>Civ 5 faction >Replaces maintenance cost on building that scales with population with +2gpt >Civ 6 faction >Picrel
Yeah, anon. All in my head, I guess.
nta but all of that shit in the civ6 faction description essentially amounts to minor stat changes. that's why it's so boring and not worth reading. compare that to something like endless legend's broken lords where the faction description just straight up says "you cannot interact with food. you grow cities with money instead" which completely changes the way you play the faction despite being 1 line of text
You only listed one of the three bonuses China gets in 5. 6 added more bonuses so that you can capitalize on different aspects depending on the situation. You don't need to capitalize on every bonus every game and it's also true that some features each civ have are way more impactful than others they have by design.
Russia has the trade bonus and the blizzard bonus but they are both niche, the big things to look at are the tundra and holy site bonuses. With Victoria the most impactful bonuses are the dock and the city founding bonus which synergizes with the Redcoat, you don't even start using Workshop of the World until you're halfway through the game and that's fine because there's other things you can use.
They made it like this to avoid situations like playing as Ghengis Kahn and spawning in isolation making it so you're effectively a vanilla civ for half the game, or playing as Japan and just not getting many water resources near where your first few cities will go.
>You only listed one of the three bonuses China gets in 5.
"Great generals spawn 50% faster and their aura is boosted by 100%"
"UU is a crossbow with less ranged damage that starts with the Logistics promotion"
There's the entire civ then. >They made it like this to avoid situations like playing as Ghengis Kahn and spawning in isolation making it so you're effectively a vanilla civ for half the game, or playing as Japan and just not getting many water resources near where your first few cities will go.
Instead of adding a ton of niche text so you can chase a +7 culture bonus across the entire game, or break any sense of scale with gold via Mali/Portugal GPT agreements, they could just focus on the core buildings and hurdles to design their civs around. The Paper Maker will never be useless for Civ 5's China. Even if you don't use the Great Generals, that's fine. Playing as a vanilla civ should be engaging in its own right.
If the devs can't incentivize expanding to other continents without designing an exact bonus for one civ to do so, then it's a sign of poor game design. Anytime a mechanic is underused or just flawed, they make one or two civs that actually can use it and leave it there.
Tundra has no use? Make Canada and Russia get some use out of them. Playing tall has no use? Make Indonesia and Cambodia get some use out of food. Wonders suck and don't make sense? Eurekas don't synergize with real gameplay priorities? Infrastructure districts have poor tempo in an ICS game? France, China, Babylon, England, and Netherlands.
The solution to every problem is a civ, not a patch or gameplay rework.
Civ 6 is like an alcoholic who can't admit he has a problem because he doesn't drink on federal holidays. It's a mess.
what is the issue here?
Too many words and too many bonuses being used to disguise a dysfunctional core game.
If you were playing without any bonuses, against other civs with no bonuses, how do you think that would affect your use of each mechanic?
>Tundra has no use? Make Canada and Russia get some use out of them.
>don't play as Canada or Russia >still spawn on Tundra >restart game
Sometimes I feel like you should only choose your civ after you spawn and you should start with a rough map of half your continent that details the terrain types + rivers.
Scouting already has enough nails in its coffin you might as well remove the final reason for its existence in civ.
From civ 4-6 they made a decisive move from combining generic mechaical bonuses towards increasingly elaborate custom effects, abilities and buildings. Subtle is a terrible way to describe either of these approaches.
This is what you get when games reject asymmetry. If everyone is the same *except* ___, then ___ will be more and more bloated. If asymmetry was more acceptable, you could make do with a smaller number of units/buildings/upgrades/mechanics per faction, counterintuitively reducing the complexity of a given match.
You have it backwards. Asymmetry created this issue.
>Civ 5 faction >Replaces maintenance cost on building that scales with population with +2gpt >Civ 6 faction >Picrel
Yeah, anon. All in my head, I guess.
demonstrates the reality of asymmetric design. It's all about "FUN" and "UNIQUE" bonuses, with no concern left for the core game.
Symmetrical design allows you to develop the core units, techs, and set pieces. In AoE2's standard map, every civ starts with 8 sheep, 2 boars, 6 deer, 6 berry bushes, 2 gold, 2 stone, and multiple woodlines. Many civ bonuses are designed to interact with these by changing the potential ROI, ease of harvesting, or the way the resource is spent (15% discount on light cav, berries gathered 15% faster, 50% more food from herdables, etc.).
These bonuses have meaning because the game isn't just a canvas for factions to paint themselves over, but a game they're permitted to slightly modify to distinguish themselves.
I completely disagree with you. The issue is that civs are 99% the same. That pic is a result of the too-limited asymmetry they allowed themselves. If they had permitted themselves more asymmetry (more than 1 unique unit for example, as AoE permits itself) it wouldn't have this issue. Consider how 3 unique units and no passives would be remarkably more asymmetrical, but also much cleaner to comprehend, which is the real issue and the topic of the thread IMO.
