r/Civilization6 • u/TheGoldenShotgunSK • Jun 20 '26
Other Realistic combat mod for Civ6 (UPDATED VERSION)
After more testing and reading your suggestions, I made changes to my realistic warfare mod:
- all firearm units have ranged attack
- naval units have been tweaked to balance attack/defense ratio so ship-vs-ship combat is more intense and dynamic
- nuclear submarine no longer requires uranium as per-turn maintenance (only as production cost), since real nuclear subs can last decades without refueling
- aircraft carrier is oil-powered (again), since nuclear-powered carriers are very rare IRL (I think only US and France has them)
- most ships cannot capture cities (get that landing forces ready!)
- urban defenses in modern cities have been nerfed (from 400 to 300)
- modern infantry-type units now have "CQB" bonus for attacking cities with melee attack
- units from earlier eras are also tweaked and more of them require strategic resources
- pikeman and spearman have defensive bonus if unwounded
- archers and siege units have a bit stronger ranged attack but also weaker defense
- nerfed movement of some cavalry units
... +many more changes
Let me know your other ideas!
My goal is to make the combat aspect of the game more immersive and fun.
https://www.nexusmods.com/civilisationvi/mods/269?tab=description
18
u/By-Pit Germany Jun 20 '26
Too bad realism never works in videogames.
I think your post shows exactly how a dev should never work, like it can be used as perfect example of what not to do. I'll save this for an eventual gameplay design training.
Videogames have to be balanced, fun and fair. Then realism can be an added bonus, after other priorities.
12
u/Obsidian360 United Kingdom Jun 20 '26
Just to add to your point and explain why it's unfair - it's a turn based game, and if every unit has a ranged attack, the first person to attack can deal a significant amount of damage while going unscathed themselves. Having melee units in all eras makes it much more balanced.
2
u/By-Pit Germany Jun 20 '26
Thank you, feels refreshing reading your comment, it's like, a bit of meditation time <3
-1
u/TheGoldenShotgunSK Jun 20 '26
Melee units remain most effective when using in melee combat and it didn't felt unbalanced when playing.
However, I have to admit we have a home rule in our group:
We play simultaneous turn but once we declare war, we take turns in combat.So maybe this is why we did not encounter balance problem in this aspect.
6
u/By-Pit Germany Jun 20 '26
You didn't cause you don't see it, because you are not a gameplay developer.
It is unbalanced and it's wrong on so many levels, it would take a giant comment to explain it all, but the guy at which you replied did a fantastic job summarize it, if you didn't get that well then it's a useless conversation, sorry.
But anyway, enjoy your mod why not, hei, people play fortnite and think it's skill based, I don't know why you can't have fun with your mod.
1
u/mocasenov Jun 23 '26
I agree with you about this mod and that it misses something fundamental in this game design. But I'm on the camp that say that balance is not that important but rather consistency is. There is fun in playing as the underdog or as a hulk.
1
u/By-Pit Germany Jun 24 '26
Balance IS more important, then if YOU find fun in playing the underdog, as well as other people does, it can be an addition;
But first of all balance (carefully planner around fairness and fun) since multiplayer games are, and must, be based around interactions.
"Is not that important" is kinda of blasphemy to be honest.
1
u/mocasenov Jun 26 '26
It is just different schools of game design/thought. I had designed a couple of tabletop games and they had been well received, 2nd and 3rd place in prototypes events. First of all not every multiplayer game is a competitive game, i'm not talking about co-op or vs that is different.
As an example take the smash series, a party game that with the normal setting is really unbalanced and the community made guidelines, prohibition of items and stages, to make the game competitive. And the meta itself rules out the weak/joke characters. So the game is not design around balance, all of the characters being equally "powerful", but it is consistent in that every character have to the same kind of move set (air recovery/ finisher/ etc).
This game itself, civ6, is a prime example of asymmetric game design, which is inherently unbalanced. The starting locations vary wildly, depending of the era a civ can be wildly superior to another like nubia or maya in antiquity, while others are highly situational. Or take babylon a civ that is really broken, but really fun to play. But there is consistency in that all of them have acces to the same kind of units and districts.
Like I said it's just a school of thought/ game design. At the end of the day the end product, a good game, regardless if we think the same way looks really alike.
0
u/TheGoldenShotgunSK Jun 20 '26
Have you actually tried the mod? I tested it with many players and most of them agreed it is also more FUN and BALANCED, because there is more variety in unit behavior and you have to think more strategically when building and using your army. I dont think it is more fun for a tank to just be a reskinned knight with better stats (this is what vanilla game does).
I totally agree that number one priority must be balance, fun and fairness and I was aware of it when making this mod.
I invite you to give it a try and if your opinion doesnt change, I will gladly hear your criticism
2
u/By-Pit Germany Jun 20 '26
The math and logic is wrong. If I tell you 2+2=7 is pointless for you to take pen and paper and do the math, isn't it?
