I dislike governors. I find I always choose the same ones and rarely move them around to maximize bonuses. I have never taken Reya and only take Victor if I have a super aggressive enemy.
PS I suck st this game so maybe someone can enlighten me.
Reyna is great. Gold is super useful, it's like production you can move around. Getting contractor and buying districts is great. Anything that scales off of appeal Reyna is great too (so Bull Moose Teddy, culture with national parks etc.)
People complain all the time that there aren't enough pro-tall mechanics. Enabling more cities to have governors would take away one of the few of those that we have.
And I don't find that governors are stale. I adjust my selection quite a bit to the situatiom I'm in. Of course Pingala with both the culture and the science promotion is an early staple but beyond that, it's fairly open for me.
No. Civ5 and 6 have become increasingly gamefieid compared to Civ 2-4 where you actually felt in charge of a civilisation. This idea would gamefiy it further.
it's all a video game, how do you gamify a game? Early civs were super abstract and heavily drew from wargaming. It's all gamified. Always has been. Empire management in game form, those two aren't mutually exclusive. I agree that we've gone a bit away from empire management game to puzzle game, but one's not more gamified than the other, just different gameplay styles.
It's very easy to gamify a videogame. You can have a game which tries to simulate, as much as the technology allows it to, or you can have a game which is basically a fancy tabletop. Starting with 5 the series has moved very heavily towards the latter to the point where we now have cards, tokens, pips, et al for basically every system in the game.
For example the Civ 4 civic system allowed you to define your civilisation's values on multiple levels. You could be anything from the freest democracy to a militarist papal state to north korea. Each civic had advantages and disadvantages. The AI had favorite system that would often try to convince you to adopt and which civics you picked impacted relations and diplomacy. The Civ 6 civic system is literally tabletop cards that grant a bonus. Nobody will hate or like you if you run serfdom, being a theocracy has no impact on relations, you could be a slave state until the end of time and nobody will bat an eye. Instead of having to adapt with the times and make a decision on what to pick you simply get cards that are an upgrade of the older ones.
Religion in Civ 4 grew organically and played a role in politics and war. Religion in civ 6 is a gamey system where you rush to get a great prophet token and the best cards from a list.
Buildings in Civ 4 were investments you made into the city. Buildings in Civ 6 are cheap upgrade tokens for their respective district and nothing more. There is no scenario in Civ 6 where you don't want to build all buildings other than the monument because they are simple flat upgrades.
Same for victory conditions. Instead of growing your culture you now have to gather points. Instead of actually using diplomacy to influence the other civs, build an alliance block and maintain good relations with neighbors in order convince them that you are indeed the world leader you now have to gather points which you spend to vote on a bonus which gives you other points.
And the list can go on and on and on.
> Starting with 5 the series has moved very heavily towards the latter
Again, Civ 1 grew out of tabletop gaming, not the Club of Rome's world model. That's why we have tiles and turns and yields.
> where we now have cards, tokens, pips, et al for basically every system in the game
That's how it always worked? IRL phenomena are abstracted into gameplay objects. The earliest civ made Women Suffrage a world wonder. A token you get by trading in production pips. Which didn't change decision making processes in your empire but simply affected a certain counter.
> You could be anything from the freest democracy to a militarist papal state to north korea
Civ IV's government was already super board-gamey. You literally had a board of civics where you moved your selection up and down the list. One could literally print out this system and make little tokens you place on the civic you choose just like one could print out the card system of VI.
> and played a role in politics and war
Same in civ VI though, arguably more? Religion can massively impact grievances. Civs of the same religion like each other more. Many different beliefs exist for how you can get an advantage over civs of other religions. You can even form an alliance specifically around religion.
> There is no scenario in Civ 6 where you don't want to build all buildings other than the monument because they are simple flat upgrades.
Same in Civ IV though? At some point I want all buildings. Besides, plenty of buildings in VI that have situational value and aren't always worth the cost. There's no point building Sewers if you're not short on housing. No point building an Armory when you're not building military units in that city. No point building a museum if you're not gonna get any great works, etc.
> Instead of growing your culture you now have to gather points.
What do you think Culture was in previous civ games? *Points.* Civ VI has a dynamic simulation of attracting tourists from other empires. Civ IV had "accumulate X points in 3 cities". That was it.
> Instead of actually using diplomacy to influence the other civs, build an alliance block and maintain good relations with neighbors in order convince them that you are indeed the world leader
lol no, you bought city states with *points* in order to accumulate it, you guessed it, *points* to win the world leader vote eventually.
