Rob Zacny

Episode 423: Civilization VI: Rise and Fall

Recommended Posts

Three Moves Ahead 423:

Three Moves Ahead 423


Civilization VI: Rise and Fall
Civilization VI is a complex game. Not in terms of its rules, or how it plays, but in the reaction it garners from fans and critics. Of course it's a good game. Is it a great game? What parts of it are great and what parts aren't? Does the latest expansion, Rise and Fall, change the things that are holding it back? That's a lot of questions. The good news is that Rob, Rowan, and Fraser take their sweet time answering them in this two hour episode that goes from the fundamental aspects of the game real-life politics. So, settle in for a long one as we go through Civilization VI: Rise and Fall.

Civilization VI

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Rob seriously says Civilization has not enough changes in its formula? Doesn't he remember how pissed off everybody was about Civilization 5 on release?

 

Also Rob himself talks about 20 years fatigue. Pretty sure most of current players didn't play any Civilization before 5, for many Civ6 is their first 4X. They're not bored of Whig history imperialism and what R&F does is already quite innovative for them.

 

But if your idea of changing the game would be to change it from 500 turns to something closer to 200 I'm all for it. Endless Space 2 is great partly because of much better pacing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of governors as "Great Administrators" -- A couple options

1. Wouldn't it make as much sense for you to be able to convert Great People into Governors?  Generals might become a Castellan and Scientists might become an Educator.  This would more likely mean that they would each come with their own flavored Governor Bonus, just like they each have their own special action right now... presumably they decided against this deliberately, since it makes as much sense as what they did, it just must not be what they wanted.

 

2.  Otherwise, Great Administrator points would probably come from normal buildings and government Policy.  An Economic policy might give you GA points for every Market, or every Temple, Library, Forge, Barracks, etc.  These are all things that need administration anyway, and policy would cause the best Administrators to be nourished and rewarded, becoming Great People.  Plenty of Wonders would likewise make points as big expensive projects need equally good ongoing management.


3.  Tangentially, it would be interesting to retire Great People and have them become your advisers (in the Civ II sense) instead of governors or special effect fodder.  It would be fantastic to be able to say that Albert Einstein is my own personal science adviser, rather than just immediately spending him to get whatever his reward is, or sticking him in charge of some troubled city somewhere.  That's a lot of portraits and dialog to research and create, but it would be really fun to have as a player.
 

I won't claim that what follows here is a good idea, but it came to mind:

 

Way back in 3MA #51 Rob, Troy, Tom, and Bruce talked about alternative ways to think about research in games, and one of the things that stuck in my head since I first heard the episode is the idea of non-guaranteed science progression, that is, sometimes your scientists are just shooting in the dark and aren't making steady progress towards a technology that has never existed.  The idea comes to mind that technologies may start hidden; research boosts would reveal them, and great people or other events would also reveal them, but without knowing that a tech exists, your science points can only slowly or randomly build up technologies you haven't yet revealed, eventually "discovering" a technology at random.  This also has a built-in rubber banding, if you discover that technologies exist through trading partners and diplomacy (perhaps you can offer either tech knowledge, or a tech boost, on the trading table), through espionage, or through the advancement of Ages (previous Age tech is always known?).

 

It comes to mind because I imagined that the advisers above were the ones that unlocked things; I imagined you started with no Advisers, but having a military Adviser informed you about Military Tech, and a science Adviser gave you education tech, etc.  I suppose there might still be a few hidden and you'd need to rotate your advisers on occasion to reveal them, or else continue investing in blue sky research that might not pan out.

 

It's an idea that would need to be massaged and played with--it would be a very radical change and might be better as a mod or alternate game mode because a lot of people would chafe at having that kind of choice taken away from them.  But it is an interesting alternative with a lot of room to poke and prod at things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civilization's reintroduction of religion after vanilla Civ 5, has a problem with 'flavour' because the Religion.System is very generic, rather than procedural.

