Maybe they'll nerf the new Magnus governor to only give 100% production on wonders and kill 2 birds with 1 nerf
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
Dodo Tier Player
|
[Spoilers] The games they are a changin' - Ichabod Civ 6 PBEM 3 as England
|
|
'preciate the big update, Ichabod!
I Think I'm Gwangju Like It Here
A blog about my adventures in Korea, and whatever else I feel like writing about.
Random thoughts about Civ 6 MP. This will be very stream of consciousness and I'll probably do it through a couple of sessions.
First, some general impressions: 1. Terrain matters too much. Flatlands are too punitive, as there's no way of turining food into production and housing penalties deny even the better growth a flatland area could get in return of lower production. The way hills were implemented in the game broke the design balance Civ had achieved, as seen in Civ 4, because hills are a straight net gain over flatland. To make matters even worse, there's simply no decent flatland improvement. Spamming farms is pointless. So, a city is only worth the hills it has (baring some city filled with resources) - you'll never see a great city without a great number of hills. Of course, and you probably already is thinking about it, not only the hills, but also the chops. Chops/harvests are the other thing that makes terrain matter too much. In Civ 4, balancing the Capital number of forests was enough, because later in the game, the fixed value of chops made them not matter that much (and that was a universe with slavery production). In Civ 6, once the game reached a certain point, I don't see why you would settle land without chops/harvests tiles avaiable. They are just too powerful, especially combined with % bonuses, as everyone is already talking about. 2. Food from tiles is not that important. Yes, early game you want fast growth, it's important in the Capital and gives an advantage. That's fair. But later in the game, there's simply no reason to place farms in your cities. Harvesting resources gives all the growth you need, since housing penalties don't allow cities to grow too much. I don't see cities growing much past size 7, topping at size 10 in very good cities, to get the 4th district. The payback will simply not be there, I fear. Also, you grow cities with magic food from TRs and things like that. Since every hill tile has at least 1 food in Civ 6, a size 7 city needs only 5 food to feed 7 citizens on plains mines (14 food needed, and you get 7 from tiles and 2 from city center). You can then stagnate with a TR and a granary. When it's time to grow, just harvest something. And there's really not much reason to grow if not to get another district tile or to work another mine (and it's very difficult to find terrain with more than 7 mines, even 7 mines is a big exaggeration). 3. Conquest is the way to win the game. That seems pretty obvious, but in Civ 6 is just that much true. In Civ 4, attacking early was often foolish, because a player developing peacefully, while there was still free land, would probably wnd up in a way better position than you. In Civ 6, that's not true. The settler increase cost means that snowball ahead peacefully is increasingly hard. And CIV 6 HAS NO (MEANINGFUL) FIRST TO BONUSES! Wonders suck, except for the brokeness that is Venetian Arsenal in maps that can use it (even then the cost is bollocks); perhaps Colossus, Stonehenge, Pyramids and maybe Hanging Gardens are also worth a thoughts, but not when they are made avaiable. Great People are tied to districts, which is tied to production, which peaceful expansion doesn't have that much more of, because of the increase in costs and because you need concentrated production. Even then, most of the GPs are pretty meaningless and just give cute bonuses. Eurekas and Inspirations also play in favour of the Civ focused on conquest, as it's pretty hard to get a lot of them if you are pumping all resources into science and culture. That's not bad design, I think, but it's how the game works and it favours conquest. But then we reach a conundrum. Considering players of similar skill levels, it's very hard to take another player down fully, considering how the game plays in favour of defense. And half-assed conquest in Civ 6 in a huge no-no, due to occupation penalties. Considering this, I fear that the placement of City States will often decide the outcome of games in random maps, because some player or the other will end up with more easy capturable cities, that play such a huge part. Anyway, I think it'll be very interesting to see a game between players of the same skill level, with balanced Civ choices (we'll talk about that later). I don't think we had such a game yet and the ones that came closer became very interesting deals. If conquest is not easy, then what do we do? It certainly won't be easy to get advantages in development between players, as Civ 6 doesn't have the explosive nature of Civ 4, where one key first to bonus changes the course of the game and even the slightest advantage in skill level would mean a huge difference in Civ development as time went by (Civ 6 is more forgiving with skill level, I feel). Prehaps diplomacy would end up deciding everything... In this context, I think we'll find out that the Civ 6 tech tree heavily favours military beelines. It's too easy to beeline some techs and the unit advantages can be huge. Beelining Knights and Cavalry seem like powerful plays, though I fear that even such military advantages won't mean much with occupation penalties around (as fully taking down a player of a similar skill level is very difficult). Anyway, enough for today. This is just a big mess, but it's not like I want to be known as a Civ 6 specialist or anything. It's just a bunch of random thoughts. I still want to talk about policy cards, chopping, upgrading, the value of districts and district buildings, comparision between early science and early culture, Choral Music, Civilizations and the path that seems to be the best way to go in regards to teching.