I'm pretty sure I know who you are based on the way you're arguing. And if you're the person I think you are, you really need to play Magic the Gathering.
>That pic is a result of the too-limited asymmetry they allowed themselves
That pic is the result of unbounded asymmetry. >If they had permitted themselves more asymmetry (more than 1 unique unit for example, as AoE permits itself
Look at the picture. England has two unique units when Victoria's active. >Consider how 3 unique units and no passives would be remarkably more asymmetrical, but also much cleaner to comprehend, which is the real issue and the topic of the thread IMO.
So, if we removed "+100% Production towards Military Engineers. Military Engineers receive +2 charges", and replaced it with another unit description for the same effect, just with its own uniquely British art, you think that would somehow resolve the issue? >I'm pretty sure I know who you are based on the way you're arguing. And if you're the person I think you are, you really need to play Magic the Gathering.
Game too big.
>unbounded asymmetry
Unbounded asymmetry would mean that every tech, unit, district, and even core mechanics and resources would be 100% non-overlapping between any two civs.
When you make statements like this, it makes it seem like you have no idea what you're talking about and haven't experienced enough games to have a grounded opinion. Hence the recommendation to play Magic, a game predicated on asymmetry.
>Unbounded asymmetry would mean that every tech, unit, district, and even core mechanics and resources would be 100% non-overlapping between any two civs.
All of the ones that matter are drowned out beneath the UNIQUE aspects and bonuses of a civ. The setpieces aren't even designed for regular users. They're just meant to complement a particular civ's bonuses. Please tell me what you'd use Mont. St. Michel for, if not Khmer relic farming. Why would you make the Great Bath (instead of a dam), if you're not one of the 2-3 civs that farms wonders for tourism? Why would you make the Hanging Gardens in a game where going wide is the entire meta? Great People are a diceroll on whether they'll be useless or better than anything else in your civ.
Devs are relying on "UNIQUE" design as a crutch to frick up the game.
>I'm pretty sure I know who you are based on the way you're arguing.
This board is so dead. I swear we've both had this argument with each other at least once recently.
>This board is so dead.
i don't know where else to go to discuss strategy games. Ganker is literally unusable, and even if it wasn't, i can't even post images there because one of the full-time spammers apparently lives within my region. the 4x rts general on /vg/ is also just basically a stellaris megathread
There was never one in the first place.
>Civ 5 faction
>Replaces maintenance cost on building that scales with population with +2gpt
>Civ 6 faction
>Picrel
Yeah, anon. All in my head, I guess.
hate this stupid fricking game and its stupid fricking board game mechanics
Sounds like you can't handle complexity? Don't worry, we still make games for you guys, try Candy Crush.
nta but all of that shit in the civ6 faction description essentially amounts to minor stat changes. that's why it's so boring and not worth reading. compare that to something like endless legend's broken lords where the faction description just straight up says "you cannot interact with food. you grow cities with money instead" which completely changes the way you play the faction despite being 1 line of text
>he thinks civ 6 is a complex game
IQlet detected
civ 6 has a ton of broken factions, civ 4/5 had a few
You only listed one of the three bonuses China gets in 5. 6 added more bonuses so that you can capitalize on different aspects depending on the situation. You don't need to capitalize on every bonus every game and it's also true that some features each civ have are way more impactful than others they have by design.
Russia has the trade bonus and the blizzard bonus but they are both niche, the big things to look at are the tundra and holy site bonuses. With Victoria the most impactful bonuses are the dock and the city founding bonus which synergizes with the Redcoat, you don't even start using Workshop of the World until you're halfway through the game and that's fine because there's other things you can use.
They made it like this to avoid situations like playing as Ghengis Kahn and spawning in isolation making it so you're effectively a vanilla civ for half the game, or playing as Japan and just not getting many water resources near where your first few cities will go.
>You only listed one of the three bonuses China gets in 5.
"Great generals spawn 50% faster and their aura is boosted by 100%"
"UU is a crossbow with less ranged damage that starts with the Logistics promotion"
There's the entire civ then.
>They made it like this to avoid situations like playing as Ghengis Kahn and spawning in isolation making it so you're effectively a vanilla civ for half the game, or playing as Japan and just not getting many water resources near where your first few cities will go.
Instead of adding a ton of niche text so you can chase a +7 culture bonus across the entire game, or break any sense of scale with gold via Mali/Portugal GPT agreements, they could just focus on the core buildings and hurdles to design their civs around. The Paper Maker will never be useless for Civ 5's China. Even if you don't use the Great Generals, that's fine. Playing as a vanilla civ should be engaging in its own right.
If the devs can't incentivize expanding to other continents without designing an exact bonus for one civ to do so, then it's a sign of poor game design. Anytime a mechanic is underused or just flawed, they make one or two civs that actually can use it and leave it there.
Tundra has no use? Make Canada and Russia get some use out of them. Playing tall has no use? Make Indonesia and Cambodia get some use out of food. Wonders suck and don't make sense? Eurekas don't synergize with real gameplay priorities? Infrastructure districts have poor tempo in an ICS game? France, China, Babylon, England, and Netherlands.
