Civilization VI

Sorbicol wrote:

I’d imagine a lot of people do restarts with new maps?

I'm constantly regenerating new maps. play 20-30 turns to get a feel for my spot and then I just start over if I don't really connect to it.

I've been like that with every Civ game ever though.

GrandmaFunk wrote:

I'm constantly regenerating new maps. play 20-30 turns to get a feel for my spot and then I just start over if I don't really connect to it.

I've been like that with every Civ game ever though.

Ha, yeah I guess I have been too, only this iteration of Civ it really really seems to matter a lot more! Getting a good balance early game feels like it’ll really impact how well you’ll do - especially if you are on the higher difficulty levels.

Sure a lot of it feels circumstantial (I.e a desert city but with iron mines and a good river floodplain/oasis - OK but not great unless you can build Petra and turn that city into a complete powerhouse) But getting a good balance feels just as important.

I play every map to completion. Even if it's a bad hand. Sometimes, what I think is bad turns out actually pretty good.

I remember in the leadup to initial release, they said they wanted geography to play a bigger role, and for the player to have to be a little more reactive, rather than just planning what they want to do from turn 1. Sounds like it's working exactly as intended for you, then!

I pretty much always accept my starting position as well. To me, the map is a puzzle to unlock and a series of trade-offs to consider. In conjunction with districts, it's my single favorite thing about Civ VI.

- Is the starting position bad? Where is the nearest rich area I should be expanding to?

- Am I short a resource I need? Can I skip until the next era? (Not getting iron or nitre is a bad beat. No doubt.) What city-states might I become suzerain of to acquire it? What civs can I establish good enough relations with to trade for it? Or, who has it that I can go to war with and take it?

- Did I build on a tile that I now want for a wonder? Am I willing to demolish that tile or harvest that resource? If I did a district there, I'm SOL, but that's okay. There's no wonder you can't live without. Also, that kind of planning starts to come through multiple playthroughs. Plus, if something is super important to you, you can drop tacks to designate land for a specific purpose (there's an add-on that expands the variety of tacks too).

Etc. etc. I definitely get where some of these things can be frustrating, but bad as the AI is, having these challenges to overcome adds a layer of challenge that sometimes that the AI can't.

I like to play all but the most desperate starting positions. Sometimes it's due to my picking a sub-optimal starting spot, or waiting like 3 turns to get to one I think is better. But only in the "archers on the horizon and raiders just killed my last warrior" cases do I throw up my hands and start over.

I like to win. I will restart as many times as it takes to get a start position that suits me. I will save scum, and not just because I fatfingered a move. I I'll go back 50 turns and erase a war from history. I am a timelord weaving MY story with my chosen people. "Real" Civ players hate me.

BadKen wrote:

I like to win. I will restart for a better start. I will save scum, and not just because I fatfingered a move. I I'll go back 50 turns and erase a war from history. I am a timelord weaving MY story with my chosen people. "Real" Civ players hate me.

Not this one. As the guy who turns half the RPGs he plays to the Easy/Story difficulty, I 100 percent endorse this approach, if it's what makes it fun for you. (If my previous post implied otherwise, it was unintentional. That's just what makes it work and be fun for me.)

Nah, I was mostly just being sardonic. I am totally in favor of whatever-makes-it-funism, whether that means turning on every assist, cranking the difficulty so high that you lose ten minutes of progress every five minutes, or using Cheat Engine on a solo game to turn yourself into a deity.

However, there is a small cadre of the hardcore on places like civfanatics who would see people like me burned at the stake.

I dont really start games over due to bad starting areas (though they annoy me greatly throughout the game then...).
But I'll gladly reload if something turns bad.

Sorbicol wrote:

It’s feels like it’s overwhelming the player in detail. Where to place that district, what district will work best, what Wonder requirements are there - it seems like you might need to know what you want to do in the Atomic era while you are still using bows and arrows.

I would be happy if they went even further in the direction of having to plan ahead.
However, they should at the same time go in the exact opposite direction and make it harder to stick to those plans. With more random events, maybe similar to what Paradox does.
Like 'one of your citizens just murdered the crown prince of your neighboring civilization. You are now at war for the next 50 turns', 'You see that mountain north of your city? Well, it just turned into a volcano, destroying all your farmland, but giving a large tech bonus', 'Angry priests just took over your government, 50% less tech for 20 turns, but 100% more religion', 'Uh oh, the scientists developing nuclear power had a small accident. Nothing to see over here. Not anymore anyway' and what not. Silly ideas aside, just something that might make you reconsider what you are doing throughout the game (without destroying your game, as some of my over-the-top examples might do). It could fit well into the whole Historic Events/Ages thing too, creating more unique timelines.

