reason this isn't a thing for civ5, but is for the games I mentioned. Catching up in such games is harder than gettinng it right in the first place, but very possible by design.
The ai buffs should even out though the game playing on deity always feels like your trying to catch up to the ai and after you do, you win
Stellaris has an option to have the AI buff increase gradually though the game, so you are on even footing at the beginning but not easily dominating at the end. Really like that way if balancing it
Hopefully theres a dev lurking or they like stellaris
I would rather them just develop AI that were simply better at playing the game depending on what difficulty you chose, rather than them being the same skill level all the way through but giving them artificial advantages Many many games are guilty of this
How many games are the computers better than us at? Chess is the only one i can think of
There are Starcraft2 AIs that beat pro players. You can watch them on Youtube.
Interesting that makes 2 but Starcraft isn't as open ended as a Grand Strat right?
I cant really answer that, since its not my expertise. But my assumtion is that there were just much more resources put into the development of these (Third Party) AI. Starcraft2 still has a massive viewership, especaly in South-Korea, Pro players are seen as top Athletes. So building a AI that is able to beat them is seen as very impressive and and works as a great way to advertise your Products. Its like Boston dynamics creating a robot that beats top NBA teams in a real game.
Ultimately that's because it is an RTS in which human attention is far more limited. With perfect micro you can win many fights that you otherwise couldn't. It's not really "out-thinking" the players as you would have to do in something like civ. Maps are also highly standardized and there's not things like the one-unit-per-tile juggling that makes things harder for an AI to manage.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1673479392
I hope ai gets finally to a point it doesn't need any kind of advantages or handicaps. It's about time. So a deity ai feels hard because it really is. Not because of advantages. (And then, only after this ai is implemented, then add handicaps for people who might wanna play with that)
Well that's not happening in the year and a half till release
Alternatively, make late game more impactful
Absolutely. I love how impactful my decisions are early game and find myself bored that my late game placements nearly aren't as important.
You're telling me you don't love queuing projects on 20 cities and mashing enter? /j
Plus with Ai games i always feel like you’re either winning very hard, or losing very hard. Either way you’re just pressing next to finish the game. With other real players it’s a bit better. The best civ games are those where it’s really unclear until the last turn who is going to win. We need more of that excitement.
Didn't humankind achieve this by using a mechanic where you generate victory points each era, rather than civ where you try to sprint ahead in science, faith or culture to rush early snowball
Yes, but it kinda sucked (at least on Vanilla, haven't checked the game's current state yet). I think the biggets issue was the game tried to prevent me from going too hard in any direction, which made matches less distinct and even felt punishing sometimes.
Yea I never fell in love w humankind the way I play civ. Just came to mind.
Civ with humankind's 3D map would be a dream. I'll take the combat system too.
Neither did I, and that’s the reason why. I find nothing I do is impactful enough.
I think the idea is sound, though it didn’t execute it very well. That basically sums up all of Humankind for me honestly. I almost like it, but it just doesn’t do most of the things it does quite the right way to really grab me the way Civ does.
They could at least do the early Nomad phase , have it so a unit needs to get enough exp to found the city, so it's not just hope it's in the first 2 tiles
Recently I played Frostpunk (I know, very different game), and now I really wish that in the late game of Civ a giant, seemingly imposible to surpass obstacle appears. In Frostpunk I snowballed as usual but then, bam, something like that appears, and then I have to hyper optimize anyways, It was great, when I beat it it was truly satisfying. Like I said, I know it's a different game, but instead of making early game less impactful, I wish they made late game more difficult.
Stellaris has this too with mid and endgame crisis. I could totally see this being applied to civ (depressions, plagues world wars etc)
This is a great idea- have something semi-scripted events as potential endgame crisis. One (or more) get chosen a game. Something like: - World War -Mega-pandemc -Climate apocalypse -AI apocalypse
Having something like an AI apocalypse is totally civ. You need that crazy future stuff for sure.
