[Spoilers] Pindicator already misses slavery, and other out-of-context quotes

[pindicator]

I just realized that I have neglected to think about the most important thing of all: what will my naming scheme be?




Old version:

No, it will not be slavery themed.

[pindicator]

I think there's a big difference in the balance of military vs. economy in Civ 6 compared to Civ 4.  In Civ 4 the stronger play is always to develop your economy and only build military at the last possible moment and then use it as quickly as possible:  there is no good use for military just standing around in 4 - it needs to be actively taking land from another player or be used as a way of forcing you to get what you want by the threat of it taking land.  There is no good use for it during peace.  Therefore you want to build as little as possible up until the point where you really need it.  On the other side of that coin, building your economy is a much better investment.  In the meta-game of warring expansion vs peaceful expansion, peaceful expansion is almost always the preferred method.  (And if this sounds wrong to any of you vets, perhaps this is why I have had worse and worse results in my last Civ 4 games.)

In Civ 6, I think we're seeing the inverse is true: that military is the better investment to your empire than buildings.  You have barbarians to fight to safeguard your trade routes and builders; you have city-states to conquer to add to your empire; and the game also shines with more tactical options available for using your units in.  I'm ready to go out on a limb and say that as much as economy was preferred over military in Civ 4, that military is preferred over economy in Civ 6.  (Might be reaching for effect here a bit, but let's roll with it.)  It's a lot easier to use a military investment to catapult you into immediate gains in 6 than it is in 4:  pillaging is much stronger, city-states conquered have no resistance or occupation time, monuments make going wide a superior culture-gaining strategy, and most importantly captured cities do not increase your next settler's cost.  Meanwhile on the economic side of things, the game penalizes going for mass-districts by making them cost more if you have more than your opponents, and the game scaling is such that if you are not going to plant the district super-early, the cost growth is the worst at the beginning of the game.

Perhaps I'm a bit biased based on the success I've seen Ichabod achieve with pushing for more military than his neighbors.  Military rushes worked just as well in Civ 4.  However, I don't think that you could have continued to see the same economic growth while militariliy expanding in Civ 4 that you can see in 6.  You don't have to deal with ballooning costs as you acquire more cities.  If you are winning battles then you do not even need to replenish troops in the same manner as you do in Civ 4.  (I will not miss losing 90% battles and having that cost me a high-exp unit!).

With that in mind, expect me to go military early and often.

Unless the map says otherwise, of course...

TL/DR: Civ 4 is an economic game with units thrown in.  Civ 6 is a military game with some economic-stuff thrown in.

[Ichabod]

Another thing about early military in Civ 6 is that upgrading units with gold is better than building the new units with hammers. You can skip the double strategic resource requirement and the cost is pretty reasonable (there's even the civic that cuts the price in half). So building warriors early is better than building swords/muskets later.

Finally, if you get caught with your pants down when a neighbour attacks, there's no slavery to save you (and your opponents know this, so they are more likely to want to attack). You either have gold to upgrade units, builders to chop, or you'll lose your cities very quickly, because it takes a while to build units.

The equation probably changes a bit later in the game, because upkeep costs start becoming a problem. But on the early game, where warriors are free and archers can easily be free, having some around is definetely a good investment.

[BRickAstley]

Pindicator, you totally just started this game so you could post your treatise

[pindicator]

Pindicator, you totally just started this game so you could post your treatise

And post eu4 screenshots!

[pindicator]

And now Realms Beyond presents their version of....



Bachelor #1



Leader Bonus - Roosevelt Corollary
+5 strength to units on their home continent
+1 appeal to all tiles in a city with a national park
Access to the Rough Rider Unit after researching Rifling

Civilization Ability - Founding Fathers
Earn government legacy bonuses in half the time

Unique Unit
P51 Mustang

Unique Building
Film Studio


When PBEM3 was setting up I was telling Ichabod about how much I was hoping we would get America for a chance at the +5 strength on home continent, and I don't think my views on that bonus have lessened at all since then.  That ability just screams "go out and rush someone" to me.  But that is also the only early-game bonus America gets.  Rough Riders come in with Rifling, which is Industrial Era.  The P51 Mustang is a good bonus for the beginning of the air game, but this is in the Atomic Era.  And the Film Studio is in the Modern Era.  So we are going to be relying on that +5 as our strategic advantage for most of the game as America.

