The game is very pretty and the Civilopedia is bare of technical details - the focus is entirely on playing the game and staying engaged in the game, rather than the authentic experience of living 4,000 years as a virtual god. Clearly, this promotion of pretty gameplay over gritty details is a sop to the filthy casuals!
I haven't liked a Civ game since Civ2. Back in those days building a wonder felt like it meant something, you got a history lesson with your gameplay, and the manual doubled up as a doorstop.
They didn't. Civ V sold ridiculously well. Civ VI will also most likely sell ridiculously well. People often mistake the complaints of a loud and motivated minority for the majority.
Not that you're wrong to not like Civ V, of course, but you're still a member of a small, vocal minority and you should probably realise that is why Firaxis is not catering to you. Much smaller companies, making much lower-budget games, are the ones that cater to small minorities.
But they did, actually. Fans of Civ I, II, III, and IV didn't flock to Civ V because it was more of what they liked. Fans of the original four games did not know Civ V was going to be a repackaging of what Civ Revolution was. I feel like it sold well because it was an inherently fun game for the majority, even though it widely stepped away from what made the franchise popular. That is my point.
Then EUIV and Crusader Kings II are more up your alley, probably. They have centuries-long (millenia-long, in CKII, if you have the earliest start date) timelines and are more sandboxy (they're also easier to get your head around for you Civ casuals. ). Of course, they're all set in nominally real history; there's also Stellaris for non-real sci-fi 4x.
I have played a good bit of both games actually, I do like how the two tie together with the correct DLC, but really, to me, it isn't quite what got me into Civ in the first place. I'm not building an empire to stand the test of time, I'm already playing a pre-existing empire that has already stood the test of time. I am simply trying to make it stand a few more centuries worth of tests of time.
Don't get me wrong, both are good games and I enjoy them greatly, but they're not the games I go to when I "want to get my Civ fix going" if that makes sense.
Ha ha ha, people on the Paradox forums complained about Paradox catering to the filthy casuals because EUIV tried to have an intuitive UI and dumped some obtuse system mechanics from previous iterations of the series, using the exact same Candy Crush analogy.
EUIV is still far more complex than any Civ game.
In both cases the Candy Crush comparison is sort of absurd.
I entirely disagree that the candy crush analogy is absurd. It might be incredibly over exaggerated, but one doesn't have to look very far for very long to come to the conclusion that, quite simply, games are becoming--simpler. Dumber. Designed to be something that can be whipped together quickly without a whole lot of thought put into it, so that one can make a quick buck.
The movie industry has gone the exact same route too, though I feel the gaming industry at this point is playing catch-up, merely following the example set forth by Hollywood.
I don't believe anyone can say to me, with a straight face: "Gaming as a whole has become much more complex and interesting over the years, clearly these companies are going over each installment with a fine toothed comb, trying to make the best game possible."
Civ 6 might be an exception, but I have to play it first before I can judge for myself.
I haven't liked a Civ game since Civ2. Back in those days building a wonder felt like it meant something, you got a history lesson with your gameplay, and the manual doubled up as a doorstop.
My favourite was the dinosaur scenario. So silly yet so fun.
The Candy Crush statement is extremely absurd. While you may have a point that games are being simplified, Civ V is a long way from being as simple as Candy Crush.
The other thing is what's wrong with playing Candy Crush in the first place? Some gamers talk like it's the worst thing to ever happen to gaming (which I guess means they missed Daikatana and Duke Nukem Forever, but who am I to judge?).
There's nothing wrong with people playing something as complex as Civilization (and Civ V is still a fairly complex game) and then playing something as simple as Candy Crush. It's fine. The world's not going to end. Casuals aren't stealing your lunch money. Relax.
The Candy Crush statement is extremely absurd. While you may have a point that games are being simplified, Civ V is a long way from being as simple as Candy Crush.
The other thing is what's wrong with playing Candy Crush in the first place? Some gamers talk like it's the worst thing to ever happen to gaming (which I guess means they missed Daikatana and Duke Nukem Forever, but who am I to judge?).
There's nothing wrong with people playing something as complex as Civilization (and Civ V is still a fairly complex game) and then playing something as simple as Candy Crush. It's fine. The world's not going to end. Casuals aren't stealing your lunch money. Relax.
Well, seeing as how you are not even reading my statements and are just throwing words in my mouth, in the interest of avoiding this escalating into something worse than it already is, I'm just going to end on this point.