 

Founding a Religion in Civ 4 was an integrated part of the game that didn't detract too much from the basic game of Civ, whereas the new(ish) Religion system is disappointing because they lack any feeling of altering the game outside of the resource harvesting system (or FIDS in Endless Space/Legend). Unfortunately, the Religion policies feel completely alien to anything historic or even remotely understandable because they are only a title and a description of the bonus. There is absolutely no intermediary layer, no images, video or icon so the issue become entirely mathematical, and super-boring, with reliance on reading a lot of text instead of making simple glances to the screen - and it has to be parsed every single time.

 

Perhaps it could be said that Civilization's production & presentation values as a game have not fully matched or surpassed people's expectations for sequels, so the game is overall underwhelming.

 

Perhaps Civilization as a series is missing that little bit of lavishness that impresses people every time they play.

 

For example, in Dark Souls, the impressiveness of the bosses is made more important by the lack of save slots, meaning that you are unlikely to see those bosses again, over many hours. Once beaten, the boss is gone. In comparison, the limited nature of Civ's terrain generation tiles and other placement aspects are lacking the prospect for random and generated permutations that will truly impress people. Civ's replay value is like falling into a small but incredibly deep hole, and then falling into another one. The more that Civ simplifies different eras for players, the less interesting each era becomes to play - the major de-importance of copper & elephants, in favour of the utilitarian treatment of Iron, being an example.

 

Finding other Civs in a game doesn't take long - they will be seen in the first 10 minutes, and that sense of discovery just isn't much of a wow-factor anymore.

 

The conclusion is that Civ could do with adding more randomness, so that a campaign is something to experience to the end, rather than this 500 turn contest between mostly equally placed contenders.

 

Is Civ becoming a turn-based Fighting game? There is a similarity between Civ 5/6 religion system and Injustice 2's equipment select.

 

Also, much like Street Figher 4 vs 5, people are more excited by small tweaks to a franchise model, rather than great sweeping changes, even if those small changes are rebranded versions of the same core game model.

 

Ultra/VSkill. Buildings/Districts. Ryu's Ultra Hadoken was 'De-stacked' in Street fighter 5.

 

I have also thought it might be more interesting if there were at least one of these things tried with Civ:

 

1. Remove cultural borders - have borders be defined by the last unit to walk there - making military placement more organic.

2. Remove 'Binary-War states' between two Civs, and have all Civs in a 'cold war' at all time - yes I know the AI would probably suck at being peaceful, but we could 'de-stack' war and diplomacy in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for how to leave the imperialistic mindset - I don't see what there is to talk about. You have this at a core of the game because of the very idea of a single winner. No matter how you frame this as long as you either lose or come on top it will be a game about imperialism.

 

In EU4 I may be totally content to play as Portugal and not become the greatest nation on Earth. I will sustain my alliance with England because it's the right thing to do. I will be friendly with Castile, will inevitably get involved in North Africa till I realize I don't need those rebelling lands that are impossible to defend, I will go on colonizing frenzy. It'll be fine. If you add winning conditions a la Civilization then Spain is doomed. I will ditch England ally with France and end Castile. I will conquer North Africa. I will limit my involvement into colonization because it is not that good I think, but still the natives will taste my steel. I will be Napoleon just as every game of chess or go or any other First-takes-the-post system prompts me to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of comparing EU4 to Civ makes me wonder if there is a future possibility for a Civilization game where everybody wins - the goal is a single 'world' one that everybody aims to achieve, but is a lofty condition or set. Survival instead of conquest.

 

Perhaps there could be legitimate and extreme ways that test people/factions, which is how the wars begin. Maybe some groups get to make decisions that threaten the whole existence of someone else's Civ, at the veto is like 'nah f**k you for trying to win easier at my expense - it's war time!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the panelists frustration with recent civs comes from just not liking the shift away from simulation that happened in Civ 5. That's when the race to 2050 AD became really tight, when individual civs went from being ahead of the curve in a couple of areas to having big game defining powers, and trade-offs for player choices were completely redone.

