Civilization 6

ShaneU

A Civ sends missionaries to one of my cities and converts it to their religion. I send over an apostle and convert it back. Then they denounce me for converting one of THEIR cities. Gas.

The_Valeyard

Shiminay wrote: »

Well whatever about the rest of ye, I'm loving this game

You would....Lucifier????

Edit: ignore that post. Wrong forum. Apologies.


I miss sleep.

Although on the Lucifer thingz I'd like a remake of Afterlife.

Pepe LeFrits

TheChrisD wrote: »

1) Not a bug. Actually a feature. Or at least I'm going on that based on the fact there's an achievement for it: Selfie Win a regular game with a Culture victory with your leader in the game as your opponent as well

2) Did someone declare a formal war on you without denouncement in the early game? Then they actually declared a Joint war, and Japan must've been the one they negotiated it with.

mmm, yeah I was at war with someone already. Seems a little odd that you can be at war with someone you haven't even met, although it wasn't a huge issue as I made peace immediately after meeting.

While I think it's fine to have playing against the same Civ as an option, it shouldn't happen unless you specify it IMO. I find it annoying.

Goodshape

Goodshape wrote: »

Or maybe I'm in for a rude awakening in the 2nd millennium! Those Norwegians have been building a bit of an army at the border, come to think of it :-/

They did attack, of course, but their numbers were no match for my more advanced units. Good fun mowing them down.

One thing I have noticed, think it's been mentioned above, the AI doesn't ever stop producing units! The map gets flooded with them. I'm playing a civilised game with lots of peace agreements but I've had to stop offering open borders or alliances with my close neighbours, because my land just gets overrun with obsolete units from them. Bloody pikemen all over the place.

I don't think anybody's ever been at war with Gilgamesh so he just keeps pumping these units out. Doesn't seem to have any intention of using them. Bit annoying for sure.

J Mysterio

France are doing that in my game. Apparently Catherine is 'paranoid', which certainly holds true with her behaviour, the nutty bitch.

Zillah

TheChrisD wrote: »

The penalty for expansion is 1) districts go up in price as more are built, to the point where new cities can be building even the most basic of districts for 30-40 turns. 2) your amenities from luxuries get spread out further and further, so you need to pad out your cities with Entertainment districts to make up for it.

Those aren't downsides to expansion, those are speed bumps to expansion; very different to Civ 5's culture/science penalties. The fact that your bigger neighbours are expanding more slowly than they were earlier is little consolation if you try the narrow/tall approach (which seems to no longer be a valid strategy).

The_Valeyard

right......

Kongo declares war,

As war drags on, I eventually get upper hand (playing Romans, chariots useless, finally get Legions, slowly drive them back)

I capture a Kongo city. I raze tiles in other city spheres, I smash their forces.

They offer me peace and surrender another city and let me have the city I captured.


15 turns later.....


They condemn me for capturing their cities and this condemnation is backed by other empires???

But they were the aggressors?

Shiminay

I hit a glitch last night where I declared war on myself (or so the animation told me) after 2 civs, one of whom I hadn't yet discovered) declared a joint war on me. What makes it even weirder, we weren't even slightly close to one another and the warring armies didn't send a single unit my way - England and I knew about each other's capitals, that was about it. In the same game, I have Spain and the US on my landmass (2 continents which keeps things interesting with Teddy). Spain seemed to realise after an early war that it was never gonna touch me and so it set itself against the 3 or 4 City States on our landmass and conqered them really quickly. So I've started to liberate them from the horrors of Spain. I'm aiming for a Religious victory though, after fighting some supremely powerful Japanese Apostles off (I dunno what perks Japan was using, but his Apostles were absolutly battering mine across the map), the only other significant religion left is Arabia's Islam which I've started to chip away at.

I like the new mechanics for cities, districts and wonders a lot. It serves to make "quick glance" play easier - now I can focus down the enemy city that's going to be producing the pimped out XP laden new units when we're expanding our borders

The whole visual design looks great and the suggestions that this will also look well on a tablet certainly holds true and shows that tablet gaming is definitely a thing for 2K/Fireaxis (and the warm reception XCom got also supports this thinking).