Argument: Civ V is a bland, dumbed down version of the previous Civ games that made the franchise and the company great. I hope Civ 6 proves to be more like Civ (less than) V so that I can enjoy it and not waste my money on another watered down product.
Civ V is neither bland nor dumbed down. It may not be as complex as Civ IV but it is still a fairly quality game. Games being accessible is a wonderful thing and more people playing a game is a wonderful thing. There's no particular virtue in being a ~hardcore gamer~ nor any particular flaw in being a casual gamer. Nor are games accessible to the latter a bad thing.
So basically you are reiterating exactly what I just said xD
I hated Civ Revolution, I didn't even finish one game of it. Civ 5 was pretty paltry as well. The expansions made it better, but Civ IV still blows it out of the water as far as I am concerned.
Oh sorry, I misunderstood what you were trying to get across.
I don't believe anyone can say to me, with a straight face: "Gaming as a whole has become much more complex and interesting over the years, clearly these companies are going over each installment with a fine toothed comb, trying to make the best game possible."
Civ 6 might be an exception, but I have to play it first before I can judge for myself.
Why should gaming as a whole become more complex? However, rest assured the most complex game of 2016 is more complex than the most complex game of 2006. Meanwhile, the simplest game of 2016 is also probably simpler than that of 2006. And both are fine.
2. Their marketing team acts incompetent and/or greedy and/or aligned in opposition to the company's business interests (I won't judge), suggesting to re-orient the focus to the casual gaming group (which has never been the company's core target) and thus cannibalizing much of the company's profits with unnecessary advertising
What marketing team? That's 2K's job, not Firaxis'. Their only role is to produce the games that 2K then sells. Many of your other complaints could probably be blamed on 2K as well. Firaxis hasn't been their own boss for quite some time now, they have to do as they're told.
I haven't liked a Civ game since Civ2. Back in those days building a wonder felt like it meant something, you got a history lesson with your gameplay, and the manual doubled up as a doorstop.
My favourite was the dinosaur scenario. So silly yet so fun.
I don't know that I ever really got into that one. The Mars colonisation mod was pleasingly authentic, but I liked the steampunk one for sillyness. I also played the fantasy mod a fair bit.
Toilet paper sells ridiculously well, too, and it's neither something you need (tap water is cheaper, easier and far more effective to use) or want (mechanical damage caused by toilet paper makes the risk of developing haemorrhoids and similar pathologies skyrocket).
Well, that was random. You may be right, but I'll pass on shaking your hand anyway, YHWH.
Sales is no proof of a business' viability whatsoever, unless we're looking at short-lived heat-of-the-moment businesses which Firaxis is clearly not a specimen of. I said it many times and I will say that again: if you have a sufficient advertising budget and basic marketing knowledge, you WILL make decent profit off anything, even if what you peddle is your own dung in a jar.
In simple words, the three points to ponder are: 1. Firaxis is currently data-driven to an extent such that makes their production ineffective (due to irrelevant data overload, which hinders design) and their end products not sufficiently satisfying to a large, high value, decades-loyal group of customers (which could be easily avoided with proper community management in place) 2. Their marketing team acts incompetent and/or greedy and/or aligned in opposition to the company's business interests (I won't judge), suggesting to re-orient the focus to the casual gaming group (which has never been the company's core target) and thus cannibalizing much of the company's profits with unnecessary advertising 3. They are not making their product extensibility a priority, which - with their business model in mind - is a huge mistake from a financial standpoint, one such that vaguely translates to the difference between selling 'ridiculously well' (thanks to some extreme brand loyalty and complementary shove-it-in-their-arse advertising), this being profit that barely covers dev expenses and maybe pays for Sid Meier's week-long vacation on Mallorca, and honestly jumping some 200 places up in the ranking of most profitable gamedev companies on planet Earth, which is very doable if Firaxis underwent a much needed period of listening to their own community
So, sales don't prove anything and Firaxis will make money no matter what they sell, but if they only did/didn't do the things you say, they'd sell much better?
BTW, please to be defining the "casual gaming group" and how Firaxis is marketing towards it. Who are these "casual gamers"?
(Also, what definition of "simple words" includes using the phrase "product extensibility"?)
