Civilization 7 is officially in development, Firaxis confirms

[Sarathiour]

You could have a map with 2 continents, all players starting on one and the other left for some mid-game exploration and expanding, which also mimics European colonization of the New world from a realist perspective.

So you never played civ 4 ?

 

[whydoibother]

You could have a map with 2 continents, all players starting on one and the other left for some mid-game exploration and expanding, which also mimics European colonization of the New world from a realist perspective.

So you never played civ 4 ?

I've played every Civilization game, and they all have some variant of Terra Nova maps. These don't work, because the player is aware of the extra land, and will prioritize settling it rather than leaving it to have colonial wars.
You could read my post, instead of blitz replying the moment you smell a gotcha.

 

[kris]

How are y'all playing the Civ games? Do you always go for Domination victory? Seems like the proper way to do it?

I havent completed a campaign in a Civ game in a decade. The exploration part is my favourite anyway, so no surprise that I always drop my playthrough and do a new one.

The 4X thing, eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate, breaks down in the middle of the campaign.
You are done exploring relatively quickly, depending on the map size and the game. You are done expanding usually 1/3 into the game. You are already exploiting all your resources about 1/2 into the game, and you are just left with exterminating others.
In a traditional game, you start with few game mechanics, and new are added over time (like unlocking a jet pack or whatever). With 4X games, usually game mechanics are removed from the game over time, as explained above. Civilization series has done damage control, introducing spying, ideologies, monopolies, aircraft, etc, over time to replace the stuff removed. But I doubt anyone will agree that the thrill of exploring and seeing what kind of world you are stuck in can be adequately replaced by a new unit type being unlocked.

I had an idea for a fantasy 4X game (even with some design documents scribbled down) which alleviates some of these concerns. Of course with a fantasy game you can always expand on the scope with realms.

Anyway, in my idea for this you would not have units able to walk all over the world and just exploring everything, instead you would send explorer teams to surrounding regions (can only go a limited distance based on tech/skill) and possibly need to explore several times to explore fully. Possibly needing a prospector unit for finding ore/precious minerals/stones.

Expension meanwhile is done plot by plot. you dont build settlers, you use resources (including population) to expend from starting plot or expand/improve current plots.

 

[whydoibother]

Of course with a fantasy game you can always expand on the scope with realms.

What you described would work better in space, with exploding different solar systems like that.
Send explorers, wait 6 turns, you can now access another solar system and can send your explorers elsewhere. Timegates exploration.
Not sure it would be as fun as moving your scout tile by tile and checking out the goodies, though. That's addictive.

 

[Sarathiour]

"The player is aware of extra land, therefore exploration does not work".
I have no idea what's you argument even about, and the conditional tense you previously used would imply that colonization of new world have never been before, which I found very surprising for someone claiming to have played all the civ game.

 

[FreeKaner]

Problem with CIV6 especially but CIV in general is AI is bad at managing its internal resources and they made very little improvement over this. So adding more intricate or diverse mechanics only deepens the gap between player and the AI.

I played CIV5 most because late game AI is more able to handle its mechanics and late game air and naval warfare is quite fun. So is nuking cities. Reason why CIV5 AI is best at this is because the city-development being buildings in the city and improvements over tiles is very easy for an AI to handle on a priority basis.

Meanwhile I actually think district-based city development of CIV6 with parallel science and culture techs and where production is most important resource is better designed yet late game warfare is basically beating AI without any army because AI can't handle its game systems at all, they don't even have aircrafts and aircrafts aren't even worth using anyway due to the way they designed it.

Only solution to this is playing with others but civ takes a long time and I played maybe three games from start to finish because of this. Yet I had immense fun fighting 1UPT warfare going for half the game.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Its not just 1UPT and hexes, although these along made a significant improvement. Also took terrain bonuses, attacking over rivers, flanking bonuses, later support bonuses, the damage based on health, etc.
It is an exaggeration to say they copied it, but it is an exaggeration to dismiss its influence. You are being obtuse, and intentionally saying stuff you know is wrong, just to act a hipster. Don't do that.

Yeah, also took hard/soft targets, initiative, close combat, recon/spotting/ambushes, overrun, supply (lines), reinforcements and overstrength (and them being tied to resource and time management), tenacious defense, suppression and a lot of other stuff defining a PG-like wargame. Except that it didn't, the similarities are superficial and this statement gets perpetuated because modern gamers lack exposure and because once nuciv became extremely successful, a lot of new supposed wargames got retarded and started copying it (p much the same as what happened with nuxcom and tactical games). Not to mention that a lot of core PG mechanics only make sense and are made exciting and fun by what kind of game it is and how it is structured (xp, upgrades, prototypes, core management etc.).