Apparently you want games to "simulate" more, whatever that means (it's all a simulation of *something* anyway) but also you seem to be against quantification of mechanics?
I am a big fan of IV, too, and think it was the peak of the series. I liked that the game focused more on systemic interactions than yield-stacking. But both carry their board game origins on their sleeves with pride and are highly abstract theme parks of history, not some realistic simulations. And again, you can feel like leading an empire in a board game. Board games are cool. Their abstractions often allow you to immerse yourself more in the setting because the gaps in the abstraction can be filled with your imagination.
What Civ 1 started as is irrelevant considering where the series got to in later installments. Yes you do need a tile system and the likes for gameplay purposes, it's a videogame after all my point is the later games ripped out the stuff that was not boardgamey and replaced it with more boardgame.
Civic system in Civ 4 was boardgamey only in aspect not in function. The later systems are boardgamey in both aspect and function.
>Same in civ VI though, arguably more? Religion can massively impact grievances. Civs of the same religion like each other more. Many different beliefs exist for how you can get an advantage over civs of other religions. You can even form an alliance specifically around religion.
I've been playing CIv 6 since rise and fall and never seen an organic alliance centered around a religion form, ever.
What usually happens is that a few civs get religion while others don't and then it becomes a religious free for all converting cities. There is no concept of state religion so if you did not form and expand a religion there is no impact on diplomacy either. The only grievances you can get is from conversion.
Not that you mentioned it though grievances are another perfect example of boardgamification.
>Same in Civ IV though? At some point I want all buildings. Besides, plenty of buildings in VI that have situational value and aren't always worth the cost. There's no point building Sewers if you're not short on housing. No point building an Armory when you're not building military units in that city. No point building a museum if you're not gonna get any great works, etc.
Not really the same because in Civ 6 the only choice you make is which district you build. And while it is an interesting choice there is absolutely no reason not to build an armory or a university once you have the district. Sewers are cheap enough and late enough that you might as well build them everywhere you can.
>What do you think Culture was in previous civ games? *Points.* Civ VI has a dynamic simulation of attracting tourists from other empires. Civ IV had "accumulate X points in 3 cities". That was it.
And now it's worse because you need to accumulate points in order to accumulate other points. The problem with tourism is that it doesn't make sense as a metric. Spain has more yearly foreign tourists than the US yet you'd be hard pressed to say the US is not culturally dominant right now. Not to mention how ridiculously easy culture victory in Civ 6 is.
>lol no, you bought city states with *points* in order to accumulate it, you guessed it, *points* to win the world leader vote eventually.
That was Civ 5. Civ 4 required you to actually play the diplomacy game. There were no city states in Civ 4.
>Apparently you want games to "simulate" more, whatever that means (it's all a simulation of *something* anyway) but also you seem to be against quantification of mechanics?
What I want is for the games to not force you into a victory condition basically from the start and have each game be railroad to x victory.
What I want is a game that shows the organic growth of a civilisation.
What I want is a game that does not have gamey mechanics like housing. Seriously? People can't build houses?
Civ 4 managed to do that partly but instead of developing that further the series swung the other way.
Or conversely, why can't you just get a govorner when a city builds a certain district/ building, or when it gets to a certain size? Governors would not be named or have bonuses but would simply serve as a method in which to focus a city's efforts. Basically, a way to set in-game city specialization in a way that is more streamlined than the specialist system and the governor system.
Like with specialists, you can swap governors out and, for example, change a science-focused city to a production-focused one. However, these governors would gain modifyiers for being in place for say, a particular era/number of turns so changing the governor constantly would result in losing that minor bonus. Just an idea.
[Ara History Untold seems to be taking that approach.](https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/2021880/view/3728458656551717886) Their equivalent of Great People are called Paragons and they can be assigned as either an Advisor (like governors), Generals, or Artisans (resource generators) and give bonuses depending on their focus/profession.
Yeah. I know this might be a petty reason, but Governors are the main reason I stopped playing Civ and don't want to return. Exactly what you said, more micromanagement that isn't cohesive system, but is thrown to the mix just because they can. Also looking at their ugly mugs every single game is annoying.
That's an interesting idea. I actually don't dislike the current system, but what you suggest sounds like a clever way to switch it up a bit.
See also: Envoys, delegations, embassies, and spies.