But they did, actually. Fans of Civ I, II, III, and IV didn't flock to Civ V because it was more of what they liked. Fans of the original four games did not know Civ V was going to be a repackaging of what Civ Revolution was. I feel like it sold well because it was an inherently fun game for the majority, even though it widely stepped away from what made the franchise popular. That is my point.
Here is my two-pronged rebuttal to your point:
1) Fans of Civ I-IV didn't flock to V? Prove it. It sold well and it reviewed well. The fact a bunch of people on a forum somewhere didn't like it proves that a bunch of people on a forum somewhere didn't like it. I played and liked Civ I, III, IV, Rev, and V, and thus according to you I apparently don't exist. You're just a guy. I'm just a guy. Neither of us speaks for "fans". Nobody and nothing speaks for "fans", except possibly professionally done surveys, which if they exist would be internal Firaxis marketing data.
2) As someone who's logged a lot of hours on both Rev and V (and I doubt you can say the same, since you dislike both games), calling V a repackaging of Rev is sheerest nonsense. V is far, far more similar to IV than it is to Rev, regardless of what flaws it has. To suggest otherwise is sheerest hyperbole.
I have played a good bit of both games actually, I do like how the two tie together with the correct DLC, but really, to me, it isn't quite what got me into Civ in the first place. I'm not building an empire to stand the test of time, I'm already playing a pre-existing empire that has already stood the test of time. I am simply trying to make it stand a few more centuries worth of tests of time.
Don't get me wrong, both are good games and I enjoy them greatly, but they're not the games I go to when I "want to get my Civ fix going" if that makes sense.
I'd argue it depends on who you're playing - playing Kochin, forming Hindustan and colonising Europe doesn't feel to me like playing a "preexisting empire", but rather creating one, and of course you can literally create a new country from scratch with the Country Creator DLC - but that's really just a personal judgement thing, of course.
I entirely disagree that the candy crush analogy is absurd. It might be incredibly over exaggerated, but one doesn't have to look very far for very long to come to the conclusion that, quite simply, games are becoming--simpler. Dumber. Designed to be something that can be whipped together quickly without a whole lot of thought put into it, so that one can make a quick buck.
I don't agree with you at all. About the closest I'd come to agreeing with this is that the enormous budgets of modern AAA titles mean they play it safe (safe does not equate to simple or dumb), but AAA titles are not the whole of the game industry.
Gaming is, in every way, far more expansive and complex than it ever was in the past. And if you think otherwise, why on earth are you lauding Johnny-come-lately Civ IV? Go back and feel the intense complexity of Civilization! Don't be fooled by fancy graphics, or the lack of inclusion of features that don't actually do anything like the royal palace, or by the casual-friendly idea of differentiating different civilisations!
I don't believe anyone can say to me, with a straight face: "Gaming as a whole has become much more complex and interesting over the years, clearly these companies are going over each installment with a fine toothed comb, trying to make the best game possible."
I can certainly say the first half of that sentence with a straight face. The second half is pointless because who are "these companies", and what constitutes a "fine-toothed comb" in an age where it is functionally impossible to create a game that doesn't need patching? Do you really think most of the people at Firaxis aren't trying to make the best game possible?
When this game was announced I was completely blindsided. I quite enjoyed Civ V and IV and especially enjoyed taking over other cities with my superior culture in III, but I didn't think they were going to develop another one. Shows what I know.
If a game is a sequel, then I would expect it to be more complex than the previous game, since I would want to develop and expand upon the skills I had aquired in the previous instalment. I would be very disapointed if it where simpler. A simpler game would be targeted at new player who found the previous vesion too difficult.
If the sequel is mearly an update to take advantage of new technology, then I would only be interested in Civ2EE and Alpha Centauri EE, since those are the best games in the series.
Complexity for complexity's sake is not a good thing, a virtue to be reached for. Games are about having fun, and games like Civ engage our brains and thinking in order to have fun, but if some kinds of complexity get in the way of that fun, then simplifying or removing a mechanic may yield a better game.
This is especially true for new-comers to a series, who might be hit by overwhelming complexity that makes a game impenetrable, compared to long-time fans looking for an evolution of what came before. At some point, you need to start streamlining some of the old ideas, to make way for the new. DLC are another way to progressively add complexity to the game that can bring the new players along with you. I suggest it is not reasonable to compare a new game pre-DLC for complexity with a fully-expanded previous edition.