There is definitely a need to take a closer look at the AI's behaviour in the mid to late game on the lower difficulty levels at least (I've not tried past Prince yet) - after the early periods where they're generally quite aggressive, they seem to sit back and let you run away with a massive Science and Religious lead (the afore mentioned Japanese super-Apostles not withstanding).

Zillah

The_Valeyard wrote: »

They condemn me for capturing their cities and this condemnation is backed by other empires???

But they were the aggressors?

It's classic Civ AI. It's one reasons the game feels so samey to me. You get warmongerer penalties for conquering cities, even if you didn't start the war. The more counter-attacking you do, the more they hate you. I think the idea is that a truly peaceful nation would just defend their own territory and then reach a peace accord when it is apparent the war is going against the attacker. Which is a somewhat reasonable approach except for the fact that the way the Civ AI works they will probably invade again as soon as they are ready.

In one of my first Civ 5 games Alexander surprise invaded me, I beat him back but peaced out as soon as I could. A decade later he did it again, and I peaced out. In total this went on like clockwork five times in a row, until eventually I said screw it and conquered his empire to stop future attacks. Everyone called me a monster. It's not exactly a nuanced system

Wossack

resuming from saves seems pretty odd/flaky imo

left previous save with germany at war with me, but pretty manageable, and kongo friendly and about to weigh in vs them. Loaded my save, and Kongo immediately launch a surprise war with me

actually, the first couple of games I tried to resume, and once done loading, the interface was unusable - couldnt click on anything except the minimap, and couldnt scroll map around at all. Ive not tried that game since actually.. not sure if its still broken (tried a couple of times, restarted etc)

all my games have had kongo and germany in them too - kept restarting initially as barbs were whooping me (horse army just appears on your border, yay). Got good handle on it now, since Ive worked out how OP ranged units are

Goodshape

Zillah wrote: »

I think the idea is that a truly peaceful nation would just defend their own territory and then reach a peace accord when it is apparent the war is going against the attacker. Which is a somewhat reasonable approach except for the fact that the way the Civ AI works they will probably invade again as soon as they are ready.

In fairness this is what I've done in my current game. Norway attempted an invasion, I pushed them back as far as their border without entering it, destroyed their forces and they offered a huge amount for peace.

No penalties whatsoever, I opened a few trade routes with them when I could, and now a while later we're allies.

It's possible to defend your land without invading / destroying someone elses. Even the units you build for this tend to be different.

Gbear

I was having issues starting the game today.

I decided to crack open task manager and Windows Defender was going ape**** and hogging my CPU.
It stopped when I closed the game.

I googled it and apparently it's a common problem.
If you're having some issues with performance try adding your Civ folder to the exclusions in your settings.

It's stopped happenning now, but it remains to be seen whether it'll generally improve the performance I've been seeing.

Zillah

Wossack wrote: »

kept restarting initially as barbs were whooping me (horse army just appears on your border, yay).

This happened me, too! For some reason the spawn position put me surrounded by encampments, so at turn 17 I had an army of 5 horsemen and a horse archer arrive at my borders (after my exploring warrior got mobbed by another three ten tiles north). Luckily the barbarians (deliberately?) behave in a fairly disorganised fashion so weren't too hard to beat back.

The_Valeyard

Gbear wrote: »

I was having issues starting the game today.

I decided to crack open task manager and Windows Defender was going ape**** and hogging my CPU.
It stopped when I closed the game.

I googled it and apparently it's a common problem.
If you're having some issues with performance try adding your Civ folder to the exclusions in your settings.

It's stopped happenning now, but it remains to be seen whether it'll generally improve the performance I've been seeing.

Actually while you mention that.

My saved games were rarely loading. Adding Civ to the exceptions list speed up game loading and stopped crashes

Lone Stone

I took a few tries but i got the hang of it now, i really was to use to previous civ, i mean it's to be expected i suppose i have like 459 hours on that thing. It defintly needs some tweaks to the mechanics. I am curious now as to what the expansions are going to be like considering all the stuff we have in it already.

J Mysterio

Having played for a couple of days, my overall impressions are that im a bit dissapointed really.