 

-I've gotten the impression from this and the original civ6 podcast that a lot of strategy in Civ 6 is basically just doing a list of arbitrary pre-scripted tasks. You research by doing the tech tasks, you do diplomacy by doing whatever task the other leader has, regardless of the geopolitical situation,  you get golden ages by doing whatever gets you the points, and your general strategy should be to just do whatever your civ bonus is as much as possible. Is this mistaken? I certainly think it's telling how enthused everyone was by an actual loyalty mechanic.

 

-Environmentalism is far more likely to be a causality of Jon Shafer's streamlining than of any nefarious political agenda. Civ 4 did all of its environmental simulation at the city level through the health system (modern polluting buildings gave unhealthiness, environmentalist stuff either reduced this or gave health directly), but civ 5 cut the health system and reduced the number of buildings, which meant there wasn't room for buildings of different Eco-frendliesness. Even then, they did add recycling centers.

 

-I think avoiding making religion all or nothing is why 4&5 didn't have a religious victory. I meant that spreading your religion had to benefit the other victory conditions, and that embracing a foreign religion didn't advance someone else's win.

 

-If you don't think EU4 and CK2 glorify empire building, I have a bridge to sell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Avian Overlord said:

I think the panelists frustration with recent civs comes from just not liking the shift away from simulation that happened in Civ 5. That's when the race to 2050 AD became really tight, when individual civs went from being ahead of the curve in a couple of areas to having big game defining powers, and trade-offs for player choices were completely redone.

 

-I've gotten the impression from this and the original civ6 podcast that a lot of strategy in Civ 6 is basically just doing a list of arbitrary pre-scripted tasks. You research by doing the tech tasks, you do diplomacy by doing whatever task the other leader has, regardless of the geopolitical situation,  you get golden ages by doing whatever gets you the points, and your general strategy should be to just do whatever your civ bonus is as much as possible. Is this mistaken? I certainly think it's telling how enthused everyone was by an actual loyalty mechanic.

 

-Environmentalism is far more likely to be a causality of Jon Shafer's streamlining than of any nefarious political agenda. Civ 4 did all of its environmental simulation at the city level through the health system (modern polluting buildings gave unhealthiness, environmentalist stuff either reduced this or gave health directly), but civ 5 cut the health system and reduced the number of buildings, which meant there wasn't room for buildings of different Eco-frendliesness. Even then, they did add recycling centers.

 

-I think avoiding making religion all or nothing is why 4&5 didn't have a religious victory. I meant that spreading your religion had to benefit the other victory conditions, and that embracing a foreign religion didn't advance someone else's win.

 

-If you don't think EU4 and CK2 glorify empire building, I have a bridge to sell you.

Regarding the 'simulation' aspect pre Civ 5, was this an actual thing, or was it more of a case of now becoming aware that a game is just a game?

 

I mean, Civ 4 isn't really a simulation of anything particular, apart from that its menus look like a Science/Wiki website or encyclopedia, but that is aesthetics.

 

I can understand the desire people might have to see Civ 'emulate' or 'simulate' other features using less board-game conceits. Civ 5 was a slight genre change from Civ 4, with emphasis on tactical combat that has yet to be fully realised. Civ 6 has moved ever so glacially into 'city builder' territory, but then the district design is more like that of RTS base building.

 

There are very basic logic/presentation issues with Civ that have not been fixed - made apparent with Civ 6 split tech trees - such as cities being displayed as having Skyscrapers with indoor lighting when they have yet to research electricity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2018 at 4:17 AM, preciousgollum said:

I mean, Civ 4 isn't really a simulation of anything particular, apart from that its menus look like a Science/Wiki website or encyclopedia, but that is aesthetics.

 

Civ4 does look more like a simulation and you can see it in many design decision.