My disappointment with the 'dumbing down' since Civ 2 is that the focus has been entirely on the game play, and stripping away the cultural 'feel' of the first two. The early games had a strong semi-educational bent, with pages of text (and strong narration) on each new tech achieved, and each wonder built, placing it in the context of the historical and cultural evolution of mankind. And while the technology to ship full-game narration, and entertaining videos has only improved since then (so significantly you can't really compare them) that whole aspect of the game has been missing for the last 15 years, and I see no hint that it might return in the future
As for my Civ legacy, I played every entry but 3, which decided to treat me like a pirate and disable my CD drive rather than let me play (a DRM bug that was acknowledged, but patched only if you resided in USA as the rest of the world were deemed genuinely fithy pirates). CivII was my favorite entry in the series, followed by the original (for nostalgia, and the ground-breaking effect it had on the games industry). Civ IV leaned just a little too far towards complexity for my tastes, and despite the bad feelings for some, I genuinely enjoyed playing 5, but have not had the time for gaming to really explore it - a close call for those 2. True favorite in the series would be Alpha Centauri though, if we are allowed to include it The complexity was ideal for me in that game, as the comparability of the mechanics was very predictable, and finding the optimal route through the tech maze was a lot of fun.
There's a point where excessive complexity makes a game cease to be a game to become a job... Civilization IV had not reached that point yet but if you increased the complexity even more you'd soon need an accountant to play...
My disappointment with the 'dumbing down' since Civ 2 is that the focus has been entirely on the game play, and stripping away the cultural 'feel' of the first two. The early games had a strong semi-educational bent, with pages of text (and strong narration) on each new tech achieved, and each wonder built, placing it in the context of the historical and cultural evolution of mankind. And while the technology to ship full-game narration, and entertaining videos has only improved since then (so significantly you can't really compare them) that whole aspect of the game has been missing for the last 15 years, and I see no hint that it might return in the future
This. Some of us enjoy being educated whist we play.
There's a point where excessive complexity makes a game cease to be a game to become a job... Civilization IV had not reached that point yet but if you increased the complexity even more you'd soon need an accountant to play...
Exciting! I was reading about Gorgo today and the fact that there will be multiple leaders per Civ now is appealing A feature I did miss from IV. Thanks for sharing, @elminster!
Sid Meier’s Civilization VI will be in your hands when it launches on October 21. Soon, you’ll be able to lead one of history’s renowned civilizations to greatness, but which civ has the honor of being called the greatest? Civilization fans have been furiously making their arguments, but we feel there’s no better way to solve an argument than by letting each civ go at it in a no-holds-barred Battle Royale!
Join us LIVE on Wednesday, October 19 at 3:30pm ET / 12:30pm PT / 8:30pm BST on twitch.tv/2k as we pit eight of history’s greatest rulers against each other in an entirely AI-controlled game of Civilization VI. Find out who has what it takes to create a civilization to last the test of time!
The developers behind Civilization VI will be giving live commentary as we watch eight AI-controlled civs go at it. Anything can happen!
The “Civilization VI AI Battle Royale” will feature the following eight civs:
Aztecs Brazil England Greece (Gorgo) Japan Rome Russia Spain Catch every turn, live on twitch.tv/2k at 3:30pm ET / 12:30pm PT / 8:30pm BST on Wednesday, October 19. If you aren’t able to join us live, the full VOD will be posted to the Civilization YouTube channel shortly afterwards.
If you haven’t caught up on everything new in Civilization VI, check out our First Look video series which showcases new civs, features, and behind-the-scenes looks at the game!
- AI seems to be worse then in Civ5 (low aggression, some buggy and irrational behavior) - Tech level progresses to fast (medieval in 1600bc, industrial age in 1000ad )
Not sure about backfired, the AI from the other games is far from perfect, as it only can keep up by cheating. Lets see how it turns out tomorrow
I would really like to know if the AI is cheating such as accelerating research or creating/upgrading military units without resources...
creating research probably, but needs to resources to create units. One of the complaints people had of the battle Royal was that there was still Catapults and Warriors kicking around during the Space Race. The Dev team said it was due to the AI not having access to Iron on the map.
But they'll cheat hard just like always. I rage quit a Civ 5 game recently because Greece was able to get out two settlers before my first, even though they started in an area with NO production and time lapse would make it impossible to afford either the money or the culture for even one settler.
