#Independent Powers

14 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

viscid fog
#

I'm sure it's been said, but independent powers should survive the Age transitions. It's completely janky feeling to invest so much in them in an age only to have them fall off the face of the earth. Not sure what the answer is, but this contributes to the Age transitions feeling super jarring and disruptive versus the turn of a chapter, which seems to be more the intention.

lone wigeon
#

What do you mean by that exactly? I wouldn't mind them staying the same spot and being renamed but if they stayed with the same suzerain that could lead to a snowball very quickly

cedar socket
#

City-states do survive the age transition as new independent peoples that spawn in the same spot they were in in the previous age.

viscid fog
#

New peoples, you start over with the influence/relationship. That's exactly my point. There's no continuity.

#

I don't think the suzerain needs to remain, but there should be some continuity established. All that relationship and influence from one age just disappears at age transition. There should be something that carries over.

shell hornet
cinder thorn
#

If there was a way to get them away from other leaders without destroying them I’d agree , but with the system as it is I don’t

shell hornet
#

I think the way I see it, is that post-age transition the previous suzerain would have a friendly relataionship with the new IP but would not be suzerain by default. The player would still need to pay more influence to re-suzerain (which in my level up proposal would upgrade them to a more significant settlement/country). I would like to see a way that being friendly with IPs reduces the cost of the various actions though.

ornate field
shell hornet
ornate field
# shell hornet Sure, but people weren't really explaining their downvotes either. I can't reall...

For me, it's fine as it is. I see it more as a soft reset. Keeping the city-states even if you lose suzerainty, but still having good relations, gives you an advantage. If you had enough influence to take them before, you can just take the new ones again.

I think the reset between eras is a good idea. It needs some refinement, but the concept of a fresh restart is appealing.

I played a lot of Civ6, but I almost never finished a campaign because it was always too obvious who was going to win, and the final turns felt boring.

So anything that breaks that constant upward curve and introduces a kind of soft reset is fine to me.

shell hornet
# ornate field For me, it's fine as it is. I see it more as a soft reset. Keeping the city-stat...

Just to confirm, I am not arguing for the removal of age resets. My position is that the age resets should be tweaked to be softer with more continuity across the transition. The purpose of this is to make the game feel much more like 3 chapters of a longer game rather than 3 disconnected mini games. (also, to note, the devs alluded to this in their latest blogpost that they agree this is an issue).

I agree that suzerainty should reset. If you haven't already, I'd suggest you take a look at my proposal (https://discord.com/channels/1307104947426295818/1374050950389436486). Feel free to make a comment their if you disagree. I think this is definitely an issue that the devs are looking at.

Also completely agree about barely ever finishing a civ6 game!

ornate field
grand epoch
#

Maybe it could guarantee that the new independent people are friendly to you, if you were the suzuerain. Otherwise it remains a gamble like previously.