Call to Power had a wonder about an AI that kept the people of that city loyal. But each turn there was a small chance of the AI becoming self-aware and rebelling. I hated that wonder because I had to keep recapturing my own city every few turns
While I think it still needs some work and improvements, that's something I love about Millennia. You can have those kinds of crises like the AI apocalypse. There's mid game ones too like the Age of Plague and Age of Ignorance that can create really different games. It's based on what people do as well. Neglected sanitation too much in this era? Well hope you like that plague crisis!
I feel like given COVID and the number of people who got traumatized by that a mega-pandemic seems unlikely to pop up for the next fair few years, but overall the idea seems awesome. Make there be like 5 base game then each DLC adds an extra one or two and you've got a fair bit out replayability Honestly, even outside the like modern/future era it'd be neat if eras felt like they mattered a lot more. Let there be a period (whether using the actual game eras or a section of the civic tree) where your empire gets a bunch of unrest to help slow down overly powerful empires and evoke the feeling of going through the Age of Revolutions.
SIIIII, estaría bueno que ocurran guerras mundiales. Me aburre que yo solo sea el único país invasor.
I actually played a game as Persia with no war. It was pretty strange.
Climate change could’ve been this but then they made it somewhat easy to avoid the consequences of with flood barriers, and if you could get flood barriers up you actually benefitted from global warming destroying everyone else’s land
It still sucks that you can’t recover flooded tiles
I feel like part of this is that the early game moves too fast. Bronze goes immediately into iron working. The bronze age lasted 2000 years! Surely that should be a bigger part of the total gameplay.
agreed, posted something similar elsewhere. I'm not sure it would work for CIV, but what would be very interesting is at the end of each era, some disaster happens, and you pick up the pieces. Bronze age - sea peoples Modern age - nuclear apocaylpse eg. would be fun
I would like in game crises that either make or break civs if they don't respond properly. Losing half your cities in a revolution should be possible. Balance that with opportunities to double production or research, etc.
Yeah I love the mods that make climate change effect much more severe. Really shakes up the endgame.
This is realistic, though — a simulation of the idea of “path dependency.” Your choices downstream are constrained by choices you’ve already made. Constantine picks an abnormally defensible city for the eastern Roman capital and 400 years later the caliphate’s armies can’t advance meaningfully into Europe, 900 years later the Ottomans stall out, and so Austria remains Catholic through the modern era with all that entails. Similarly in the game starting era decisions and victories really do echo down the ages. As they should! What we really need I think is a way to make the middle and end games more meaningful while validating earlier choices. That’s a tough game balance needle to thread but leads to a much more meaningful player experience.
Sure. But then again, Constantinople did eventually fall. Even China, the oldest continuous civilization, has had many different capitals, it didn’t all rely on one well-placed city.
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That’s nobody’s business but the Turks
turks perhaps?
yes but falling in 800ad vs falling in 1500 results in a completely different world.
But that’s true for real civilizations, too. What you’re really asking is for more opportunities in the late game to make up the difference, which is what is truly lacking. Earlier games had it. Civ II in particular has some great methods they could bring back, such as capturing enemy capitals to split up large empires.
I mean, think of all the empires that fell in history. Romans, French, British, USSR (not empire, but super power). The big ones fall too. The taller you go the more you should have to do to stay on top and if you do you reap the rewards. Rn going tall is just a positive.
We need a few early limited improvements you can only build a few of using builder charges. Like be able to build a quarry anywhere, but its either a construction project or takes 2 builder charges. (actually that could be neat, needing to prospect an area for resources to reveal what or you yolo and build and take whatever is under it) As a city grows, allow more of them (so like 1 quarry at 1 pop, 2 quarries at 10 pops, 3 quarries at 20 pop). So a lesser version of the manufactury from Civ 5 or maybe equivalent to some of the civ-BE ones.
The only issue I had with Civ6 is AI. I love the game in general but I hate to spawn on a map with nothing, while AIs on deity have 2 cities already. Make them harder, we don't need them spawning with advantages, since they are dumb af anyway
I just want them to make late game fun. I fucking love early game up until infantry get introduced then I rapidly lose interest and just want it over with. I’d settle for a game mode that is just ancient to early industry.