I actually declared war on Rowain last turn and it's not a phony war. My confidence in winning the game nosedived a bit, just as I posted high and mighty that I'd accept a concession.
 Anyway, our turn pace really slowed down to a crawl, so things will take a while to heat up, if at all.
At least in my R&F test games, they did not. I had some Great Admirals scouting around the map get zapped back home.
I Think I'm Gwangju Like It Here
A blog about my adventures in Korea, and whatever else I feel like writing about.
Update time:
 Rowain moved in a very aggressive manner after I captured Jerusalem. I was thorn between declaring war on him or just fortifying my units. With a double mind, I obviously messed up the turn. I decided to buy the hill tile where the crossbow was standing, so that it would be teleported north and had to cross the river to attack. But it teleported West. So, I decided to attack then and there.  The UI showed a straight kill with the Cavalry attacking the XBow, but it survived with 9HP, so the knight had to finish it. Not all that bad, since the knight earned a promotion. After all this happened, I went to change my civics and realized I could have slotted in Wars of Religion for a 4 strength boost. Oh, well... I slotted that civic anyway, coupled with the 50% discount to upgrades. I also hovered above a Indian unit that I can see and it revealed Bacchus is also running Wars of Religion... Is this purely defensive or is he planning an attack? He has high power, but with Muskets as his best units, I don't think there's much he can do. --- Next turn, I mostly positioned units around and tried to finish an American horseman that I could have killed on the previous turn, if I had decided to attack on the beggining of the turn (as I've wasted a Cavalry movement only moving around, not attacking). That ended up with me messing the moves, leaving not only the horseman alive, but my GG exposed...   It seems I'm Civ 6 target audience... Anyway, I positioned units in a way that 4 cavs and a XBow could attack Eerie next turn, from nowhere basically. ---    That was a ramless attack, my friends. My idea was just taking out the walls, but it was more effective than I anticipated. Worth noticing that I had +14 from Wars of Religion and CRUSADE!! Bardism is a bloodthirsty religion.  I kept the city, because why not. That spot is a bloody one alright. Suboptimal settled it, I took it from Suboptimal, Rowain took it from me and razed it. He resettled it and now I've come to take it back again.  Rowain's army is mostly 2 movers and that's pretty bad for him. I can get to his vulnerable cities faster than he can defend. From now on, all fight is in his continent, and without Crusade, so he'll have a bit more oomph. But if I happen to capture a city... Holy moly, I will get a free Redcoat! Everyone doubted that I could do it, but here you go, haters! England beeing useful for once and whatnot. My forces can actually redeploy pretty easily to go against Bacchus, if he decides to attack me.  Zanzibar is also helping in the campaign, as you can see. ----  The turn after I just moved units around and healed the wounded ones. The UI tells me that I can use the roads in Rowain lands, so the Ram could get to New Haven in 2 more turns (so I can attack in 2). That's the plan for now, although I think Bacchus may decide to do something about it. Now that I think of it, there's likely no peace to be gained from Rowain or Bacchus, so I'm playing AW for the rest of the game. My current plans are to advance against Rowain, if Bacchus leaves me alone. If I force Bacchus to move, I can perhaps go and murder his army. Next turn I'll have 3 Frigates upgraded, which get boosted by my GAdmiral. They will raid Bacchus coast, with the help from my galley, that is there just to take 0 HP cities, if the opportunity presents itself (just realized that would give me free Redcoats, in the very core of Bacchus land). Yes, England is attacking America and terrorizing India from the seas, as one would expect. I'm also going to switch to the +50% to Cavalry civic and builds Cavalries and Knights (for upgrade into tanks), with Industrialization boosted mines. I'm also on a campaign for Eurekas, which includes building Swordsmen, to later upgrade into 3 muskets (I can build swords, as I don't have niter). A little more and I'll hopefully have enough units to defend against Bacchus and attack Rowain. Meanwhile, I conquer what I can and raze coastal cities where possible. --- Domestic stuff:    Any questions? Quote:Anyway, enough for today. This is just a big mess, but it's not like I want to be known as a Civ 6 specialist or anything. It's just a bunch of random thoughts. I still want to talk about policy cards, chopping, upgrading, the value of districts and district buildings, comparision between early science and early culture, Choral Music, Civilizations and the path that seems to be the best way to go in regards to teching.I'm still looking forward to this, that's my question. :D
I Think I'm Gwangju Like It Here
A blog about my adventures in Korea, and whatever else I feel like writing about.
February 19th, 2018, 10:25
(This post was last modified: February 19th, 2018, 10:26 by Ichabod.)
So, here's an interesting fact. Great Generals and Admirals don't stack anymore. And by not stack I mean they don't even apply their bonus even once. This is totally bullshit. My GG and GA aren't giving the bonus they are supposed to, since last turn at least. Because of this, I can take a city from Rowain that I should be able to capture and all my units are more vulnerable.
Any idea of what's going on? And yes, the GG and GA are from the appropriate eras. And the bonus was working not long ago. |
