Civ 6 Release and Update Discussion Thread

[haphazard1]

I would think increasing costs for things over time makes perfect sense logically since building a modern automated dairy farm certainly takes more effort than putting up an old wood barn and a farm house.

A modern automated dairy farm is a lot more productive than its 3000 BC equivalent. Paying more for a more productive tile improvement would make sense. But paying more to get the same improvement?

Re: Sirian's point, I found Soren's city maintenance brake less gamey because it is pretty easy to rationalize: a larger and more spread out empire has higher overhead costs in the form of administration, delays in messaging/travel/etc. It may just be hand-wavium, but it makes sense to me.

Anyone got a good hand-wavium explanaton for increasingly expensive builders?

[haphazard1]

Since wonder spamming in a single city is a lot weaker, I wonder how a 1CC would play out?

Civ4 you survive 1CC with wonder spam giving a ton of GPP.  Trying to figure out how to 1CC Civ6 could be interesting.

I was thinking about 1CC as well. Not just the wonders, but districts. You are limited by both available tiles and the pop requirement, so your one city will be permanently excluded from building a large selection of buildings. I think without at least some relaxation of the district limits that 1CC is going to be an incredibly tough challenge.

[picklepikkl]

I'm pretty confident that as the game stands right now, amenities do not limit expansion in any hard manner.  This is b/c of the interaction of the Entertainment districts & their AoE amenity granting buildings.  I'll crunch the numbers tonight when I get home.

That doesn't seem like a problem, given how nontrivial an investment setting up the Zone Of Happy would be.

[SevenSpirits]

What is the justification for the increasing cost of builders? My people get worse at building farms/mines/pastures/etc. the more of them we build, rather than getting better with experience and improving technology? It just feels incredibly gamey, an obviously artificial brake on development, and it breaks me out of my immersion.

Hey, according to Civ5, people become unhappy whenever you found a new city. So unhappy that they have to spend more effort researching every tech. If you keep that in mind, everything makes perfect sense

Were the previous versions of snowball control any less gamey? (Corruption, Unhappy People, City Revolts. Soren's city maintenance system)

The answer might be "yes". (I haven't played any of 6 yet to see for myself). But at best, it's a question of degree. Gamey-ness on this front is a cost of having a (re-)playable game.


The age old debate about what would be the least-gamey (least unfun) way to diminish returns from additional cities would be worth revisiting. But it might warrant its own thread, or it could hijack this one completely.


- Sirian

In my opinion, Civ V's global happiness was actually somewhat close to feeling historically accurate. Rename it to Order, and make not having enough of it naturally tax your treasury instead of food (sort of like if you were playing civ IV and forced to use the culture slider). And include health/housing in the game too as a per-city limiter that softcaps growth similarly to 6's housing mechanics.

Civ 5 felt gamey because it makes no sense for adding a city to reduce FOOD elsewhere. But Civ 4's version, where you have to spend increasing amounts of gold to manage a sprawling empire, makes perfect sense - it was just perhaps a bit too hidden. Civ 6's again feels gamey because why would the PRODUCTION costs go up for workers and settlers? It's managing a big empire that's supposed to be hard, not building a city that gets harder if you've already built one.

[fluffyflyingpig]

1CC still works, at least on prince. Only a small handful of techs and actions are actually helpful. Though it helps that the ai on prince is incapable of coming remotely close to winning on its own before the game ends.....

Kongo with a ton of bonuses for great works is pretty clearly the best choice. And Petra with desert hills is somehow ever stronger than in civ v.


City development over time is interesting. You push out a ton of builders to chop everything asap and replace with farms for the housing. Then once you finish growing to whatever max size you want, you pave the farms over with wonders or districts and have the citizens work as specialists to avoid growth. Having fewer houses than people doesn't matter since you're not trying to grow anyway so the 75% growth Markus doesn't matter and neighborhoods aren't useful.

You want to stop growing to stay in the ecstatic amenity range for the 10% tile yield boost. Unfortunately there is no apparent way to see if the next pop will cost you another amenity, unless I'm missing something.

[picklepikkl]

You want to stop growing to stay in the ecstatic amenity range for the 10% tile yield boost. Unfortunately there is no apparent way to see if the next pop will cost you another amenity, unless I'm missing something.

Every odd pop after 1 requires an amenity.

So 3 is your first amenity, then 5, 7...

[sunrise089]

I would think increasing costs for things over time makes perfect sense logically since building a modern automated dairy farm certainly takes more effort than putting up an old wood barn and a farm house.

Do later game districts give you additional output? If not I don't think the analogy holds - the modern dairy farm is actually much less costly per unit of output, which is why it has largely crowded out the old fashioned kind.

EDIT: sorry, didn't realize there was another page of posts since.

[Dreylin]

Anyone got a good hand-wavium explanaton for increasingly expensive builders?

Minimum Wage, man!

[SevenSpirits]

Can anyone explain to me how traders and trade routes work?

I ask because I like having roads between my cities.

[Singaboy]

Trade routes turn quickly into some micromanagement as they get reassigned every now and then.

By the way, I am pretty clueless as to how exactly war weariness works in my AW game as Kongo. I posted a screenshot with some weird information. I have started a discussion over at civfanatics. Here is something I am trying to figure out and confirm:

I could see some rough pattern for eliminated Nations:

Capitals no war weariness
population 1-5 war weariness 0
population 6- 10 war weariness -5
population 11 - ? war weariness -6

For Nations still at war like iwnw (Egypt), higher war weariness.

anyone has experience with this?