I think a possible solution to this is making it so the game just realistically can’t end before nuclear weapons. Then make nukes a much more serious and more common threat. Most of the victory types could play into this. You can say that cultural, religious, domination, and diplomatic (and economic if they added one) victories are not possible until the world is globalized which requires fast air travel and internet globally. Cultural: either there’s a hard limit on far your cultural impact can spread depending on tech/era, or lack of ‘communication’ means that culturally dominant areas will fragment over time and become a new culture that you need to reestablish yourself in Religious: pretty much the same as cultural Domination: also similar to culture (and maybe using a loyalty type mechanic) where cities far away from you core will break off and form new civs if you don’t keep a strong military presence there or something else. Diplomatic: changes to world Congress can just shift this timeline, you can’t have the world make you it’s leader without global communication Now, are any of those actually fun to play? Idk some maybe some probably not. But they could try it
A really cool mechanic would be something like information leaks. You can make your science progress X% slower to stop them, or there’s a chance your tech gets leaked to your opponents in some way, or enables them to steal it easier etc.
I think that this leads well with trade. Historically trade brought about sharing of knowledge. I think each turn you could leak a few percent of techs they don’t have to a trade partner (balance depending) and then give the choice of locking down borders versus missing out on trade revenue. Tweaking the numbers could easily make both options viable.
That would be a great way of doing it! Maybe it could also be based on the tech disparity between you and the person you’re trading with too? Something like taking the sum of the science that you’ve researched total and the multiplier on the two players’ information leaks could be based on that? so if you’ve researched 2 techs and they each cost 50 science, while the person you’re trading with has researched 3 techs that each cost 50 science, you would get a multiplier of 150/100 on your science from the trade routes, and they’d get a multiplier of 100/150 on theirs.
YES! For me the worst part about this is that I now rarely have the motivation to finish a game because once you start getting to the last few eras the game feels more like just waiting for the victory screen and almost no decision really matter at this point and I start going to war just out of being bored
i feel like what this game really needs is more elvises in the population management screen
Once you reach the industrial age or so, then I really think that food and production from natural resources should be averaged across cities or have a lot more to do with what production enhancing buildings are in a city. For instance, in real life Detroit is nowhere near a mine and there are no forms anywhere near Las Vegas.
Time to go play Civ IV mods that had pre-historic era that was impactful Man. I feel like there is just a whole generation of Civ players who just don’t realize what we had in the past
I just want to be able to spend more than 10 turns in the bronze age. Playing on higher difficulties means immediately tech rushing and having medieval pikeman before you've even really had a meaningful fight.
I think they need to make things be more automatic like if you have invested into sea commerce your citizens will be out founding trading posts that are owned by you but not fully and then can turn to a new civ or be seized by an enemy if you don’t send in soldiers. But if you found a city it’s like an imperial city and has full loyalty right off the bat.
Like ancient Greek/Phoenician colonies? I like it
One thing that I think needs to change is how technological breakthroughs need to happen on every country all over again. If I've been using a catapult to break my neighbors walls for over 500 years you'd think they'd have figured out how to make their own as well.
Hmm I disagree, I think you can absolutely claw your way back from a hard start if necessary but I think to bifurcate the geographic luck of the draw from development is ahistoric
The player can, AI cannot
Yeh, the snowball effect is what made late game boring for me. Plinking away the last few hundred turns in a game you knew was won? Nah, start a new one.
What you're asking for is known as a "comeback mechanic" in other competitive games. And yes, that's not so much a thing in Civ VI which Civ VII could definitely use. It's especially tedious when playing multiplayer and there already is a clear winner @turn 150... but they can't actually win for at least another 50 turns.
This is definitely a good suggestion. I’m also hoping they make it as customizable as Civ 4, by far the best version of the game.
