Civ 6 Release and Update Discussion Thread

[Singaboy]

An open challenge which encourages a much livelier debate would be very welcome. As you rightly pointed out, civ 6 has some mechanisms that are intriguing. It's just that victory conditions are pretty cheesy or just too long drawn out to complete a full game. A partial open competition would be great, with pit stops after a number of turns.

Right now, Civ6 is still largely virgin territory waiting to be explored. What's out there that we don't know about yet? Who's going to play this game's version of LOTR2 Zealous Zulus succession game (Arathorn's first-ever Always War game in Civ3), this game's version of the Cuban Isolationists

Well, I played my Emperor AW game at CFC as a single player experience. As I mentioned before, I currently find my entertainment with civ 6 in trying to beat the insane deity AW variant at Inland Seas. It's brutal. The biggest challenge I have is to be able to conquer cities without going bankrupt (you need plenty units to counter the AI and attack their cities on deity). The AI advances very fast and hence, their city defenses are that strong that it takes forever to take out walls (to suppress counter fire) and then to wear down health. If you try and take out a city with 47 strength with 2 catapults and archers, it takes forever and one has to be really careful not to lose units right away due to counter fire. Now, that is a field I find fun exploring.

[Ruined Everything]

A culture victory exploring civ 6's wonders might be a lot of fun. What about no building buildings in culture districts, ever? All tourism has to come from religion, wonders, and the few great works slots they provide.

Alternatively, deity AW, no domination victory allowed? Takes away the pain of moving masses of units each turn, and a good way for more experience members to share ideas & tips.

[yuris125]

I like the idea of mini-challenges. I also will try and play Adventure 2, however much I may grumble about the game

One thing I hope we can do is allow spoilers while the adventure is running (with perhaps an agreement that those playing or intending to play don't read spoiler threads?). You know I haven't been good with game reporting for a long time, with Adventure 1 and Civ5 PBEM5 being exceptions rather than the rule - and I can see how the requirement to report the game day and weeks after it's finished just adds a pull away from the adventure

[BRickAstley]

There does seem to be quite a lot of interest expressed (both here and in the discord) to at least allow players to post Adventure reports in spoiler threads, and then just allowing everyone to read other threads on the closing thread. Does anyone see any downsides to this change?

[Sullla]

I'm still not a fan of the idea of having open spoiler threads for ongoing Epics/Adventures. As soon as we open up spoiler threads for an ongoing competition, they become interactive events and we lose the pure Single Player aspect. This is one topic where I'm ready to be a stick in the mud and push back against suggestions for change.

I was thinking along the lines of having two separate setups: our traditional Epics setup and then a series of other events that are open thread / full spoilers. Since it sounds like there's interest in both kinds of events, why not run both of them? This was my idea for the first such mini-challenge:

Civ6 Mini-Challenge 1
Leader: Gilgamesh of Sumeria
Duration: 75 turns (up to 1000 BC)
Goal: Research the most techs/civics combined by the end of the duration.

Everyone would play the same savegame file up to the start of the Turn 76 turn (1000 BC). The goal would be to get the most total numbers of techs + civics researched in the time period. I picked Gilgamesh because war carts allow rushing if desired, and his unique building (ziggurat) may actually be desirable to build for this scenario. 2 beakers is a good amount in the early game. There should be room to take the game in a number of different directions even in the first 75 turns. (And of course, anyone really enjoying the game could keep on playing further if desired.)

How does that sound as an idea? If this sounds silly, we can easily do something else instead.

[T-hawk]

I agree with Sullla.  The Epics aren't meant to be interactive.  They are competitions.  Like you said before, everything else OTHER than the Epics/Adventures can be as interactive and talkative as we want.  Those are the ONE place where we put the integrity of a competition ahead of community discussion.

But there really is a problem of bad optics here.  RB is known for the Epic events.  That's the image and definition of the site and forum, outside of the multiplayer stuff.  Any stance we take against spoiler threads turns into "RB HATES COMMUNITY DISCUSSION!!!"  Doesn't matter whether it's true, doesn't matter how many other activities are going on, doesn't matter how ignorant the commenters are.  That's the sound-bite headline perception that sticks.  And we need to solve it.

Perhaps we could use one problem to fix another.  Take advantage of our existing established split between the names of the Epics and Adventures.  Adventures could be open for spoiler discussion and Epics the closed competitions.  That sounds like it would satisfy everybody with good optics, right?  And better for understandability than opening a third line of "mini-challenges".

[T-hawk]

There does seem to be quite a lot of interest expressed (both here and in the discord) to at least allow players to post Adventure reports in spoiler threads, and then just allowing everyone to read other threads on the closing thread. Does anyone see any downsides to this change?

I don't agree here. "Post but don't read" is going to cause confusion at best and cheating at worst. Whatever gets posted needs to be freely readable to everyone involved. I don't think the multiplayer threads are sufficient precedent. A single player event is meant to be read and compared by everyone; it's a different tenor than the multiplayer games, which are obviously meant to be played in secrecy. You will have people reading ahead no matter what, either conveniently forgetting or just blatantly disregarding the spoiler policy. CFC realized long ago that this didn't work for their GOTMs and just opened up spoiler discussion for everyone.

[yuris125]

Personally I don't see a major difference between SP and MP spoiler threads. As far as I see it, the same rules can apply to both - if you're playing the game, don't read other people's threads; if you're lurking, don't post any strategic advice. Probably the biggest difference is that in SP you may get the urge to join the game after reading a few spoiler threads. But that's what shadow games are for?

Anyway, if you do insist on keeping the no spoilers policy for SP, I like idea of making the spoiler policy the distinction between epics and adventures - makes a lot of sense

[oledavy]

Perhaps we could use one problem to fix another.  Take advantage of our existing established split between the names of the Epics and Adventures.  Adventures could be open for spoiler discussion and Epics the closed competitions.  That sounds like it would satisfy everybody with good optics, right?  And better for understandability than opening a third line of "mini-challenges".

This sounds like an excellent solution.

[The Black Sword]

Personally I don't see a major difference between SP and MP spoiler threads. As far as I see it, the same rules can apply to both - if you're playing the game, don't read other people's threads; if you're lurking, don't post any strategic advice. Probably the biggest difference is that in SP you may get the urge to join the game after reading a few spoiler threads. But that's what shadow games are for?

Anyway, if you do insist on keeping the no spoilers policy for SP, I like idea of making the spoiler policy the distinction between epics and adventures - makes a lot of sense

The downside to having 2 sets of events is that it's twice as much work. Is that worth the guarantee that people aren't cheating? (and obviously there are other ways to cheat if people are determined). There is something to be said for tradition too though.