Which only brings us to the most important point: if you're launching what is supposed to be a classic 4X game about building a civilization only to play a (very poor) wargame instead, you are being p dum.

 

[whydoibother]

Which only brings us to the most important point: if you're launching what is supposed to be a classic 4X game about building a civilization only to play a (very poor) wargame instead, you are being p dum.

The logical conclusion to this sort of thinking being Victoria 3 removing combat, because, after all, its a game about economics and demographics. A decision everyone likes and approves, and nobody regrets.

 

[whydoibother]

Problem with CIV6 especially but CIV in general is AI is bad at managing its internal resources and they made very little improvement over this. So adding more intricate or diverse mechanics only deepens the gap between player and the AI.

This is (to an extent) a design decision. If the AI acted like a very good player, the game would be awful. The AI instead is (trying to at least) act like a roleplayer. Atalla AI acts like how the character of Attila would act. Meaning even if given good land and free space to expand and go cultural, he will still try to invade people. This is a better experience for the player, I think, and definitely made on purpose.
That said, the AI is just technically bad in addition to being, by design, suboptimal. I think in both Civ5 and Civ6, the AI makes its decision for the whole move at once, instead of moving 1 tile, revealing new enemies, and deciding then how to proceed, for example.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Which only brings us to the most important point: if you're launching what is supposed to be a classic 4X game about building a civilization only to play a (very poor) wargame instead, you are being p dum.

The logical conclusion to this sort of thinking being Victoria 3 removing combat, because, after all, its a game about economics and demographics. A decision everyone likes and approves, and nobody regrets.

The only logical conclusion is not "playing" cucadox "games". So... yes?

 

[FreeKaner]

Problem with CIV6 especially but CIV in general is AI is bad at managing its internal resources and they made very little improvement over this. So adding more intricate or diverse mechanics only deepens the gap between player and the AI.

This is (to an extent) a design decision. If the AI acted like a very good player, the game would be awful. The AI instead is (trying to at least) act like a roleplayer. Atalla AI acts like how the character of Attila would act. Meaning even if given good land and free space to expand and go cultural, he will still try to invade people. This is a better experience for the player, I think, and definitely made on purpose.
That said, the AI is just technically bad in addition to being, by design, suboptimal. I think in both Civ5 and Civ6, the AI makes its decision for the whole move at once, instead of moving 1 tile, revealing new enemies, and deciding then how to proceed, for example.

I don't mind design decision of leader's having parameters which is meant to represent how they would act by roleplay. I mean things like them being really bad at getting district bonuses, building obviously correct things, choosing right techs and generally upgrading their units. Sure there are many choices involved which is hard to code an AI around, but even the "basic framework" is bad. That is why even with absurd bonuses the AI receives to everything at higher difficulties they can't keep up with a player. Which is only excarbarated by how big the gap between suboptimal play and optimal play in CIV6 due to compounding bonuses of districts.

 

[FreeKaner]

Which only brings us to the most important point: if you're launching what is supposed to be a classic 4X game about building a civilization only to play a (very poor) wargame instead, you are being p dum.

The logical conclusion to this sort of thinking being Victoria 3 removing combat, because, after all, its a game about economics and demographics. A decision everyone likes and approves, and nobody regrets.

Bad example, removing province-based unit control to switch to a front-based combat is widely popular decision in Victoria 3 and most of the criticism comes from specifics of its execution.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

It's a bad example, because there's no good example of taking a p universally appreciated game from genre X and turning it largely into a bad game from genre Y to a good effect. 4X with combat as a focus and particularly those where combat is the focus and is good at the same time typically have:

a) combat being resolved on a separate, tactical layer
b) the strategic layer being way more basic (which can, but doesn't have to, mean bad)

Civ (and AC and many other games) is not a good fit for the type of combat it got in the modern era, simple as.

 

[whydoibother]

Bad example, removing province-based unit control to switch to a front-based combat is widely popular decision in Victoria 3 and most of the criticism comes from specifics of its execution.

That's certainly how I feel about it, but its not how most people reacted.

Civ (and AC and many other games) is not a good fit for the type of combat it got in the modern era, simple as.

1UPT makes better use of geography, and Civilization is a game about geography. Exploration and expansion is MORE meaningful if choke points are more relevant. Building wonders on the strategic map instead of the city tile makes them even more relevant, and planning more rewarding.
You've just picked a slogan and keep repeating it.