Civilization VI

Civ 4 is regarded as THE FINAL FORM (raaaaawr!) of that version of Civ, going back to late Civ 2. Civ 5 and 6 are evolutions away from that format. It's less of a downgrade and more of a sidegrade. I think the shift to 1UPT is fantastic, but that's largely due to the fact that I find it boring to have to manage a 140 unit stack.

Big fan of 1UPT as well. Still feels like the new iteration is trying to find its form though.

Back when Civ was in Civ 1 and Civ 2, we didn't really have stacks the way they are in Civ 4. In Civ 2, you had a massive army if the stack was 10 units big - 2 Cavalry, perhaps 2 Phalanxes and 3 Legions, then 3 Catapults. That's more than enough to invade, plus follow up Phalanxes to hold your gains. Your entire Civ-wide forces would perhaps number 30 or so. This was maintained in Civ 3. You had perhaps a couple 10 units stacks. Maybe a 20 unit one.

In Civ 4, the slavery and Drafting mechanics changed everything, and not for the better. Initially, the AI was not equipped to handle this. Drafting supposedly was supposed to be something you did as a reaction or as an emergency measure. But some of us figured independently that it was far more valuable offensively. You could focus your build queues exclusively on attack units, and draft something like 30 defensive units in 10 turns precisely (on a Normal map), allowing you to potentially create a 60 unit army out of nothing in precisely 10 turns. As late as Beyond the Sword, the AI was incapable of resisting this tactic. Only patches after BtS eventually gave the AI enough capability to match the power of Drafting.

I feel that 1UPT is a return back to the sensibilities of Civ1 and Civ2 when 10 units were plenty. This time, it's not the production ability of the Civ that limits the units, but space itself. There's only so much space you can use, and a 20 unit melee army doesn't work very well, simply because most of it can't attack.

It's not that I think Civ IV combat is perfect. I think they could have evolved that form into something better. Perhaps using terrain to limit how many units could participate in combat, or some type of command limit to keep unit count in check.

Part of my dislike of 1UPT is that it's scale doesn't mesh with the scale of the rest of the game. I might not be against units stacking until combat and then combat taking place on a board representative of the terrain on the main map. It doesn't help that the AI doesn't handle it well either.

But, I'm not trying to get into a pissing match of 1UPT vs stacks.
I know a lot of people like the switch, and at first I was excited about it too. After I get tired of Civ IV I'll probably play some Civ V since I haven't played that in many years. I've heard there is some community patch / mod that makes the AI better and some overhaul mods that sound interesting.

I always play King. Seems like the right balance for me to relax and enjoy the game, while still having some challenges on the way.

omni wrote:
Eleima wrote:
jrralls wrote:

Just curious, what level does everyone play at?

Settler. And I’m not ashamed of it.

Quite right, too. Play whatever makes it FUN, for you. No point in playing otherwise.

I mean, I can play at higher levels. I did a Civ 4 game with my partner about ten days ago, and we played on warlord. Depending on the game, I’d place second or even first (I got real lucky with a free settler, free worker and a technology from villages in the first few turns.
But I’d rather turn my brain off and enjoy myself.

What’s the longest time you have contioniously played ANY Civilization game in one sitting?

I’m pretty sure I did a 16 hour session in my late teens / early 20s.

jrralls wrote:

What’s the longest time you have contioniously played ANY Civilization game in one sitting?

I’m pretty sure I did a 16 hour session in my late teens / early 20s.

Mine is probably something similar. I fondly remember a time just after I had finished university and before I went travelling for a year - I had no responsibilities and two weeks to kill before I caught the plane. Whew I played a lot of Civ..... Civ 3 in fact it would have been back then (this was 2002). I can remember literally playing it from dusk til dawn, on the days I wasn't catching up with mates down the boozer of course. It would have been pushing 16 hours some days.

I'm sure I've never gone that long since I've rarely had that much free time unless I wanted to pull an all-nighter. For me, it was probably the summer I got Civ 2. For pretty much that entire summer I went to morning swim practice, got home around 8, started a game of Civ 2 and played until the afternoon workout which I think was at around 4pm. So a complete summer's worth of ~7 hour sessions.

jrralls wrote:

What’s the longest time you have contioniously played ANY Civilization game in one sitting?

I’m pretty sure I did a 16 hour session in my late teens / early 20s.

I'm pretty sure I've done that. Start in the morning and play well into the night. I've definitely played Civ and realized it was getting light out.

jrralls wrote:

What’s the longest time you have contioniously played ANY Civilization game in one sitting?

I had a couple of lonely years when I first started working - miles from friends and family, I definitely did a couple of all nighters with Civ IV, followed by most of the following day (only pausing to eat and use the loo!) It was either that or Counter-Strike at the time.

Thankfully those days are long behind me. It wasn't a healthy time!

Edit: Picked up Rise and Fall. Time to spend some time with Civ VI I think

jrralls wrote:

Just curious, what level does everyone play at?

prince/king generally

Usually emperor and occasionally immortal. I've done deity. The game feels/plays more broken the higher up you go.

jbavon wrote:

Usually emperor and occasionally immortal. I've done deity. The game feels/plays more broken the higher up you go.