The solution to every problem is a civ, not a patch or gameplay rework.
Civ 6 is like an alcoholic who can't admit he has a problem because he doesn't drink on federal holidays. It's a mess.
Too many words and too many bonuses being used to disguise a dysfunctional core game.
If you were playing without any bonuses, against other civs with no bonuses, how do you think that would affect your use of each mechanic?
>Tundra has no use? Make Canada and Russia get some use out of them.
>don't play as Canada or Russia
>still spawn on Tundra
>restart game
Sometimes I feel like you should only choose your civ after you spawn and you should start with a rough map of half your continent that details the terrain types + rivers.
Scouting already has enough nails in its coffin you might as well remove the final reason for its existence in civ.
what is the issue here?
>wordswordswords
Why do people play 6 again?
>wordswordswords
Way to support my argument.
yu gi oh tier
From civ 4-6 they made a decisive move from combining generic mechaical bonuses towards increasingly elaborate custom effects, abilities and buildings. Subtle is a terrible way to describe either of these approaches.
This is what you get when games reject asymmetry. If everyone is the same *except* ___, then ___ will be more and more bloated. If asymmetry was more acceptable, you could make do with a smaller number of units/buildings/upgrades/mechanics per faction, counterintuitively reducing the complexity of a given match.
You have it backwards. Asymmetry created this issue.
demonstrates the reality of asymmetric design. It's all about "FUN" and "UNIQUE" bonuses, with no concern left for the core game.
Symmetrical design allows you to develop the core units, techs, and set pieces. In AoE2's standard map, every civ starts with 8 sheep, 2 boars, 6 deer, 6 berry bushes, 2 gold, 2 stone, and multiple woodlines. Many civ bonuses are designed to interact with these by changing the potential ROI, ease of harvesting, or the way the resource is spent (15% discount on light cav, berries gathered 15% faster, 50% more food from herdables, etc.).
These bonuses have meaning because the game isn't just a canvas for factions to paint themselves over, but a game they're permitted to slightly modify to distinguish themselves.
I completely disagree with you. The issue is that civs are 99% the same. That pic is a result of the too-limited asymmetry they allowed themselves. If they had permitted themselves more asymmetry (more than 1 unique unit for example, as AoE permits itself) it wouldn't have this issue. Consider how 3 unique units and no passives would be remarkably more asymmetrical, but also much cleaner to comprehend, which is the real issue and the topic of the thread IMO.
I'm pretty sure I know who you are based on the way you're arguing. And if you're the person I think you are, you really need to play Magic the Gathering.
>That pic is a result of the too-limited asymmetry they allowed themselves
That pic is the result of unbounded asymmetry.
>If they had permitted themselves more asymmetry (more than 1 unique unit for example, as AoE permits itself
Look at the picture. England has two unique units when Victoria's active.
>Consider how 3 unique units and no passives would be remarkably more asymmetrical, but also much cleaner to comprehend, which is the real issue and the topic of the thread IMO.
So, if we removed "+100% Production towards Military Engineers. Military Engineers receive +2 charges", and replaced it with another unit description for the same effect, just with its own uniquely British art, you think that would somehow resolve the issue?
>I'm pretty sure I know who you are based on the way you're arguing. And if you're the person I think you are, you really need to play Magic the Gathering.
Game too big.
>unbounded asymmetry
Unbounded asymmetry would mean that every tech, unit, district, and even core mechanics and resources would be 100% non-overlapping between any two civs.
When you make statements like this, it makes it seem like you have no idea what you're talking about and haven't experienced enough games to have a grounded opinion. Hence the recommendation to play Magic, a game predicated on asymmetry.
>Unbounded asymmetry would mean that every tech, unit, district, and even core mechanics and resources would be 100% non-overlapping between any two civs.
All of the ones that matter are drowned out beneath the UNIQUE aspects and bonuses of a civ. The setpieces aren't even designed for regular users. They're just meant to complement a particular civ's bonuses. Please tell me what you'd use Mont. St. Michel for, if not Khmer relic farming. Why would you make the Great Bath (instead of a dam), if you're not one of the 2-3 civs that farms wonders for tourism? Why would you make the Hanging Gardens in a game where going wide is the entire meta? Great People are a diceroll on whether they'll be useless or better than anything else in your civ.
Devs are relying on "UNIQUE" design as a crutch to frick up the game.
>I'm pretty sure I know who you are based on the way you're arguing.
This board is so dead. I swear we've both had this argument with each other at least once recently.
>This board is so dead.
i don't know where else to go to discuss strategy games. Ganker is literally unusable, and even if it wasn't, i can't even post images there because one of the full-time spammers apparently lives within my region. the 4x rts general on /vg/ is also just basically a stellaris megathread
>This board is so dead.
It's either this or Ganker, so cherish it while you can.
Still the best place to discuss a strategy game.
Your alternative is Ganker
same ive had multiple arguments with the same person before on different threads
its kinda funny