Still too early to judge (only 3 hours in before I had to go to bed...), but I am noticing some bugs not present in the preview builds distributed to several internet personalities.
On turn 71, Rome declared war on me and moved their entire army into my capital area. Roosevelt responded by declaring war on Rome, per his agenda. Rome never sent their warriors back to defend. Rome's capital fell, all of Rome's units despawned, then Teddy declared war on me for my warmongering (being attacked by Rome).
Not long after, Germany (didn't meet them) declared war on me. Okay. Met them some 50 turns later, they acted like they never met me, and then when the dialog ended, immediately I'm at war with them.
10 turns later, I make peace with Germany. 2 turns later, they love me because I ignore city states (trading with several).
Also, I seem to have a super high warmonger penalty because it seems the game assumes I declared war on Germany/Rome. Very, very strange.
Never saw behavior like that in the Let's Play videos.
Comments
Don't get me wrong, both are good games and I enjoy them greatly, but they're not the games I go to when I "want to get my Civ fix going" if that makes sense. I entirely disagree that the candy crush analogy is absurd. It might be incredibly over exaggerated, but one doesn't have to look very far for very long to come to the conclusion that, quite simply, games are becoming--simpler. Dumber. Designed to be something that can be whipped together quickly without a whole lot of thought put into it, so that one can make a quick buck.
The movie industry has gone the exact same route too, though I feel the gaming industry at this point is playing catch-up, merely following the example set forth by Hollywood.
I don't believe anyone can say to me, with a straight face: "Gaming as a whole has become much more complex and interesting over the years, clearly these companies are going over each installment with a fine toothed comb, trying to make the best game possible."
Civ 6 might be an exception, but I have to play it first before I can judge for myself.
The other thing is what's wrong with playing Candy Crush in the first place? Some gamers talk like it's the worst thing to ever happen to gaming (which I guess means they missed Daikatana and Duke Nukem Forever, but who am I to judge?).
There's nothing wrong with people playing something as complex as Civilization (and Civ V is still a fairly complex game) and then playing something as simple as Candy Crush. It's fine. The world's not going to end. Casuals aren't stealing your lunch money. Relax.
Argument: Civ V is a bland, dumbed down version of the previous Civ games that made the franchise and the company great. I hope Civ 6 proves to be more like Civ (less than) V so that I can enjoy it and not waste my money on another watered down product.
Coming soon, 2058*
*approximate date I will be able to acquire FiraxisAnd the Candy Crush comment is still absurd.
BTW, please to be defining the "casual gaming group" and how Firaxis is marketing towards it. Who are these "casual gamers"?
(Also, what definition of "simple words" includes using the phrase "product extensibility"?)
1) Fans of Civ I-IV didn't flock to V? Prove it. It sold well and it reviewed well. The fact a bunch of people on a forum somewhere didn't like it proves that a bunch of people on a forum somewhere didn't like it. I played and liked Civ I, III, IV, Rev, and V, and thus according to you I apparently don't exist. You're just a guy. I'm just a guy. Neither of us speaks for "fans". Nobody and nothing speaks for "fans", except possibly professionally done surveys, which if they exist would be internal Firaxis marketing data.
2) As someone who's logged a lot of hours on both Rev and V (and I doubt you can say the same, since you dislike both games), calling V a repackaging of Rev is sheerest nonsense. V is far, far more similar to IV than it is to Rev, regardless of what flaws it has. To suggest otherwise is sheerest hyperbole. I'd argue it depends on who you're playing - playing Kochin, forming Hindustan and colonising Europe doesn't feel to me like playing a "preexisting empire", but rather creating one, and of course you can literally create a new country from scratch with the Country Creator DLC - but that's really just a personal judgement thing, of course. I don't agree with you at all. About the closest I'd come to agreeing with this is that the enormous budgets of modern AAA titles mean they play it safe (safe does not equate to simple or dumb), but AAA titles are not the whole of the game industry.
Gaming is, in every way, far more expansive and complex than it ever was in the past. And if you think otherwise, why on earth are you lauding Johnny-come-lately Civ IV? Go back and feel the intense complexity of Civilization! Don't be fooled by fancy graphics, or the lack of inclusion of features that don't actually do anything like the royal palace, or by the casual-friendly idea of differentiating different civilisations! I can certainly say the first half of that sentence with a straight face. The second half is pointless because who are "these companies", and what constitutes a "fine-toothed comb" in an age where it is functionally impossible to create a game that doesn't need patching? Do you really think most of the people at Firaxis aren't trying to make the best game possible?
