Australian Summer Patch discussion thread

[Chibisuke]

I've said before. I play only on deity. Have won most of my games. I go for early conquest vast majority of times, so my military is always strong.

Notwithstanding, the way barbs currently work is problematic. Generally, I am able to deal with them, but their randomness and ability to spawn right next to your capital within the first 10 turns is abit ridiculous. I think the barb scout should be a special unit that only has 2 movement for example. That would make it more possible for warriors and slingers to chase them down.

The silly thing with barbs is that nowadays I just ignore the scout and look for the camp, because it's unlikely I can catch the scout.

 

[Joch]

I haven't had a chance to try the new patch yet, but is there an improvement to the AI? i.e. combat, unit build?

just wondering if I should start a new game.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

This was my hardest transition from Civ 5 to Civ 6. I started out building Scout -> Monument - > Scout and was getting destroyed by barbs. I've since adopted a Slinger -> Slinger start and it's help out immensely. It's all about adaptation.

Although, those Horse barb camps can still be a huge nuisance!

My initial build is often something like slinger-warrior-scout-monument-granary. I send my initial warrior on a short range circular path all around my capital. That way, my warrior extends my visibility all around my capital but still stays close enough to defend my capital if need be. I only do long range exploration with my scout.

Also, a bit later in the early game, once I have a few warriors to spare, I go after barb camps but I make sure to keep a warrior behind to prevent barb camps from popping up again. That way, once I defeat a barb camp, I don't have to worry about it popping up again and spawning more units.

 

[PendragonWRB]

I haven't had a chance to try the new patch yet, but is there an improvement to the AI? i.e. combat, unit build?

just wondering if I should start a new game.

I moved down from Immortal to Emperor and I feel like the AI is giving a 'little' more resistance than it used to. Nothing to write home about mind you, but it feels a little bit better.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

They are building more archers due to it not being a leaf tech, and some have said that AI actually has planes and seem to be able to take other walled cities (probably not the player, but walled cities nonetheless)

 

[Furycrab]

I've said before. I play only on deity. Have won most of my games. I go for early conquest vast majority of times, so my military is always strong.

Notwithstanding, the way barbs currently work is problematic. Generally, I am able to deal with them, but their randomness and ability to spawn right next to your capital within the first 10 turns is abit ridiculous. I think the barb scout should be a special unit that only has 2 movement for example. That would make it more possible for warriors and slingers to chase them down.

The silly thing with barbs is that nowadays I just ignore the scout and look for the camp, because it's unlikely I can catch the scout.

There's a small chance where you start a game and there's two possible directions where a horse camp could spawn and thus your Warrior can't cover both and your first unit to come out of your city is too late to go handle/scout out the camp. However when that happens, you only deal with maybe a wave of 20 strength horses that your warrior + first slinger can handle with the +5 strength, and then you just go kill the camp before the really terrible 35 strength horses spawn.

Even in that worst case scenario, it has a silver lining, you can go for 3 relatively quick slingers, you are virtually guaranteed to get the Archery, Military Tradition, and Bronze Working boosts, a little extra gold, and you'll likely have Archers to go attack either a close civ or CS and it all flows really well. Even if you are not aggressive, you can turn that extra gold into a Builder or anything that can help get you an Envoy.

It's when I don't find 3 barbs that I end up feeling weird because I have to hard tech something. For an average player, I think the game communicates poorly how dangerous some camps might be, but for a Deity player? You almost need some of those barbs for important boosts and to turn your early units into a little extra gold.

 

[Chibisuke]

Its true that barb camps can be beneficial on deity, but not always. It's all about control. If you know where the barb camp is AND it doesn't spawn some location inconvenient to you attacking your closest neighbor AI, then barb camp can boost your tech and help promote your units. However, often times barb camp spawns after you've moved your army to one side to attack, and barbs start to invade you from the other direction. That can really screw things up. Maybe you have to recall troops to deal with barbs and that gives AI civ enough time to beef up its defense. Now it takes longer to conquer them and that creates a snowball effect impacting the entire rest of your game. Something similar could happen if you are seiging an AI city and a barb camp spawns somewhere beyond their city and alerts. Tons of barbs start pumping out from a camp somewhere in enemy territory that you can't realistically get to while fighting that AI civ. Now you potentially have a mix of AI civ units and barb units all ganging up on your units. Maybe you take them all out, but again, it provides enough of a distraction and slows you down just enough to impact the rest of the game.

I don't mind the barb camp system that they have, I just think it defeats the point of it if it's not really realistic for you to stop a scout unless you have a strategically positioned archer at the right place at the right time. So the mechanism doesn't really serve it's claimed purpose and can have very chaotic effects on an otherwise well played game. One good solution would be to make it more realistic that warriors or slingers can actually catch and kill a barb scout.

 

[Pietato]

Horsemen swarming your city at turn 5 means the game is probably over for you.

 

[nzcamel]

Used to play on level "king", but today I had to realize that this is waaaaay too hard now (after the patch) for my playing abilities. Barbarians and AI are so much more aggressive now that a more "peaceful" game without much warfare is just not possible anymore.

You n me both I think. Given the AI rate of expansion I'm seeing on King, I'm wondering if at that level they get given the second settler early.

I wouldn't consider a Production Queue "automated." You still have to manually add the items to the queue. It's not like you just click a button and the City Governor adds items to the queue that it thinks you should build.

And I appreciated that ability in earlier versions of Civ. But I don't miss it much because things change constantly in VI. I think they will eventually add a build queue...but I don't get why people aren't adjusting to the way this game is.