Current game gets too repetitive and predictable imo. You can set a course and it is relatively easy to follow it throughout the game. Only adjustable thing really is how fast or slow you are going in the chosen direction.
I had hopes for the events added in the expansion, but they are not remotely enough to add much to the game.
Still waiting for that second expansion :/

Just giving a big thumbs up to Shadout's last paragraph.

Luckily it does seem like expansion 2 is getting closer every day. Based on CivFanatics I think we could have a reveal within the next two months and a release within 6 months. But this is purely guesswork.

I think I'm simply saying the same thing, but my biggest criticism with all the incarnations of Civ is that, as enjoyable as I find them, the number of turns between victory becoming inevitable and victory being achieved is too high.

So, everyone is extremely cross with me because of my warmongering (I took out Brazil completely after they declared war on me for the 3rd and final time. I don’t like the warmongering penalty- it’s far too arbitrary)

Anyway, does everyone currently disliking me impact how many tourists will be attracted by my culture? I’d like to attempt a cultural victory this game but I’m worried I might have made everyone a little too cross with me. Apart from Tomyris.

I don’t remember exactly how tourism worked, but I think the base value is determined by things like great works, national parks, wonders, and such; it should not be affected at all by your relationships. Open borders agreements and trade routes may boost tourism, so if bad relationships make it less likely that your opponents will open their borders to you, and more likely that you’ll have someone pillage a route, you could see an effect there.

LastSurprise wrote:

I don’t remember exactly how tourism worked, but I think the base value is determined by things like great works, national parks, wonders, and such; it should not be affected at all by your relationships. Open borders agreements and trade routes may boost tourism, so if bad relationships make it less likely that your opponents will open their borders to you, and more likely that you’ll have someone pillage a route, you could see an effect there.

Ok thanks for this, appreaciated. Do you know how quickly warmonger penalties depreciate at all? I seem to remember in Civ V that unless you modded them other Civs would still hate your guts for "warmongering" in the 21st century for something you did 2000BC.

It depends on a lot of things like the era you're in, whether you have a Casus Belli or denounced them before declaring a war, whether you're joining in an ally's war, etc. This has a lot of good info that's relatively straightforward to follow, I think.

LastSurprise wrote:

I don’t remember exactly how tourism worked, but I think the base value is determined by things like great works, national parks, wonders, and such; it should not be affected at all by your relationships. Open borders agreements and trade routes may boost tourism, so if bad relationships make it less likely that your opponents will open their borders to you, and more likely that you’ll have someone pillage a route, you could see an effect there.

Your total foriegn visitors is also affected by the culture points accumulated as I understand things, ie if you have accrued 2000 more purple points than civ b that becomes more tourists for you.

beanman101283 wrote:

It depends on a lot of things like the era you're in, whether you have a Casus Belli or denounced them before declaring a war, whether you're joining in an ally's war, etc. This has a lot of good info that's relatively straightforward to follow, I think.

That's a really good link, thank you. My warmonger score isn't "that" bad it would seem. Does trading favourably / giving gifts also reduce it at all? The game implies that it does but it would seem from that webpage it doesn't

Not sure on the specifics, but anecdotally I feel like favorable trades and gifts generally helps. You still need to keep an eye on your relationship with each leader and be aware of how you are or aren't lining up with their two agendas.

Sorbicol wrote:
beanman101283 wrote:

It depends on a lot of things like the era you're in, whether you have a Casus Belli or denounced them before declaring a war, whether you're joining in an ally's war, etc. This has a lot of good info that's relatively straightforward to follow, I think.

That's a really good link, thank you. My warmonger score isn't "that" bad it would seem. Does trading favourably / giving gifts also reduce it at all? The game implies that it does but it would seem from that webpage it doesn't

My (not super deep) understanding is that trading favorably or giving gifts generates its own positive relationship score, which is in a different category than the warmonger penalty. So, you would not technically reduce the warmonger penalty through trades, but as your relationship with any leader is plotted along a single axis, adding a positive number in one category has the same effect of reducing a negative number in another category.