Though they have changed a number of mechanics etc. it still feels really similar to V for me. I guess I expected more to change and to be 'wowed' somehow. That hasnt happened.

Im particularly dissapointed in Diplomacy, which I had hoped would be majorly revamped.

Still a great game obviously, so I imagine I will play it loads, but not significantly better than V for me.

Gbear

It's taken me 38 hours but I've finally finished a game.

I do play marathon speed, to be fair, but I had about 5 games I started and just didn't bother finishing.

This was the most dominant but I enjoyed it for that.
Germany and I ended up on a continent with only 1 civ, which I killed early doors, and about 2/3 of the City states. I got all their free envoys so that was a huge boost.

In many way the opposition aren't a factor in the game. They can win, particularly with culture or faith but by and large they're not a threat at least on King difficulty.

The closest opponents were in the early industrial age when I'd sent my ship to Mars in 1755.

Norway sent an attack at me about 15 turns before the end and it consisted of Knights and crossbowmen.

People have mentioned a lot of changes needed to diplomacy, UI, AI, balance and bug fixes, but these are mine:
-The AI should get free upgrades to severely outdated units - make them no more than 2 eras out of date than the most advanced civ in the game.
-Barbs and city states should advance in a similar fashion.
-City states shouldn't have to worry about amenities (I had one city state spawning barbarians every few turns, presumably because they were all deeply unhappy).
-Great People should be able to get a designated spawn area - had an admiral spawn in a lake.
-Movement within your territory should be increased late game - where are our railroads?
-The penalties to constructing districts should be based on era and not the number of cities you own.
There doesn't need to be balance between tall-wide. Wide is intrinsically better and the tradeoff is that your large cities lose lots of population to making settlers, you need more micro-management, more control of space, you're more vulnerable to attack, you're more irritating to opponents, making trade and war more likely, etc.
An artifical cap serves no purpose. It doesn't stop people playing tall.

Gbear

Well into an Emperor game now.

I seem to have cracked how to play Russia.
They're quite fun.
The trick is getting lots of either hills or, even better, forests in your tundra tiles, and just a few key grassland tiles for food.
Tundra forest on a river is a 1Food 5Production 1Faith tail once you get lumber mills.
Hill tiles with resources on them are excellent as well.
It's just plain tundra tiles that are the problem, so once you don't have too many and use them to hold your districts you'll be fine.

My religion is killing it at home but I haven't really bothered trying to convert anyone else.
It's buying my lots of Campus and Theatre buildings so ultimately I'll probably end up cantering to a science victory because all my cities will have Universities, etc very early on. I could've just as easily gone culture, but I ended up with snowballing wars that meant I needed to conquer half my continent before I felt secure and I needed the tech.

I can't say it's much harder than King was.

The problem seems to be how easy it is to game the AI.
On Emperor, ridiculously, AIs start with 2 settlers.
While lethal if you're passive, if you're aggressive, all that means is that you get 4-6 free cities early game because the AI doesn't understand how to defend against Archers, doesn't prioritise their contruction early enough and cities have become so laughably weak without walls that there's just nothing the AI can do to stop you.

THe only thing you have to worry about is leaving guys at home to worry about Barbs, or maybe a sneak-attack by another civ on your flank.

I've a feeling that Immortal would be a big step up from here though, because you're really going to struggle with tech early on and their early attacks are, I would imagine, going to reach a tipping point with the number of units that it'll be tricky to just stay alive.

BlitzKrieg

picked this up at the weekend and picking through it slowly. Like a lot of the design changes, though I will admit it feels much closer to a board game then prior Civs (I notice that the game is very reluctant to ever take you away from the map screen, relying on pop ups and on tile representations of everything. Really only the diplomacy leaves the main screen. But the UI is a bit clunky, I find it hard to click away some details, some buttons and pop ups are slow to respond and the game almost constantly gets stuck pulling me to a side if I use the keyboard at the start of the round. Not to mention I didnt properly find the breakdown of the amneties for my cities to well into my 3rd game.

