Posts: 28
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2016
How about Three layers of starts: Good, Fair and crappy that people can then see what and how they can take and use all of the new stuff to thus succeed?? That way we get a really good look at "unbalanced" maps. If you "tweek" a map as you might with 4 (or 5), you might screw yourself up on how to play to the map... (or properly balancing for 6)...
Posts: 7,916
Threads: 158
Joined: Jan 2012
My thought on difficulty is to do a basic standard start for everyone to get their feet wet. Breaking out to different levels of challenge can go in following adventures. 
Posts: 3,537
Threads: 29
Joined: Feb 2013
We should probably avoid civs with terrain-specific bonuses -- Egypt is fine, as capitals are always on a river, but Arabia might be a problem if it's anything like Brazil, but desert-oriented
Posts: 23,582
Threads: 134
Joined: Jun 2009
(August 26th, 2016, 05:30)Bacchus Wrote: (August 25th, 2016, 13:19)Krill Wrote: I don't think being able to put 2 units on the same tile after half way through the game counts as "stacking limits which soften".
If they'd started off at three and rose to something decent like 7-8 with unit mixes available that would have been good. Now thye just let you combine the same unit into a stronger unit. That's not a stacking limit, that's a hammer sink.
Well, they do start off with a stack of 2 units (frontline+support) and end with 6 (frontline army + support army), if I understand correctly. And of course it's a hammer sink, that's the function that stacking has in the first place -- giving the ability to deploy, in a concentrated manner, your production as military strength.
I don't think I can agree: You can only combine the same units, so it has very limited combined arms, which is the second point in favour of stacking. That also provides tactical aspects to the game which don't exist in the new model. It's purely a hammer sink with none of the other benefits. I'm not saying the hammer sink isn't needed, I'm saying that this implementation is basic and not worth being called a "stacking limit which softens", which IMO implies that that stacking units in a combined arms manner (which is what it has always been in Civ) is being reintroduced.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
Posts: 28
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2016
(August 27th, 2016, 10:51)Krill Wrote: (August 26th, 2016, 05:30)Bacchus Wrote: (August 25th, 2016, 13:19)Krill Wrote: I don't think being able to put 2 units on the same tile after half way through the game counts as "stacking limits which soften".
If they'd started off at three and rose to something decent like 7-8 with unit mixes available that would have been good. Now thye just let you combine the same unit into a stronger unit. That's not a stacking limit, that's a hammer sink.
Well, they do start off with a stack of 2 units (frontline+support) and end with 6 (frontline army + support army), if I understand correctly. And of course it's a hammer sink, that's the function that stacking has in the first place -- giving the ability to deploy, in a concentrated manner, your production as military strength.
I don't think I can agree: You can only combine the same units, so it has very limited combined arms, which is the second point in favour of stacking. That also provides tactical aspects to the game which don't exist in the new model. It's purely a hammer sink with none of the other benefits. I'm not saying the hammer sink isn't needed, I'm saying that this implementation is basic and not worth being called a "stacking limit which softens", which IMO implies that that stacking units in a combined arms manner (which is what it has always been in Civ) is being reintroduced.
I imagine that this will be Moddable, hopefully.
Posts: 8,244
Threads: 30
Joined: Jun 2004
Pro-ordered Civ6 so I'm in for what ever event we run
Hopefully there is the possibility to use different starts for the same starting-continent as is needed for potluck.
For this I also ask to not balance the starts. The whole idea of potluck is to play the hand one is dealt no matter how crappy the start.
Maybe potluck would be better used for a later game?
August 29th, 2016, 09:15
(This post was last modified: August 29th, 2016, 09:23 by Bacchus.)
Posts: 3,537
Threads: 29
Joined: Feb 2013
There shouldn't be balancing of the starts, but there should be a sense-check to ensure the starts aren't insane, as it's not that informative to read games which have to deal with issues that only arise at the tails of the distribution (this applies both ways, of course). As for multiple starts, the Civ4 potluck ran with everyone starting in the same place. Provided that some kind soul will do the work, randomly assigning a start out of a set of, say, three, would also be cool. Maybe a more mountainy one, a coastal one, and a inner-continent one. Incidentally, if we do go with a single start, I think it's best if it wasn't too mountanious.
Bobchillingworth
Unregistered
I'm in favor of completely random starts. I intend to go into the event completely blind, and I think it'll be useful for the community to potentially have examples of how very strong and/or weak starts play out in Civ 6. I'm hoping this potluck could even serve as Civ 6's version of Sulla's Civ 4 introductory game report.
Posts: 910
Threads: 15
Joined: Apr 2013
(August 29th, 2016, 09:15)Bacchus Wrote: There shouldn't be balancing of the starts, but there should be a sense-check to ensure the starts aren't insane, as it's not that informative to read games which have to deal with issues that only arise at the tails of the distribution (this applies both ways, of course). As for multiple starts, the Civ4 potluck ran with everyone starting in the same place. Provided that some kind soul will do the work, randomly assigning a start out of a set of, say, three, would also be cool. Maybe a more mountainy one, a coastal one, and a inner-continent one. Incidentally, if we do go with a single start, I think it's best if it wasn't too mountanious. Keep in mind that mountains are supposed to be a useful tile in Civ6 according to the leaks. I vaguely remember something about it being a requirement for a city district.
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. - Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
Posts: 9,706
Threads: 69
Joined: Dec 2010
How can we know what a insane start looks like if we haven't even played a single game yet?
I obviously speak only for myself, but if we are going to set up a bunch of rules and conditions for this first game, I probably will sit out of the event. I didn't participate in the first events of any of the past Civ games, so I don't know how the tradition goes, but my idea of an initial game is to roll a map and everyone plays it (from the same start), then we compare afterwards to see what strategy and results people got (and how T-Hawk was already waiting for the rest of us in Alpha Centauri for about 1000 years). If that's the case, we go with the same Civ too, because otherwise we'll need map editing and things get too complicated.
And to give a nod to the veterans (Sirian, Sullla, et al), perhaps they could be the ones rolling the map and choosing the civ/leader/map type, if they are willing to do it.
|