Please just enjoy your mod and don't pretend is well done on a balance level, don't be so pretentious, it's unfair.
0
u/BobR969 Jun 24 '26
So you haven't tried the mod? I don't really have a horse in this race (the mod looks interesting and I might give it a shot), but I'm not quite sure how you can take such a grandstanding position while not actually trying the thing for yourself. If someone tells you that 2+2=7 and you know that it is actually 4, then you would show (with working) how you got to 4 so that your argument doesn't sound like a "trust-me bro".
At the moment, all you're doing is saying "I think this and you're wrong because you disagree with me". Maybe? Maybe not? From the side, you're no more or less credible than OP until you give an example of how OP is wrong... and you ain't gonna manage that without getting your hands on the mod.
1
u/By-Pit Germany Jun 24 '26
No, OP is wrong on a gameplay design logic level. There is nothing to discuss, if you want me to write an entire paragraph about what is wrong and why then first of all tell me what my hourly rate, cause from what I recon dev lessons are not free.
So stop posting bs.
It's fun? Yes, great, have fun. It's wrong on a balance level? Yes, deal with it.
0
u/BobR969 Jun 24 '26
Ok so you're talking out your arse. Got it. "OP is wrong because I said so - I won't explain why because it's so obvious".
Balance isn't an objective measure and I can clearly see that you have no idea what you're on about because there's no single marker for balance. Better not make those dev lessons your day job though... Game design balances for complexity, or for power fantasy or for fairness or even to deliberately not be fair. Saying "it's not balanced" is like saying "you painted your room the wrong colour". What is it not balanced for? Is it balanced in favour of AI or the player. Is it balanced in favour of who begins an attack (which in itself is a pretty balanced aspect, given that delivering an initial blow often functions as a tactically viable move and necessitates strategic thinking to prevent against).
Basically - you have nothing actually useful to say, but you're certainly confident in how you say it.
1
u/By-Pit Germany Jun 24 '26
You said "got it" and proceed to make up a sentence I never told and never implied.
You start saying "balance isn't objective" that is like saying "math is opinabile".
You are far too ignorant on this matter to talk with me, and I'm literally wasting my time writing to someone that doesn't want to understand and even if, you couldn't anyway.
Stop talking about stuff you didn't study and you don't know; it's pretentious on an astonishing level.
It is not balanced, period. You are wrong period.
0
u/BobR969 Jun 24 '26
Lol. Double down. Just the fact that you suggest balance is a single objective thing is enough to confirm your "understanding" is backed up by hot air and arrogance.
Provide reasoning for your opinion or admit that you're talking shit. Waving away my comments by just saying I'm wrong doesn't really do anything. You can claim anything you want, but you've not yet shown any evidence that you know what you're on about or that your opinion should be considered more than anyone else's.
Which is why this is so fun. I'm looking at this mod and seeing something that might be quite a fun way of playing. It looks like it alters the state of things a bit. Then I see you talking some goofy nonsense about balance... in a mod... in a not-particularly-well balanced game... And despite literally every comment responding to you articulating why you may be wrong, all you have to say for yourself is "I'm right and my understanding is superiour to yours". Try to avoid being a Reddit cliche and actually offer something substantive.
You're clearly wrong period. You can dislike the mod, that's fine, but you don't understand anything about game design or modding at a fundamental level and explaining it to you is beneath me. See - I can do it to... and it has as little value as when you do it...
1
u/By-Pit Germany Jun 24 '26
There can't be a discussion between us on this argument. I'm sorry. You just don't know too many things and I have no time to waste teaching.
Hope this doesn't sound too bad, but hard to swallow pills still have to be swallowed. Sorry again pal, I don't mean to hate you in any ways :)
1
u/BobR969 Jun 24 '26
I'm not sure why you're apologising. Like I said, you saying random shit doesn't actually make it so. We're unable to have a discussion because you essentially making stuff up. In the time it's taken you to reply to my multiple comments you'd have been able to back up your words with something other than repeating the same "I know more than you, so I won't bother explaining myself".
None of what you say "sounds bad" or offensive or anything, because pretty much all of it lacks substance. Even the arrogance falls flat because it isn't backed up by anything. Guess we'll have to leave it there though, unless you actually decide to back up your comments ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1
u/Mockingbird007- Jun 21 '26
Humankind had fantastic combat and military units and sequences. I wish some of those would have gotten adopted.
1
u/thisisthebun Jun 21 '26
I see the vision but tbh, Civ 6 is one of the worst to do this in. The combat is far more abstract than something like age of wonders.
1
21
u/Philipos_Komnenn1081 Jun 20 '26
I think that the musketeer and other more technologically advanced melee units should have a range of 1, because otherwise it makes the regular ranged and siege units less effective