This is definitely true. When I get good enough at King to make it uninteresting, I impose restrictions on myself rather than increase the difficulty level. Something like "get all Civ-appropriate Wonders" or "get Meiji Restoration cheevo with Japan."

Yep, even just playing as a Civ that you wouldn't normally play as, or the doesn't suit your normal play style can increase the difficulty without actually increasing the difficulty.

LarryC wrote:
jbavon wrote:

Usually emperor and occasionally immortal. I've done deity. The game feels/plays more broken the higher up you go.

This is definitely true. When I get good enough at King to make it uninteresting, I impose restrictions on myself rather than increase the difficulty level. Something like "get all Civ-appropriate Wonders" or "get Meiji Restoration cheevo with Japan."

That's an approach I hadn't considered. My last few games have been on emperor, and I definitely get that effect of, it becomes less fun the higher you go. Having some different goals to shoot for and going back to king might inject some much-missing fun back into it. Thank you for that idea!

Anyone got any Rise and Fall tips? Just feeling my way in to this expansion and wonder if there’s anything not so obvious I’m missing? I have to admit I’ve not been obsessed by Civ VI in the same way I have previous Civs (usually I’m 100+ hours into a new Civ before I think about playing something else. This one I have 32 hours total despite having owned it for a year or so) so its taking longer to figure it all out

Hmm, good question. I've played much more of Rise & Fall than I did pre-Rise & Fall, so I can't quite remember what wasn't in the vanilla game... At least, not that would be beneficial as a tip.

I guess I never found a Dark Age to be *that* damaging, while also presenting the opportunity to slingshot into a Heroic Age.

One thing that I try to avoid, but still end up doing sometimes, is vastly overshooting the Era Score for a Golden Age - essentially wasting Era points. Also keep in mind that capturing Cities gives you 3 or 4 Era points, 5 if it's a capital (semi-guessing the numbers, memory isn't as sharp as it once was), so if all things align, I try to start a war at the beginning of an age, so I get all the points towards the next Golden Age.

It is possible to spend the entire game, other than the starting era, in a Golden Age.

There are some benefits to some of the Governors - one lets you build fishing boats on any coastal tile, even if it doesn't have fish (although not quite as good a food yield), Another increases the number of cogs generated by chopping forests, which can be useful if you're chasing a specific wonder on med-high difficulty..

I honestly can't think of much else right now..

I'm assuming that it's because of how builder charges work, but I just realised that I never chop trees for production in civ6 (despite relying on it heavily in 4-5)

Hmmm. I also noted that you can ‘harvest’ wheat, Copper and other resources too. What’s the value of doing that? That seems daft considering the boosts you get long term for keeping, especially early game.

I've never been comfortable harvesting those tiles either, but I've seen some of the Diety YouTubers use it to good effect (or so they say). Sometimes it's about an immediate benefit, sometimes it's about freeing up that land for some other use. I mean, if you can use it to boost your pop without having to wait out a long natural growth curve, or if you can complete a wonder ahead of another civ and reap its benefits much sooner, or maybe you just don't need the extra food/gold production because there's plenty of other useful tiles, I can see where the immediate gains might outweigh the long-term implications.

That said, I'm nowhere near good enough to know when that kind of thinking rightly applies. It pains me enough just going for a wood chop.

Sorbicol wrote:

Hmmm. I also noted that you can ‘harvest’ wheat, Copper and other resources too. What’s the value of doing that? That seems daft considering the boosts you get long term for keeping, especially early game.

I'm not good enough to know when the time is right for those things either, and it always pains me to get rid of resources, but ... I can definitely see the value. Let's say that by harvesting some wheat, you can get an extra citizen 5 or 10 turns before you otherwise would. And that citizen can work another food source, another mine, a district tile, etc. It then becomes a question of, is +1 food for the rest of the game worth more than whatever other gain you get? And that gain can compound, too. If that extra citizen shortens the time to produce your next district, that will shorten the time to whatever's in the queue after the district is up, and so on.

I think the big thing about harvesting food resources is that district costs go up the more techs your research, so getting those population breakpoints to place a district saves production in the long run. Plus as other people mentioned, that extra citizen works another tile, so he may be out performing the resource in the short term (which I think is all diety/multiplayer focuses on).

Personally I have always hated the idea of chopping/harvesting. Why is completely stripping the land bare of natural resources the strongest strategy?

Likewise, I've never gone in for the harvesting of resources, other than forests when I'm needing a boost towards something. I think the way the higher level players work it is, how long would it take for the city to produce that number of cogs/production? It might be better to take +30 in a single turn to get something, rather than +1 every turn for 30 turns.

Likewise, Until I started watching those videos, I would never have settled a city on a resource, especially an early one. However, even on King, having a resource that gives +3 gold, and would normall require irrigation to work in the starting zone is about the best start I get these days. Settle on a Plains Hill with Truffles? That's 2 food, 2 production, and 3 gold per turn, from turn 1. After 30 turns, that's 90 gold. Coupled with the tactic of trading every single luxury in the early game for a fixed gold amount (not gold per turn) - you get usually get 140-175 gold for a decent luxury, which, over 30 turns (the duration of the deal) is the equivalent of 4.5 - 6 gold per turn for those 30 turns.