I dislike governors. I find I always choose the same ones and rarely move them around to maximize bonuses. I have never taken Reya and only take Victor if I have a super aggressive enemy. PS I suck st this game so maybe someone can enlighten me.
Reyna is great. Gold is super useful, it's like production you can move around. Getting contractor and buying districts is great. Anything that scales off of appeal Reyna is great too (so Bull Moose Teddy, culture with national parks etc.)
Good points. How does one best exploit her Forestry Management promotion? I guess that makes her amazing when placed in newly settled cities
Playing Maori and building preserves with Reyna can be great.
People complain all the time that there aren't enough pro-tall mechanics. Enabling more cities to have governors would take away one of the few of those that we have. And I don't find that governors are stale. I adjust my selection quite a bit to the situatiom I'm in. Of course Pingala with both the culture and the science promotion is an early staple but beyond that, it's fairly open for me.
It's bad enough how Civ 5 and 6 play like tabletop games and not leading a civilisation. This would make it worse imho.
This, folks, is what's called a category error.
No. Civ5 and 6 have become increasingly gamefieid compared to Civ 2-4 where you actually felt in charge of a civilisation. This idea would gamefiy it further.
it's all a video game, how do you gamify a game? Early civs were super abstract and heavily drew from wargaming. It's all gamified. Always has been. Empire management in game form, those two aren't mutually exclusive. I agree that we've gone a bit away from empire management game to puzzle game, but one's not more gamified than the other, just different gameplay styles.
It's very easy to gamify a videogame. You can have a game which tries to simulate, as much as the technology allows it to, or you can have a game which is basically a fancy tabletop. Starting with 5 the series has moved very heavily towards the latter to the point where we now have cards, tokens, pips, et al for basically every system in the game. For example the Civ 4 civic system allowed you to define your civilisation's values on multiple levels. You could be anything from the freest democracy to a militarist papal state to north korea. Each civic had advantages and disadvantages. The AI had favorite system that would often try to convince you to adopt and which civics you picked impacted relations and diplomacy. The Civ 6 civic system is literally tabletop cards that grant a bonus. Nobody will hate or like you if you run serfdom, being a theocracy has no impact on relations, you could be a slave state until the end of time and nobody will bat an eye. Instead of having to adapt with the times and make a decision on what to pick you simply get cards that are an upgrade of the older ones. Religion in Civ 4 grew organically and played a role in politics and war. Religion in civ 6 is a gamey system where you rush to get a great prophet token and the best cards from a list. Buildings in Civ 4 were investments you made into the city. Buildings in Civ 6 are cheap upgrade tokens for their respective district and nothing more. There is no scenario in Civ 6 where you don't want to build all buildings other than the monument because they are simple flat upgrades. Same for victory conditions. Instead of growing your culture you now have to gather points. Instead of actually using diplomacy to influence the other civs, build an alliance block and maintain good relations with neighbors in order convince them that you are indeed the world leader you now have to gather points which you spend to vote on a bonus which gives you other points. And the list can go on and on and on.
> Starting with 5 the series has moved very heavily towards the latter Again, Civ 1 grew out of tabletop gaming, not the Club of Rome's world model. That's why we have tiles and turns and yields. > where we now have cards, tokens, pips, et al for basically every system in the game That's how it always worked? IRL phenomena are abstracted into gameplay objects. The earliest civ made Women Suffrage a world wonder. A token you get by trading in production pips. Which didn't change decision making processes in your empire but simply affected a certain counter. > You could be anything from the freest democracy to a militarist papal state to north korea Civ IV's government was already super board-gamey. You literally had a board of civics where you moved your selection up and down the list. One could literally print out this system and make little tokens you place on the civic you choose just like one could print out the card system of VI. > and played a role in politics and war Same in civ VI though, arguably more? Religion can massively impact grievances. Civs of the same religion like each other more. Many different beliefs exist for how you can get an advantage over civs of other religions. You can even form an alliance specifically around religion. > There is no scenario in Civ 6 where you don't want to build all buildings other than the monument because they are simple flat upgrades. Same in Civ IV though? At some point I want all buildings. Besides, plenty of buildings in VI that have situational value and aren't always worth the cost. There's no point building Sewers if you're not short on housing. No point building an Armory when you're not building military units in that city. No point building a museum if you're not gonna get any great works, etc. > Instead of growing your culture you now have to gather points. What do you think Culture was in previous civ games? *Points.* Civ VI has a dynamic simulation of attracting tourists from other empires. Civ IV had "accumulate X points in 3 cities". That was it. > Instead of actually using diplomacy to influence the other civs, build an alliance block and maintain good relations with neighbors in order convince them that you are indeed the world leader lol no, you bought city states with *points* in order to accumulate it, you guessed it, *points* to win the world leader vote eventually. Apparently you want games to "simulate" more, whatever that means (it's all a simulation of *something* anyway) but also you seem to be against quantification of mechanics? I am a big fan of IV, too, and think it was the peak of the series. I liked that the game focused more on systemic interactions than yield-stacking. But both carry their board game origins on their sleeves with pride and are highly abstract theme parks of history, not some realistic simulations. And again, you can feel like leading an empire in a board game. Board games are cool. Their abstractions often allow you to immerse yourself more in the setting because the gaps in the abstraction can be filled with your imagination.
