Actually, This is a Great Game :)

Sprenk

Prince
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
321
Location
Traverse City, Michigan
Just looked over a thread where people were comparing different early build orders. No consensus was emerging--except that the answer depended on the specific map type, the specific difficulty level, and the specific play style.

Have been playing a lot of culture games recently, and I find I never research techs and cultural advancements in exactly the same order. I might, for example, beeline drama & poetry. Or I might head for political philosophy. It depends on eurekas obtained and other specifics.

It occurs to me that, in earlier iterations of Civ, I eventually settled into a "formula" of builds and research orders where I could win almost on auto-pilot. I'm not sure that's going to happen with Civ 6. And that's good.

It's possible to be wiped out militarily early in the game, be it from barbs or from early wars from neighbors.

Seems to me like the developers have done a fine job! :)
 
I agree, I have over 900 hours on Civ VI and every game is different. In Civ V, they got to be very similar after a while.
 
Shame the diplomacy is so inert. The better solution these days, even post-AI combat buff, is to sweep diplomacy aside and kill everyone (in part because diplomacy as a system is currently poorly executed in VI and ultimately meaningless--the benefits of friendship in VI do not extend to easy joint wars and much bonus gold from trade deals, extra techs, etc.)
 
Shame the diplomacy is so inert. The better solution these days, even post-AI combat buff, is to sweep diplomacy aside and kill everyone (in part because diplomacy as a system is currently poorly executed in VI and ultimately meaningless--the benefits of friendship in VI do not extend to easy joint wars and much bonus gold from trade deals, extra techs, etc.)
Yes. This is what XPACS are for--fine-tuning stuff like diplomacy once you see how the game as a whole is holding together.
 
It occurs to me that, in earlier iterations of Civ, I eventually settled into a "formula" of builds and research orders where I could win almost on auto-pilot. I'm not sure that's going to happen with Civ 6. And that's good.
Nearly anyone can do that with the difficulty set low enough. For many Civ veterans, Deity was low enough at release. I think it still is for some.
 
With the latest couple patches especially the beelining to victory techs really isn't necessarily the best option. Its very easy for opposing to civs to mass corps or armies of units very quickly making fast ballistics and tough melee units to raise city defense important in those games.
 
A great game doesn't have so many obvious flaws. A great game will make players want to finish at least half of them. It is now a good game, and has potential to be an excellent game.
 
Shame the diplomacy is so inert.
It could do with some sprucing up but the fundamentals are in place for a good UN addin.
Currently friendship gives science, alliance gives a whopping +18 to hold on to those friends through a war which ultimately is more gold, science and happiness.

For Dom games diplomacy can really help tilt the enemy at the start but ultimately is less useful later, early game you are a fool to ignore it IMO.

Not everyone wants to play Dom and it it here diplomacy is not quite so inert.
 
Yes. This is what XPACS are for--fine-tuning stuff like diplomacy once you see how the game as a whole is holding together.
Yeah, let's wait 2 years and charge another 50$ to fix something that should work from the get-go... And some people seem to be ok with that...
 
Yeah, let's wait 2 years and charge another 50$ to fix something that should work from the get-go... And some people seem to be ok with that...

Are you implying diplomacy is broken?
 
He's talking about "fixing something that should work from the get-go", I don't see how diplomacy needs to be fixed. It's not broken.
 
It is I suppose a good sandbox game. It is less good from a challenge or an alt history immersion perspective in my opinion.

What people want out of it is therefore going to colour assessments, and indeed leaving people talking past each other.
 
He's talking about "fixing something that should work from the get-go", I don't see how diplomacy needs to be fixed. It's not broken.

The AI screen does not always give the right idea, a deal is possible but at first it seems not
"You razed my city" does not degrade and should"
Ghandi memory on warmongering is waaay too long. It should be 100 years.
Ceding cities is just rubbish the way it works and the timing of application often makes it not worth doing.
Gifting cities is just broken, a clear exploit in my view
The whole of diplomacy can be ignored if a warmonger, you get no hard penalties for ignoring it

Is it broken? Probably not but from a warmonger perspective I can see them making this claim with some validity.
 
The AI screen does not always give the right idea, a deal is possible but at first it seems not
"You razed my city" does not degrade and should"
Ghandi memory on warmongering is waaay too long. It should be 100 years.
Ceding cities is just rubbish the way it works and the timing of application often makes it not worth doing.
Gifting cities is just broken, a clear exploit in my view
The whole of diplomacy can be ignored if a warmonger, you get no hard penalties for ignoring it

Is it broken? Probably not but from a warmonger perspective I can see them making this claim with some validity.

The typical claim from people saying "diplomacy is broken" is that you can't become friends though, which is a clear false.
 
Yeah, let's wait 2 years and charge another 50$ to fix something that should work from the get-go... And some people seem to be ok with that...
Games can't possibly have every single aspect complete. It takes months (even years!) of the community playing to see exactly how to implement new features so that they work properly. To expect games of as comprehensive as Civ5 BNW, or Civ 4 BTS, at release isn't a fair expectation.
 
Just looked over a thread where people were comparing different early build orders. No consensus was emerging--except that the answer depended on the specific map type, the specific difficulty level, and the specific play style.

Have been playing a lot of culture games recently, and I find I never research techs and cultural advancements in exactly the same order. I might, for example, beeline drama & poetry. Or I might head for political philosophy. It depends on eurekas obtained and other specifics.

It occurs to me that, in earlier iterations of Civ, I eventually settled into a "formula" of builds and research orders where I could win almost on auto-pilot. I'm not sure that's going to happen with Civ 6. And that's good.

It's possible to be wiped out militarily early in the game, be it from barbs or from early wars from neighbors.

Seems to me like the developers have done a fine job! :)

Nope, it's not enough. As many others have pointed out there are few incentives to play peaceful. Mind you, I usually don't play completely peaceful. But there should be incentives for cooperative play. Getting money from trade, trading technologies, all the incentives in earlier games that encouraged at least transient peace are gone now. And the warmonger penalties achieve the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do: They don't discourage wars, to the contrary, they *force* you to fight even more.
 
And the fact that you really spend most of the game sending your traders internally means that you don't really suffer from not having trade like you did in 5.
They need to have more incentive to send traders internationally.
 
Top Bottom