If the sequel is mearly an update to take advantage of new technology, then I would only be interested in Civ2EE and Alpha Centauri EE, since those are the best games in the series.
This is especially true for new-comers to a series, who might be hit by overwhelming complexity that makes a game impenetrable, compared to long-time fans looking for an evolution of what came before. At some point, you need to start streamlining some of the old ideas, to make way for the new. DLC are another way to progressively add complexity to the game that can bring the new players along with you. I suggest it is not reasonable to compare a new game pre-DLC for complexity with a fully-expanded previous edition.
My disappointment with the 'dumbing down' since Civ 2 is that the focus has been entirely on the game play, and stripping away the cultural 'feel' of the first two. The early games had a strong semi-educational bent, with pages of text (and strong narration) on each new tech achieved, and each wonder built, placing it in the context of the historical and cultural evolution of mankind. And while the technology to ship full-game narration, and entertaining videos has only improved since then (so significantly you can't really compare them) that whole aspect of the game has been missing for the last 15 years, and I see no hint that it might return in the future
As for my Civ legacy, I played every entry but 3, which decided to treat me like a pirate and disable my CD drive rather than let me play (a DRM bug that was acknowledged, but patched only if you resided in USA as the rest of the world were deemed genuinely fithy pirates). CivII was my favorite entry in the series, followed by the original (for nostalgia, and the ground-breaking effect it had on the games industry). Civ IV leaned just a little too far towards complexity for my tastes, and despite the bad feelings for some, I genuinely enjoyed playing 5, but have not had the time for gaming to really explore it - a close call for those 2. True favorite in the series would be Alpha Centauri though, if we are allowed to include it
Also because I think this one hasn't been shared here yet
https://civilization.com/news/entries/announcing-the-civilization-vi-ai-battle-royale-on-twitch
Join us LIVE on Wednesday, October 19 at 3:30pm ET / 12:30pm PT / 8:30pm BST on twitch.tv/2k as we pit eight of history’s greatest rulers against each other in an entirely AI-controlled game of Civilization VI. Find out who has what it takes to create a civilization to last the test of time!
The developers behind Civilization VI will be giving live commentary as we watch eight AI-controlled civs go at it. Anything can happen!
The “Civilization VI AI Battle Royale” will feature the following eight civs:
Aztecs
Brazil
England
Greece (Gorgo)
Japan
Rome
Russia
Spain
Catch every turn, live on twitch.tv/2k at 3:30pm ET / 12:30pm PT / 8:30pm BST on Wednesday, October 19. If you aren’t able to join us live, the full VOD will be posted to the Civilization YouTube channel shortly afterwards.
If you haven’t caught up on everything new in Civilization VI, check out our First Look video series which showcases new civs, features, and behind-the-scenes looks at the game!
still can't wait to play though.
https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/58c8r7/live_discussion_thread_for_civ_vi_ai_battle/
- AI seems to be worse then in Civ5 (low aggression, some buggy and irrational behavior)
- Tech level progresses to fast (medieval in 1600bc, industrial age in 1000ad )
Not sure about backfired, the AI from the other games is far from perfect, as it only can keep up by cheating. Lets see how it turns out tomorrow
But they'll cheat hard just like always. I rage quit a Civ 5 game recently because Greece was able to get out two settlers before my first, even though they started in an area with NO production and time lapse would make it impossible to afford either the money or the culture for even one settler.
http://playdosgamesonline.com/civilization.html
On turn 71, Rome declared war on me and moved their entire army into my capital area. Roosevelt responded by declaring war on Rome, per his agenda. Rome never sent their warriors back to defend. Rome's capital fell, all of Rome's units despawned, then Teddy declared war on me for my warmongering (being attacked by Rome).
Not long after, Germany (didn't meet them) declared war on me. Okay. Met them some 50 turns later, they acted like they never met me, and then when the dialog ended, immediately I'm at war with them.
10 turns later, I make peace with Germany. 2 turns later, they love me because I ignore city states (trading with several).
Also, I seem to have a super high warmonger penalty because it seems the game assumes I declared war on Germany/Rome. Very, very strange.
Never saw behavior like that in the Let's Play videos.