Civ 6 Release and Update Discussion Thread

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

FYI, I disagree with the DoF blockade ban and would not abide by it. Disagree with about half the rest, too, but most of those are civ choices or stuff like that and I just wouldn't take the objected-to civs.

[civac2]

Withdrawal setting in?

[MJW (ya that one)]

FYI, I disagree with the DoF blockade ban and would not abide by it. Disagree with about half the rest, too, but most of those are civ choices or stuff like that and I just wouldn't take the objected-to civs.

For Civs, I don't get it. 4/5 of them that would normally be banned (the other two are only for gimmick maps) can launch unstoppable rushes. Maya is the only exception that I made and that happened because they were already an okay before their free worker bonus and I feel that's worth about starting with a free settler at the start of the game. 

If you trust people with tactical DoWs there's no logistical hurdle to banning multi-unit blockades. If you are arguing that that's good for the game DoF is OP otherwise, then we can just ban DoF rather than allow dumb blockades.    

Thinking about Woden's complaint about getting access to low-tier units (that helps religious civs more). I would want to ban it if it would cause Russia to get banned and no otherwise. It's okay if it pushes Khmer over the top because they were borderline anyway. I don't yet think it's good enough to ban Russia.

Edit: I also said this in my big post.

"-Making tactical DoW. (I don't like this rule because I don't trust people to act in good faith. I would remove this and blockades and then add Australia instead. Australia would be too much without this because you really want to block other players from conquest in civ6.)"

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

It's not a logistical hurdle, it's that DoFs are a part of the game. I don't see why people feel that using units during a DoF as they were intended - to enforce your desires and not your opponent's - is somehow unfair. It's perfectly symmetrical gameplay, it's perfectly predictable, and it's perfectly counterable - either don't sign a DoF if you suspect it might happen, or go around.

Banning it ties players' hands entirely unnecessarily, removes much of the downsides of signing DoFs (which accordingly changes the risk/reward ratio), and adds a whole bunch of rules-lawyering situations that otherwise wouldn't exist. Same with 'tactical' DoWs, I don't really see how it's abusable. Declaring war on, say, Australia, or Persia randomly declaring war on other players, has a whole lot of risk and downsides to maybe slow down an enemy conquest or speed up your own.

In general I think we should give players more tools, not less, and minimize the amount of house rules we play with. The only things that really should be banned are things that warp gameplay (race for VA or lose, maybe race for Work Ethic?) or are uncounterable (Colombia just getting +1 with every unit and stackable great generals, Scytha's VA horses). Pillaging I'm not really sold on banning, but I could see it being 'required' to get ahead and requiring cheesy gameplay around city-states, so fine.

[MJW (ya that one)]

It's not a logistical hurdle, it's that DoFs are a part of the game. I don't see why people feel that using units during a DoF as they were intended - to enforce your desires and not your opponent's - is somehow unfair. It's perfectly symmetrical gameplay, it's perfectly predictable, and it's perfectly counterable - either don't sign a DoF if you suspect it might happen, or go around.

Banning it ties players' hands entirely unnecessarily, removes much of the downsides of signing DoFs (which accordingly changes the risk/reward ratio), and adds a whole bunch of rules-lawyering situations that otherwise wouldn't exist. Same with 'tactical' DoWs, I don't really see how it's abusable. Declaring war on, say, Australia, or Persia randomly declaring war on other players, has a whole lot of risk and downsides to maybe slow down an enemy conquest or speed up your own.

In general I think we should give players more tools, not less, and minimize the amount of house rules we play with. The only things that really should be banned are things that warp gameplay (race for VA or lose, maybe race for Work Ethic?) or are uncounterable (Colombia just getting +1 with every unit and stackable great generals, Scytha's VA horses). Pillaging I'm not really sold on banning, but I could see it being 'required' to get ahead and requiring cheesy gameplay around city-states, so fine.

Blockades are much cheesier than Tactical DoWs. So, I would ban Blockades if we ban Tactical DoWs.

Tactical DoWs really wouldn't do anything expect Australia which would cause the civ to be banned. Killing people is how you win Civ6 due to no corruption. If Australia kills you lose anyway. But if you would kill Australia people would tactical DoW it to screw you over. So ,your screwed if Australia spawns next to you and that should cause the civ to be banned. I would just ban Australia instead of Tactical DoWs which would free us to do what we want for blockades (I would still now lean a little to banning them).  

Work ethic wouldn't be a race because at least one of Khmer+Russia would be in the game. And they would get it for free as they are the only civs that would build a large amount of holy sites.     

Disregarding the two civs that are banned on not played-on gimmick maps, you already agree with 2/5. I don't think Hungry is counterable, Scooter's unfortunate game here is a great example. And Babylon's attack is even worse. If you concede here we are at 4/5, with the only difference being Maya.

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

Apparently Civ Vi isn't done with the DLCs yet.

[Krill]

Civ 7 not due before October 2024? I was expecting a release around next year as 7 years without a release is a long time.

[T-hawk]

I was wondering that too - the time since Civ 6 has already been the longest gap between Civ releases ever. And there haven't been any spinoffs like Colonization or Alpha Centauri or Beyond Earth either.

Although I have no idea what else would be put in a Civ 7. Civ 6 is already bloatedly overstuffed with mechanics.

[Modo]

Tbh I've also been put off by this in Civ6 and hope 7 would be more streamlined but was curious why you haven't found anything interesting to do with it, T-hawk? Aside from the comp specs and not to imply you're into overcomplicated stuff but why for example something similar with what you did with Civ5 didn't strike your fancy with this one?

[T-hawk]

I never bought Civ 6 at all. Computer specs are the easy thing where I don't have to make the decision, I'd have to build a new computer for it and haven't wanted to bother. If I did, I probably would do what I did with Civ 5 and SMAC. Although there are some arguments against it - one would seem to be that optimal time to a victory type would require the right great people to come up in the right order every time.

More generally, I wasn't interested early on in seeing how some of the multiplayer games here went. The mechanics seemed badly skewed, everything was about manipulating cost modifiers (build and chop everything when you've got +100% for some reason) and discount formulas (lock in your district cost long before you actually build it.) I haven't followed how any of that was ever changed in the patches and expansions. (Funny part is that I used to trash Sullla for giving up on Civ 5 early and not keeping up with the balance fixes in patches, and then I did exactly that for Civ 6. )