Upcoming Civ6 Epics/Adventures Discussion

[ReallyEvilMuffin]

Adventure Three will be an open spoilers game, since that was requested by a number of people when we were discussing this earlier. I am thinking of a conquest-focused Immortal difficulty game for that one, although I'm open to other suggestions.

I'm really excited for this. Obviously not everyone agrees, but the collaboration and discussion at RB makes Civ 6 for me. One of the reasons I had a hard time finishing Adv 2 was that after coming up with my strategy I was more or less in 'execute idea' mode - having people to bounce ideas off of and get input from really helps keep a game exciting. (IPad generation, I guess, but it's still true.)

I would love an always war set up on any difficulty with points not on earliest finish, but rather points per total elimination on turn date. So something like points = max turns number - current turn number per player wiped off the map and then 4(max turn number - current turn number) for victory triggering (note this may mean that people can play on after taking the caps to score more points if they wish. Variant rule would be have to declare and stay at war of any AI met, not including city states.

This sounds really fun, but having to grind through and eliminate the AIs seems kinda tedious. What was the thinking behind that? If the problem is the idea that conquest should be Conquest, not a series of alpha strikes on AI capitals, maybe a mixed strategy (AI is eliminated when its reduced to 3 cities or something?) is preferable?

To give people more weight behind killing rather than just taking the cap. I find a push to domination currently far less tedious than the science victory to be honest. Is can be a little more thought out. Maybe points per city capture and points for earlier finish.

Civ of preference would be aztec (the free workers are a huge boon)

[Sullla]

I'm reviving this thread to ask a couple of questions to the community. Adventure Three is closing on Monday, and there seems to have been very little interest in the scenario. Meanwhile, I've been sitting on the event design for Epic Two for the last couple weeks, hoping that the next patch for Civ6 would come out before it was time to release the game. That doesn't look like it's going to take place, as the best guess on when the upcoming patch will be released has it coming out in roughly two to three weeks. That would potentially fall right in the middle of the Epic Two event, which is never a good thing for us. Therefore I thought I'd pose two questions for the community:

1) Should we release Epic Two this upcoming Monday and not worry about the upcoming patch? Or should we wait and have no events open for a few weeks? Keep in mind that we've sometimes had long delays waiting on patches in the past, and it's impossible to predict when Firaxis will be finished.

2) Suggestions on the Adventure Three scenario, and what could have been done differently? I feel like this was a failure from a design standpoint. Was the concept of a fastest-finish domination scenario simply not that interesting?

[TheArchduke]

1) I think we should just go ahead and play it.

2) From my experience the Scythia games I played had been terrible dull. Also there was no twist to this game. (unlike the France Epic)

[MJW (ya that one)]

1) Due to the fact that Firaxis likes nerfing things gamers who don't finish before the patch drops would be put at a disadvantage. Which would make real deadline the patch. That's not good.

2) Scythia's "true +100% military production bonus" makes even IMM AIs effortless. So it was a mere speedrun. It's the same as a normal game expect having to launch suicide attacks near the end to save a turn or two.

[Gaspar]

Take my thoughts with a heavy dash of salt since I always start and never finish our tournament games...

1. Its probably not good to have an extended period with no event running given the already tepid interest in Civ6 stuff.

2. A military scenario had to be tried, I suppose, but we all know that the war stuff is the worst part of Civ6. I think for the most part few of us are interested in exploring that side of the game heavily (certainly no problem with it being part of a larger scenario) unless/until Firaxis improves it greatly.

[The Black Sword]

I intended to play the Adventure(I prefer that style of reporting), the primary reason I haven't is lack of time. I'm not generally interested in combat orientated scenarios too though, that was also a factor.

[timmy827]

My 2c...I have mostly finished Adv 3 and will do a report, though I didn't enjoy it as much as the last couple of games.  I'm just used to the traditional report-after-done and realized I didn't post that I was playing.

1.  I think waiting for patch makes more sense, though you may discount my own personal biases (a tad burned out on games right now, my own schedule is busy next two weeks, I wasn't around in the days of waiting for early civ3/4 patches so haven't had that experience).  

2.  Think I agree with Gaspar's point on this one.  Perhaps a conquest game with a wacky variant and lower diff might be more interesting than fastest finish/high diff/no gameplay restrictions...but the current AI limits and what seems like shallowness of the unit balance to me appears to make that a tall order too.  
(might have a couple more comments in my report that are spoiler-ish)

[MJW (ya that one)]

Well I played a Deity game and there's no way to live if two AIs DoW at the start. I barely lived against one. So you need luck to win. Due to Scythia making even IMM AIs crap their pants you could get away with slinger first and then builder, settler, builder --> horse spam and own. That's the best strat for IMM.

So there's not much to play for unless you count getting lucky as a victory.