LastSurprise wrote:

My (not super deep) understanding is that trading favorably or giving gifts generates its own positive relationship score, which is in a different category than the warmonger penalty. So, you would not technically reduce the warmonger penalty through trades, but as your relationship with any leader is plotted along a single axis, adding a positive number in one category has the same effect of reducing a negative number in another category.

Ah, got you. That would actually make more sense thinking about it. However they are all so cross with me that they won’t accept resources as gifts. They will buy them off me however. The AI for this game is really odd at times. Hopefully time will start the healing process. And I didn’t start it!! Damn sure finished it though.....

Sorbicol wrote:
LastSurprise wrote:

My (not super deep) understanding is that trading favorably or giving gifts generates its own positive relationship score, which is in a different category than the warmonger penalty. So, you would not technically reduce the warmonger penalty through trades, but as your relationship with any leader is plotted along a single axis, adding a positive number in one category has the same effect of reducing a negative number in another category.

Ah, got you. That would actually make more sense thinking about it. However they are all so cross with me that they won’t accept resources as gifts. They will buy them off me however. The AI for this game is really odd at times. Hopefully time will start the healing process. And I didn’t start it!! Damn sure finished it though.....

That's how you have to do it! Make sure they won't come back for you.

Sometimes I enjoy razing every tile improvement an enemy civ has made even if I can't or don't want to take one of their cities. That's frequently just as effective long-term since the AI has trouble allocating workers to repair those. Then, hopefully, maybe that city will flip over to your side anyway if your pushing out enough loyalty relative to where they're located.

Don't eliminate Civs. the severe warmonger penalty isn't worth it. Get the capital so you don't have to deal with Loyalty issues, then leave them whatever podunk town is on the edge of nowhere. If their own citizens revolt and make it a Free City, then you can take it nice and clean. If not, you have a place where you can level up your standing armies.

Someone from Aspyr recently posted on Reddit that they are working on Rise & Fall for iOS, but still haven't set a date.

LarryC wrote:

Don't eliminate Civs. the severe warmonger penalty isn't worth it. Get the capital so you don't have to deal with Loyalty issues, then leave them whatever podunk town is on the edge of nowhere. If their own citizens revolt and make it a Free City, then you can take it nice and clean. If not, you have a place where you can level up your standing armies.

See I would love to do this, but they started it and don't deserve to exist anymore. You come at my civ, it better be a knockout pinch of your losing it all. I hate AI that declare way and don't follow through then just denounce you the rest of the game. (I am a terrible warmonger and I don't care.)

Yep, this is me. I may accept peace temporarily of I wasn't ready at all, but if you declare on me, you won't see the end of the game.

omni wrote:

Yep, this is me. I may accept peace temporarily of I wasn't ready at all, but if you declare on me, you won't see the end of the game.

This is me as well. My warmonger penalty is slowly wearing and I keep giving away (or giving in to demands) to my luxury resources if they ask. At least only the Chinese and Frederick keep denouncing me now. Everyone is just generally unhappy.

Still hasn’t quite figured out how to make victory happen when you’ve actually won though has it? I’m obliterating everyone with my culture now but I still have to wait another 50 turns or more before I actually ‘win’. Admittedly I’m only playing on Prince, but still.

Malkroth wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Don't eliminate Civs. the severe warmonger penalty isn't worth it. Get the capital so you don't have to deal with Loyalty issues, then leave them whatever podunk town is on the edge of nowhere. If their own citizens revolt and make it a Free City, then you can take it nice and clean. If not, you have a place where you can level up your standing armies.

See I would love to do this, but they started it and don't deserve to exist anymore. You come at my civ, it better be a knockout pinch of your losing it all. I hate AI that declare way and don't follow through then just denounce you the rest of the game. (I am a terrible warmonger and I don't care.)

I think you might actually be a warmonger, and the penalty isn't wrongly assessed?

seriously though i do feel that rage too, esp after they declare war the third time.

I don't feel that rage at all. I don't stop a war like that until they're down to one edge city and if they declare? Well, that's just more XP for my troops, and I do love me some well-promoted troops. Sometimes I even leave them some decent production capacity. That way, they can produce a lot of troops and I can scythe through the lot with Native Conquest active while my troops pillage their lands and trade routes. Yum.

And despite that the world will still love me!