I also got my first puzzling AI encounter with USA's big stick policy, they praised me for keeping the peace on the continent with barbarians open bracket big stick agenda close bracket. then declared war on me the very next turn

I really like the eureka system and the change to the sity state mechanics (no more throwing money at them) so I will very likely still put a few 100 more hours into it.

slowly after work....

Zillah

Gbear wrote: »

An artifical cap serves no purpose. It doesn't stop people playing tall.

There is a difference between an artificial cap and a downside to expansion. Losing a handful of pop to settlers doesn't have much of an impact. You're stopped from playing tall because you can't win; at least as far as I understand the game.

In 5 it was possible to build one super city and win the game in the one-city challenge because of a number of mechanics that made it so that expanding endlessly wasn't always better. That's a gameplay dynamic that doesn't exist any more.

Gbear

Zillah wrote: »

There is a difference between an artificial cap and a downside to expansion. Losing a handful of pop to settlers doesn't have much of an impact. You're stopped from playing tall because you can't win; at least as far as I understand the game.

In 5 it was possible to build one super city and win the game in the one-city challenge because of a number of mechanics that made it so that expanding endlessly wasn't always better. That's a gameplay dynamic that doesn't exist any more.

I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing (although it remains to be see if it's actually accurate. I might give it a go with someone like India).
You're trying to be the dominant civ on the planet. Whatever the victory type, it makes sense that having more clout would make you stronger.
I can't think of any empire in history that stuck around in one city and completely dominated the rest of the world in any capacity.

Having a smaller capital certainly does have an impact, and that's what's likely to happen if you're churning out settlers.

However, I would say that the caps built into the growth of cities through do act as a bit of a leveller as well, when maybe they're a bit too restrictive.
It makes sense that sanitationn, food sources, fresh water and all that should restrict growth, but even way back in the 14th century I think there were some cities dotted around the middle-east and asia with in and around a million people in them. Maybe even Rome.

Having sanitation as an industrial era tech is maybe a bit euro-centric.
Just because we pooed in the street like dogs until fairly recently doesn't mean everyone else was.:pac:

Going by the populations from previous civ games, a million is populations over and above 20.
In my own games I'm struggling to get to size 20 at any point in the game. Now part of that is because I haven't really figured out how to optimise amenities, farming and housing yet, but I didn't even have to try to get to 30 in previous civ games and getting 50+ is pretty straightforward with the Aztecs or the Inca in Civ 5.

I can't imagine there's anything stopping you from winning the game playing tall. It mightn't be optimal and maybe Deity mighn't be viable, but in general this game isn't particularly hard to win if you actually make an effort to push for a victory condition (rather than just roleplaying and doing whatever whim takes you from turn to turn).
With a really beefy defensive unit in the Varu, something that grants bonus food and housing in the stepwell and a trait geared towards passive religious victory, India does seem like a fairly safe bet.

Billy86

It's been a busy week or two so only got it downloaded now, opening video is running and I'm giddy as sh*t! Been playing Civ since I was 6-7 years old back with the original but only got 4 & 5 about two years after their initial releases due to not having good enough computers at the time. GTX 970, i5 6600k & 16GB RAM running on an SSD... yeah, I think I'm gonna be OK!

Slightly cartoonish intro but that was expected and that end of things isn't really too big a deal for me. Here we go!!

The_Valeyard

so.....


I'm at turn 500.

India are still d*cks.

Two tech trees are good

Religion has a much higher role, Good fun.

AI needs work, some really bizzzare things happened.

Map are too small.

City tiles are interesting addition

Builders are disposable

Auto roads nice feature

Brazil are sneaky feckers

Little bit too cartoonish for my liking

Map seems to be missing the detail from Civ5

Wonders are nice having their own tiles

Chariots are useless

No celts

Barbarians most have been given drugs, rampaging pr*cks.

No Earth map

Stellaris is more fun.

ShaneU

Got a religious victory in turn 92 with Gandhi. Started off with three stone resources next to me. Picked the pantheon Stone Circles that gives me +2 faith for each quarry. Built Stonehenge next to them = instant great prophet. Founded a religion and chose the next pantheon as purchase missionaries for 30% cheaper. By the time I built the holy district and the shrine I had a ridiculous amount of faith and spammed out two missionaries every turn. No one else even had their own religion yet.