 

For example, in Civ5 almost every building is used to give some sort of specific benefit. Library gives science based on the number of citizens. Theater gives culture (and maybe allows storing art that gives culture/tourism, can't remember). Civics have a specific purpose, each one is labeled for what it does (tall, wide, war, religion, city-states, science, culture+exploration, money). The effects are straightforward.

 

Civ4. Library gives science... and culture. Because why wouldn't library give both? Courthouse lowers maintenance (in Civ5 it removes penalties for conquest) and also gives you some espionage points. Broadcast tower gives culture but also happiness in some cases. In Civ5 you only get some of those interactions through cultural civics. And those are different in Civ4. You get Mercantilism - you don't have foreign trade routes or corporations anymore but you have free specialist in your cities. You get Theocracy and no foreign religion can come to you AND also you get bonus experience for units. One more thing: there are events. Having libraries may trigger an event or give you a quest for getting even more libraries.

 

Civ4 has more complex picture of a city in the end. Maybe it's not as dependent on terrain, also buildings have no maintenance so the only penalty for building something you don't need is lost opportunity of building something better. Still it feels much more like simulation because everything has more effects than just primary functions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/03/2018 at 12:49 AM, Avian Overlord said:

-I've gotten the impression from this and the original civ6 podcast that a lot of strategy in Civ 6 is basically just doing a list of arbitrary pre-scripted tasks.

 

I think you've hit on why modern Civ fails for me. Gameplay is all about following a script to get incremental bonuses to optimize you chances. There's not a lot of space for choices, your path is set on game start, killing whatever immersion is possible. The other nations are just there as an obstacle that doesn't even pretend to play by the same rules anymore, and need to be handled the same way as the other mechanics, follow what the playlist prescribes and ignore them otherwise.

Rise and Fall just puts the script in the game so you don't have to do trial and error or google it anymore. Maybe I'm just done with traditional 4x design too, and I haven't even played it anywhere remotely near the amount of time the cast has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Perky_Goth said:

Maybe I'm just done with traditional 4x design too, and I haven't even played it anywhere remotely near the amount of time the cast has.

 

I think the issue with 4X games by and large is the pacing - Civ does one of the better jobs at tying its pacing to the theme of historical progress.

 

I was really looking to finally getting a copy of Endless Legend (humble bundle) but I'm having trouble getting enthusiastic for playing it because it doesn't have an easily understandable pace or set of objectives.

 

4X games also can have the issue of being very tedious games for not a lot happening. 

 

There are a couple of things that could be tried:

 

1. Have 4X game where the actual starting setup/cities/pieces/armies etc are already populated/laid out/built up in a randomised way. Much like a Civ scenario, but designed for it to be easier to parse immediately.

 

Saves on getting stuck in that 100 turn-reset loop that players often experience.

2. Have some random elements with tech development or units available etc.

 

Basically, more random. Random/procedural terrain just isn't quite enough anymore. Tile improvements are boring etc etc.

 

Alternatively, do what 'AAA' (Triple A) games do and have a turret section or stealth-escorts mission.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some 4X avoid that pacing problem by making games much shorter. Endless Space 2 is designed to end around turn 200 (score victory comes at turn 300 by default but it's hard not to win in some way by that point). It's a very dense experience. Something is always happening and there are a lot of ways you can tweak your economy even if nothing happens.

 

There are also sort of single-player 4X like Thea: The Awakening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooh... here is an idea for Civ. Instead of arbitrary 10 turn peace treaties, have a diplomacy system where you negotiate the number of turns for a peace treaty. This would add weight to diplomacy. 

 

I have not played Rise & Fall yet, but how about if the next expansion offers Governers as Hostages in Diplomacy?

Basically, I think that war in civ is a huge part of the game, but the button to declare it feels like using Dial up in an always-on broadband era.

 

If you wanted a peaceful aspect to civ, then there would need to be more civilian unit types with pseudo-offensive capabilities. 'Theological combat' in Civ 6 kinda leans in the right direction of tempting the player into a 'Just War'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now