I do like the Rough Rider unit, though I haven't played with it much.  It's very cheap, occupies a unique spot on the unit tree as the only heavy cavalry unit between knights and tanks, and is very strong.  If you haven't seen the unit before it gets an impressive list of buffs:

• 67 strength
  
• +10 strength on hills
  
• Only costs 2 maintenance
  
• Requires no strategic resources
  
• Earns culture for killing units on your home continent
  

The last one is map dependent, but I think there are good odds that even if I do try to run wild militarily in the early game that there will still be combat on the same continent by the time we get to the Industrial Era.

Roosevelt also is built for a culture/tourism win later down the line.  Gaining extra appeal from National Parks, converting that appeal to Tourism with Seaside Resorts, and then building Film Studios to boost that Tourism all seem like a strong finisher to a tourism victory.  I do question how viable a tourism victory would be against human players instead of the AI, but it may be the kind of thing that can tip a close game.

I don't think the civilization ability is anything more than a minor bonus.  I don't think I've ever picked my government based on their legacy bonus.


Bachelor #2



Leader Bonus - Thunderbolt of the North
Allows Coastal Raiding for all naval melee units
+50% production towards naval melee units
Allows building of Viking Longship

Civilization Ability - Knarr
Units gain ability to enter ocean tiles after researching Shipbuilding.
Naval melee units heal in neutral territory.
Movement costs for embarking and disembarking are ignored.

Unique Unit
Berserker

Unique Building
Stave Church

This feels like the mapmaker is saying "Trust me, there's going to be water in this pangaea game."  And I really want to trust him, I really do.  The coastal raiding thing is really powerful and neat; i think there's a lot of potential for pillaging coastlines in a game where everyone will be ignoring water.  But there are some fun aspects to play around with here as well.  Berserkers seem like the kind of unit that can wreck havoc like horsemen ... except they lose out on one of the biggest benefits of having a lot of movement: namely being able to attack in from out of the fog.  (They probably work better when launching from the coast where the enemy can't attack them and has to cover too many weakpoints due to their movement.)  Stave church seems like a generic building for faith, and nothing that I'm terribly excited about.

The biggest thing I'm excited for though would be the ability to embark before anybody else could - being able to grab new territory or launch attacks from avenues unavailable to my opponents could be a lot of fun, especially in a game that emphasizes units.

But while Herald seems like he has some potential, I just don't see the fit as working out on this map.  I'm going to go ahead and eliminate him now.


Bachelor #3



Leader Bonus - The Grand Embassy
International trade routes to more advanced civs give extra science and culture

Civilization Ability - Mother Russia
Gain extra territory when founding cities
Gain +1 production and faith from tundra tiles

Unique Unit
Cossack

Unique Infrastructure
Lavra

I have to admit that I am very tempted by Russia.  The civilization ability means you don't have to purchase those needed tiles early on and turns tundra into usable tiles.  The leader bonus is kind of meh, it's something that players wouldn't let you take advantage of the way that AI will.  But the real strength is the Cossack, and we saw Alhambram really showcase just how insane a strategy of building up faith with Lavras and tundra and then mass-purchasing Cossacks with that faith can be.  Truthfully, I think Russia is the strongest of the 3 civs, and following the blueprint that Alhambram laid out in PBEM2 is a great plan to follow.


We'll keep the gameshow theme for a bit longer and make you all wait for my decision.

[pindicator]

Sent my PM to Cornflakes.

And as nice as Peter and Russia are, I have to go for America. We are going to be attacking early and often in this game: whether it's barbarians to press out to settle new lands and gain Eurekas!, attacking city-states to expand our lands without building expensive settlers, or pushing for an early rush against a neighbor. All that other stuff that comes later in the game is just frosting on the +5 combat cake.

[Ichabod]

I think Russia would have been better. As much as I liked Alhambram's win in PBEM 2, his early game was not that good. Russia should be way more dominant than that early (with a fast religion and Great Works + the acquired city tiles). They are more powerful than what was shown there.

The problem with America is that the bonuses are map dependant and not that meaningful. The way I see them being useful is helping against City States and Barbs. If our opponents are competent, 5 strength won't make a difference in a early war, as defense is still better than offense. But even against CSs, they need to be on our continent and close for capture, and I think we could capture them even without the bonus (as it's AI).

On the other hand, Russia gives us a power spike that will always be meaningful. And you get economic bonuses to get there too.

[pindicator]

Yeah, I agree that Russia was the strongest. I just didn't want to play with them, and as much as that isn't really a great reason it's the one I went with.

I may be going a little too all-in on this military push initially. But I will not let that dictate things once we get into the game and see what the stats are. Yet as far as map-dependent bonuses go, I would argue that having a bonus that works on your starting continent is one of the more easier to fulfill.

I've also just really wanted to play America in an MP setting.

[AdrienIer]

Chooses a theme of slavery

Picks America

Makes sense