ShaneU

The_Valeyard wrote: »

No celts

Celt leader from the last game is a Great General in this

Balmed Out

Billy86 wrote: »

It's been a busy week or two so only got it downloaded now, opening video is running and I'm giddy as sh*t! Been playing Civ since I was 6-7 years old back with the original but only got 4 & 5 about two years after their initial releases due to not having good enough computers at the time. GTX 970, i5 6600k & 16GB RAM running on an SSD... yeah, I think I'm gonna be OK!

Slightly cartoonish intro but that was expected and that end of things isn't really too big a deal for me. Here we go!!

Got civ 1 for christmas in 1991 and been addicted since. Disappointed with 5 overall how is 6? Have always replaced computers with civilization releases but after reversing over my laptop bag since civ 5's release I'm a good bit away from needing to replace it.

Billy86

Balmed Out wrote: »

Got civ 1 for christmas in 1991 and been addicted since. Disappointed with 5 overall how is 6? Have always replaced computers with civilization releases but after reversing over my laptop bag since civ 5's release I'm a good bit away from needing to replace it.

The barbarians are ****ing lunatics! I only did a run through for a few hours on warlord and was more picking up the new dynamics than actively playing if that makes sense? I would definitely recommend have Google at the ready on your first playthrough, as someone else mentioned there isn't a lot of guidance given even if you select this is my first time playing civ vi".

Went random and got China, I really did enjoy a lot of it to be honest though there are some clunky elements mainly related to the UI I would like then to patch up - nothing major though. Just on the big at work so I'll try to add more later .

The two tech trees are a great idea, as is the new city structure, it gives a much different dynamic to the game over 5 and really forces you to focus your cities on their strengths. For example one of the cities I built would not allow me to build any aqueduct facilities as it was not near fresh water, and for another I had to destroy my wheat resource if I wanted to build it. Also you cannot do what I found myself repeating on civ v all the time - rush to writing, build great library for drama, immediately build libraries on all cities, be way more advanced than all other civil and thus barely need any units to take cities.

I did manage to take Spain and Greece over, but in doing so committed all of my units to one side of the map. Like I said... Barbarians. They immediately took Madrid no sooner

One big gripe though is that they were next to Madrid the whole time and from what I could see on the map, didn't seem at all interested in attacking them. That kind of thing really winds me up in games as it is very lazy, but hopefully I just couldn't see where they were doing so. They killed a bunch of my units throughout and like I said, they will take cities. This means that you cannot just keep a bare minimum of archers, rush to industrialisation and then use the Gatling guns to smash through the world. You need plenty of units to keep at more or less all times to keep them at bay - if you don't they will literally kill off your empire. I think 4 had that too, right? I'm not sure though, I think I might find that they spawn a bit too quickly given that this was o lying on warlord. The area beside Madrid I neglected for maybe 25 turns to take Greece immediately after toppling teh Spanish (taking advantage of China's unique unit that I had just got) and got hit by around 12-15 barbarians. That's a bit much im given that they're also quite advanced units and not just standard warriors. Also why I don't think the barbarians put even close to the same effort into computer civs as they do attacking yours, though again I might just have missed that happening.

It was about 12.30 when I lost Madrid so decided to just quit out of the game and start a new one after work today with a better idea of what I'm supposed to be doing. I didn't get enough play in to get a real feel of the whole thing, but from what I did - it was very promising. It is very much down the more cartoonish artwork approach of civ v though, just a heads up if you were not a fan of that.

Zillah

ShaneU wrote: »

Celt leader from the last game is a Great General in this

lol, bit of a demotion.

Lone Stone

having a good game as Russia now, i havent gone to war with anyone. I did defend myself against one nation and accepted a peace offer and i keep getting denounced by everyone as a war monger ... ..

Gbear

Zillah wrote: »

lol, bit of a demotion.

It was a bit of a nonsense anyway.

You had a "Celtic" leader, speaking some sort of Irish, who was actually an Iceni, had Pictish warriors and had her capital based in Edinburgh.

It was maybe the least coherrent of all the civs. A bit like the way they used to have the "Sioux" in earlier games.