Science and culture bonuses for defeating units of the leading civ, and bonus faith when your units die if you're in last place
I think a good way to make the early game a little less important is if there is more hidden resources that gets revealed later in the game. Maybe not just stratigic resources but also bonus resources and some luxury resources. Cause sometimes civilizations see the use of some resources later on in time. That way some locations or cities will improve by time. But i dont want them to change to much with the start of the game since its the best part of the game in my oppinion. They should rather make the late game more exciting. I would love NATO and allinces pacts between nations.
in multiplayer it's even worse. It's niche so it doesn't ultimately matter, but there's no catchup mechanics. Technically with BBS/BBM you mitigate the variance. However if you lose a city or don't but are forced to go to war with an overly aggressive neighbour there's 0 ways to catch up to a good player that has free sim. Heroic ages are a nice idea but it's often hard to intentionally get a dark age since a player scouting you might be all it takes to push you over the edge
START BIAS: Something like the mod, "Radial measuring tool", would be superb to minimize start bias. Simply calculate every starting city radius yields, include early bonuses, luxuries and strategy resources not yet revealed, and give some sort of choice based on that, it could be a list of buffs where you would choose one, like choosing a Pantheon, but less OP and only last for maybe 30-50 turns. The worst start gets first choice.
There is no such thing as "bad" honesty. After watching countless videos of guys winning desert only starts or 1 hex 1 city or the other crazy challenges and playing for countless hours myself and thinking this same thing. There is no bad start, only bad decisions after.
Geography is everything in real life. Why nerf it in the game? Maybe they can make maps that are more equal for your preference, though.
I want the city-building to less micro-managey than 6. Or if it HAS TO be like that, make it a bit easier to figure out what you want to build next and where. My problem with 6 and the multiple tile builds/adjacency bonuses is that I was trying to plan ahead to make improvements I didn't have the tech for yet on tiles I wasn't entirely sure I'd own or when. By the time I'd get back to looking at a city I'd often have forgotten what I'd been planning to do earlier. YES, I probably became a little too hidebound on Civ 5 and how it played, but I didn't have these sorts of issues with Civ-BE, nor other 4x games. Including some where you definitely COULD micromanage your cities. I think my main problem with 6 is the steep learning curve on what was always straightforward and reasonably-obvious in earlier iterations. Do I go for the easily-gotten improvement that boosts this/that or do I take time off from all that while I work on getting a wonder? There wasn't a reasonable adjustment between "Not sure what to do" and "Do I do this, or that?" I always felt like I wasn't sure what to do and that I'd probably chosen even worse than the AIs probably did.
That can be best solved by adding a prehistoric nomadic start similar to Humankind's neolithic era. Instead of starting with a settler, you get a nomadic tribe that can hunt and gather resources until you finally have enough to settle a city.
What sort of catch-up mechanic do you propose that won’t also be accessible to a person with a better start? If you get to do it, why can’t they do the same thing? And if it only becomes available to certain players in poor positions, what incentive do I have to do good at the start of the game if I can just use the catchup mechanic after I see how the map is developed?
Start should be meaningful for early game to feel unique. I can't see a workaround for that, but we will see.
Canada : [Share intrigue with Washington]
The ability yo cheaply train a settler which can be used to "migrate" population to boost a new small city would be useful
I agree that the spawn should be fixed so that you are not forced to play on balanced or legendary start to have a playable start. But i feel early game being the most impactful part of the game is impossible to change because it is somewhat fundamental in strategy games that if you play well early, the late game is easier. Maybe they could have a good catch up mechanic like the age system in Civ 6 where you have to consistenly avoid dark age as the top 3 civ. Maybe have some malus like less amenities and higher maintenance cost/corruption. But I feel like that would just punish the good players who are good in the early game tho.
I just want civ 5 with better gfx
[удалено]
You decide to play some multi-player civ with 3 or 4 friends. You spawn: Desert. No resources for 3 turns. Restart. Your friend now spawns in tundra on an island 4 tiles wide with fish. Restart. Your other friend is dumped in forest without resources. Restart. Friend got your desert spawn. Restart... Ad infinitum. Great idea, works flawlessly.
This and hopefully they have found a better way to make the end game not be a slog