In the early game, you can buy some units almost as quickly as you can build them. Or you can save it up and buy a 3rd settler the turn you produce your first via city. Any more luxury resources you get, trade them away to the highest bidder instantly, and you should be able to buy a couple of archers. Then with 3 cities already, a few units and the 'high' income, just pick your first target

I've had great success focussing in currency in Civ6.

omni wrote:

Likewise, I've never gone in for the harvesting of resources, other than forests when I'm needing a boost towards something. I think the way the higher level players work it is, how long would it take for the city to produce that number of cogs/production? It might be better to take +30 in a single turn to get something, rather than +1 every turn for 30 turns.

Likewise, Until I started watching those videos, I would never have settled a city on a resource, especially an early one. However, even on King, having a resource that gives +3 gold, and would normall require irrigation to work in the starting zone is about the best start I get these days. Settle on a Plains Hill with Truffles? That's 2 food, 2 production, and 3 gold per turn, from turn 1. After 30 turns, that's 90 gold. Coupled with the tactic of trading every single luxury in the early game for a fixed gold amount (not gold per turn) - you get usually get 140-175 gold for a decent luxury, which, over 30 turns (the duration of the deal) is the equivalent of 4.5 - 6 gold per turn for those 30 turns.

In the early game, you can buy some units almost as quickly as you can build them. Or you can save it up and buy a 3rd settler the turn you produce your first via city. Any more luxury resources you get, trade them away to the highest bidder instantly, and you should be able to buy a couple of archers. Then with 3 cities already, a few units and the 'high' income, just pick your first target

I've had great success focussing in currency in Civ6.

Yeah on the things I am slowly getting my head around in his Civ is that it seems much easier to earn money, but that there is a much higher expectation to spend it. I’m generating a lot of faith this game too without actually being able to use it - better focused Civs than I are stealing all the prophets - and I’ve neglected culture too much. I’ve got a good science base but really I’m still all over the place. Lost out on Petra too which would have turned my main production (3 iron mines) desert city into a total powerhouse. I was not pleased (and this is on Prince.....)

Getting a better feel for it though. Might knock this game on the head and start another one.

It seems there are things that can make Faith incredibly powerful by enabling you to use it for things like builders and settlers. I believe the main one is a golden age perk, but if you can establish a religion (something I haven't been able to do in I don't know how many games), there might be some traits in there that allow you to do similar things as well.

If you found a religion, the tenets and structures that give good I have found are really powerful. Allows you to focus production tiles without stunting City growth. The housing ones are fine as well since that is an early limitation on City growth. However I have not found a great use for faith so building a holy site in every city feels bad. Maybe generate so much that you just patronage the great people you want?

Patronage and building purchases are the things I usually spend Faith on, if I generate any at all. Gitarja natively generates a lot of faith whether you want to or not. Early on, I spend that buying ships to upgrade to Jongs, and then later on buying Jongs, but in the later eras, I generally use it for patronage. If I can get at some tenets and beliefs, then I usually balance it with a Civ plan. If my Civ has a lot of happiness resources from tiles or Civ benefits, then I go for housing buildings. India's Stepwells already provide Housing, so if I'm playing India, I usually go for Amenities instead. That would be Zen Meditation (+1 Amenity for cities with 2 specialty districts), and Stupa (+1 Amenity).

Jesuit Education proves surprisingly powerful here, if you have strong Faith generation, allowing you to instantly mass-purchase Universities in your Campuses as soon as the tech comes online. Stronger if you can secure Sir Isaac Newton.

I restarted anew game last night as the Sumerian’s, and then it was 1am before I realised it. Oops, going to be paying for that one today.

I think I’m done though as I have no iron, no nitre, can’t upgrade any classical units to medieval (other than pikes and crossbows) and Ghengis Khan is my neighbour and he’s giving me the eye. I can probably fight a war of stalemate but when the game does that (put all the strategic resources away from where I am) I tend to lose interest a bit. I probably should have made better use of my War chariots. I also have the Mayans and the Zulus on this continent. It’s not a happy place.

Well coming into the end game of this campaign and, although I’ve not played with anything remotely resembling ‘efficiency’ I’m probably on course to win a science victory.

Things I’ve noted:

there is actually a lot to build if you don’t pay attention, so slapping down districts ‘just because’ isn’t always the best idea.

The map is so much more important. This is actually very annoying, as a bad starting place can really hurt you. I’d imagine a lot of people do restarts with new maps?

Resources - especially strategic resources - feel like quite a lottery. I had no middle age iron or nitre, but had loads of oil and uranium. And then no aluminium. Building units was interesting, but as I have streamed away tech wise nobody wanted to invade me (having the next 2 biggest Civs as allies clearly help there)

I still won’t declare war unless I really have to, or I’m playing as a warmonger.

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.

Still, lots of not bad ideas. Looking forward to my next campaign after I am back from holiday.