Civ 6 Release and Update Discussion Thread

[TheArchduke]

Yeah, I concur. With Magnus they basically showed that they have zero idea what they are doing.

You need exactly one game to figure out, hey that one is broken.

And then a second one to break the curve.

But as usually in MP, if everyone can break the game, it equals out.

The AI on the other hand. Wow..

[Rowain]

Okay I played a couple more games of R&F now, and loyalty is just an absurd system. Not only is city flipping after conquest back, it is even worse than it used to be in old titles, often flipping back to the defender in ~10 turns (5 to go "free city", 5 to go back to original owner ). It's a fun little puzzle in Single Player to figure out how to hit the high population core cities to break the loyalty chain, but I shudder to think how much this'll break Multiplayer. It seems like it'll make defense stupendously easy, especially now that GG stacking is gone (right?). I'll wait and see in our first R&F game, but I think modding it out may be the better solution.

Raze is the way to go. Or settle up close up so your Loyalit is strong enough to hold.

I'm not sure that beeing no longer able to hold on a city deeply in your enemies culture and far away from your own is a bad thing.

[Rowain]

Yeah, I concur. With Magnus they basically showed that they have zero idea what they are doing.

You need exactly one game to figure out, hey that one is broken.

And then a second one to break the curve.

But as usually in MP, if everyone can break the game, it equals out.

The AI on the other hand. Wow..

Why does anyone think they care much about balance? Given some civs from original over DC to expansion I would have thought that it has become clear that they don't.

[TheArchduke]

Why does anyone think they care much about balance? Given some civs from original over DC to expansion I would have thought that it has become clear that they don't.

One can always hope. They do care about balance (but it is the warlord SP crowd). That is why they "nerfed" science by reducing science by pop.

And then they design Korea. Which can bascially break the science sound barrier in any way, shape or form atm.

Loyalty has not been a problem in my conquests so far, a garrison and a governour is all that is needed.

[Rowain]

The SP -players can chose the difficulty they want to play with by combining the AI-difficulty and the Civ and have fun and victories as they desire.

The MP-players that really want a balanced match can chose snowflake-map and everyone plays the same Leader.

I fear to strife for more is an exercise in futility.

[Singaboy]

So everyone is about Magnus

You don't need that to have a game completely out of whack. I tested a game as Russia with the aim to get a lot of faith. Why? Once you are in a Golden Age (to be honest, it's pretty easy to stay in GA for a long time if you expand and attack your opponents too and have lots of barbarians living on those ice plates), you can buy settlers and builders with faith.

I am making 300 faith a turn and can easily buy a settler a turn. Expansion is limitless. I didn't even abuse Magnus much. Everone on civfanatics seems so excited about R&F. I guess it feels so good to win big against an AI that has got no clue how to make use of all those exploits. Yes, the initial stages are tougher as the AI likes to attack and loyalty gives you a headache when not in GA. Once you have taken out your first opponent, you can steamroll any way you like. Zzzzz

I am really wondering how to balance MP. The next PBEM will be most interesting or maybe very boring if one guy can outwit all the rest.

[Krill]

So, uh, has anyone noticed there is a world builder now under additional content? Any decent guides for it?

[MJW (ya that one)]

Played a few more games.

The barbs are nasty enough on IMM (they scale with game difficulty now) that you are forced to build a big military. You are pretty much forced to go to war now to avoid wasting all your production. IMM is still easily beatable if you rush (battering ram) so that's it. The governor's would just make it even easier to win after you take out a single guy.

Deity would require a little more luck to win.

[Japper007]

Played a few more games.

The barbs are nasty enough on IMM (they scale with game difficulty now) that you are forced to build a big military. You are pretty much forced to go to war now to avoid wasting all your production. IMM is still easily beatable if you rush (battering ram) so that's it. The governor's would just make it even easier to win after you take out a single guy.

Deity would require a little more luck to win.

I've found the need for more troops because of barbs too (can't go Builder-Settler opening anymore without getting both stolen), though in Multiplayer building military is probably a good instinct either way. Deity is still really winnable, though not as easy as it once was. You now just need to build with the idea of an expected invasion in mind and then crush it when it comes, after that you kill the AI that was rushing you and coast to victory as long as you don't have an utterly boned start it's doable.

[Cornflakes]

Barbs are definitely increased on higher difficulties now! Used to be a barb scout returning trigger the camp to erupt with 2 melee + 1 ranged ... now on Diety I watched a camp produce 3 melee and then 3 ranged, 1/turn for 6 consecutive turns! Might be interesting to try another Rome vs. Barbarians style adventure. Would there be any interest if I organized one and created the starting save? (maybe not with Rome since we've seen that played several times).