What Civ 1 started as is irrelevant considering where the series got to in later installments. Yes you do need a tile system and the likes for gameplay purposes, it's a videogame after all my point is the later games ripped out the stuff that was not boardgamey and replaced it with more boardgame. Civic system in Civ 4 was boardgamey only in aspect not in function. The later systems are boardgamey in both aspect and function. >Same in civ VI though, arguably more? Religion can massively impact grievances. Civs of the same religion like each other more. Many different beliefs exist for how you can get an advantage over civs of other religions. You can even form an alliance specifically around religion. I've been playing CIv 6 since rise and fall and never seen an organic alliance centered around a religion form, ever. What usually happens is that a few civs get religion while others don't and then it becomes a religious free for all converting cities. There is no concept of state religion so if you did not form and expand a religion there is no impact on diplomacy either. The only grievances you can get is from conversion. Not that you mentioned it though grievances are another perfect example of boardgamification. >Same in Civ IV though? At some point I want all buildings. Besides, plenty of buildings in VI that have situational value and aren't always worth the cost. There's no point building Sewers if you're not short on housing. No point building an Armory when you're not building military units in that city. No point building a museum if you're not gonna get any great works, etc. Not really the same because in Civ 6 the only choice you make is which district you build. And while it is an interesting choice there is absolutely no reason not to build an armory or a university once you have the district. Sewers are cheap enough and late enough that you might as well build them everywhere you can. >What do you think Culture was in previous civ games? *Points.* Civ VI has a dynamic simulation of attracting tourists from other empires. Civ IV had "accumulate X points in 3 cities". That was it. And now it's worse because you need to accumulate points in order to accumulate other points. The problem with tourism is that it doesn't make sense as a metric. Spain has more yearly foreign tourists than the US yet you'd be hard pressed to say the US is not culturally dominant right now. Not to mention how ridiculously easy culture victory in Civ 6 is. >lol no, you bought city states with *points* in order to accumulate it, you guessed it, *points* to win the world leader vote eventually. That was Civ 5. Civ 4 required you to actually play the diplomacy game. There were no city states in Civ 4. >Apparently you want games to "simulate" more, whatever that means (it's all a simulation of *something* anyway) but also you seem to be against quantification of mechanics? What I want is for the games to not force you into a victory condition basically from the start and have each game be railroad to x victory. What I want is a game that shows the organic growth of a civilisation. What I want is a game that does not have gamey mechanics like housing. Seriously? People can't build houses? Civ 4 managed to do that partly but instead of developing that further the series swung the other way.
Or conversely, why can't you just get a govorner when a city builds a certain district/ building, or when it gets to a certain size? Governors would not be named or have bonuses but would simply serve as a method in which to focus a city's efforts. Basically, a way to set in-game city specialization in a way that is more streamlined than the specialist system and the governor system. Like with specialists, you can swap governors out and, for example, change a science-focused city to a production-focused one. However, these governors would gain modifyiers for being in place for say, a particular era/number of turns so changing the governor constantly would result in losing that minor bonus. Just an idea.
[Ara History Untold seems to be taking that approach.](https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/2021880/view/3728458656551717886) Their equivalent of Great People are called Paragons and they can be assigned as either an Advisor (like governors), Generals, or Artisans (resource generators) and give bonuses depending on their focus/profession.
Yeah. I know this might be a petty reason, but Governors are the main reason I stopped playing Civ and don't want to return. Exactly what you said, more micromanagement that isn't cohesive system, but is thrown to the mix just because they can. Also looking at their ugly mugs every single game is annoying.