No, I am not going to play on a lower level because the rest of the game will be a joke. My first build is always a scout, and if I have spotted anything to kill, my second build is a slinger. It's just unbalanced for a barbarian camp to be able to produce more than I can in the first ten turns or so. If you get really unlucky you have two barbs camps in opposite directions and that's potentially ten units to deal with. They just need some kind of little tweak to be either a little farther away or spawn a scout a little later.

Building a scout first is now a luxury. One you're going to have to give up if you want to handle everything thrown at you.

And like someone said a bit higher up in the thread - circle your city with your first warrior, exploring the close tiles; but keeping him at a length where he can make it back to defend.

 

[LDiCesare]

Higher levels are meant to be very tough to beat, and nobody should expect to win every time.

You seem to miss the whole point.
The problem is not that the early game is difficult.
The problem is that the mid/late game is a cakewalk. So if you play on a low difficulty, you have zero challenge and no fun. If you play on a high difficulty, you are at the mercy of the RNG. Too many barbs early, and/or an enemy AI rushing you, and you've lost without any means to counter it. If the rolls are good, you've won. That's just completely broken because, well, the game is simply not fun in any way. Either you lose immediately due to bad luck, or you win due to lack of opposition (which itself seems to be crippled by barbs).

 

[Silverdawn]

You n me both I think. Given the AI rate of expansion I'm seeing on King, I'm wondering if at that level they get given the second settler early.

The extra settler is at Emperor not King.

 

[nzcamel]

You seem to miss the whole point.
The problem is not that the early game is difficult.
The problem is that the mid/late game is a cakewalk. So if you play on a low difficulty, you have zero challenge and no fun. If you play on a high difficulty, you are at the mercy of the RNG. Too many barbs early, and/or an enemy AI rushing you, and you've lost without any means to counter it. If the rolls are good, you've won. That's just completely broken because, well, the game is simply not fun in any way. Either you lose immediately due to bad luck, or you win due to lack of opposition (which itself seems to be crippled by barbs).

No, you lose immediately because of a refusal to survive. Fitting.

The extra settler is at Emperor not King.

Pre-patch of course. And given my experience at playing both levels, and the new rate of AI expansion post patch, I am wondering if some boost -along those lines- has been added to the AI at King.

 

[ThERat]

No, you lose immediately because of a refusal to survive. Fitting.

Absolute nonsense. If you are unlucky and barbs spawn with horses right next to you or Scythia happens to steamroll you with their OP units, there is simply nothing you can do to survive. Civilization has always depended on lucky situations on higher levels, of course. However, civilization should also reward superior play and that's simply not the case here.
If you are lucky and the barbs are rather tame, the game is a cakewalk and the AI is more crippled by barbs than the human.

What sort of challenge is that?

 

[nzcamel]

Absolute nonsense. If you are unlucky and barbs spawn with horses right next to you or Scythia happens to steamroll you with their OP units, there is simply nothing you can do to survive. Civilization has always depended on lucky situations on higher levels, of course. However, civilization should also reward superior play and that's simply not the case here.
If you are lucky and the barbs are rather tame, the game is a cakewalk and the AI is more crippled by barbs than the human.

What sort of challenge is that?

I am not saying that people are never going to have an unlucky start where they are bombarded immediately. That will happen from time to time. Even with a first build warrior etc.

I am talking about people who refuse to adapt their game to the harsher environment that VI gives us right out the gate. I realised from the youtube first plays that my first build would always be a military unit in VI. By refusing to do what it takes to survive most games, they aren't. Surviving that is.
If they want to take the risk and reward approach of building a scout first with all the advantages that brings -if one can get away with it- by all means do. But it is a gamble. Don't complain when it doesn't pay off. When it does pay, you have a head start over those of us who take the more conservative route.

 

[gettingfat]

I am not saying that people are never going to have an unlucky start where they are bombarded immediately. That will happen from time to time. Even with a first build warrior etc.

I am talking about people who refuse to adapt their game to the harsher environment that VI gives us right out the gate. I realised from the youtube first plays that my first build would always be a military unit in VI. By refusing to do what it takes to survive most games, they aren't. Surviving that is.
If they want to take the risk and reward approach of building a scout first with all the advantages that brings -if one can get away with it- by all means do. But it is a gamble. Don't complain when it doesn't pay off. When it does pay, you have a head start over those of us who take the more conservative route.

I agree with the other post...Nonsense... you are assuming other players always going for the "builder mode", which is not necessarily true. Are you suggesting players like me starting with slinger, slinger, scout, slinger a gamble? I almost always start with this and still don't find this can catch the barb scouts (a scout needs 3 shots by a slinger to kill before the +5 card) or stop the horsed units spawning besides my capital within 15 turns. To me this is like certain random events in some previous versions. It's just RNG thing. Tell me how you can always get the barb scouts or stop the horsemen....Don't tell me you keep reloading.

Btw, starting from when starting with a scout is considered such a bad thing?

 

[nzcamel]

I agree with the other post...Nonsense... you are assuming other players always going for the "builder mode", which is not necessarily true. Are you suggesting players like me starting with slinger, slinger, scout, slinger a gamble? I almost always start with this and still don't find this can catch the barb scouts (a scout needs 3 shots by a slinger to kill before the +5 card) or stop the horsed units spawning besides my capital within 15 turns. To me this is like certain random events in some previous versions. It's just RNG thing. Tell me how you can always get the barb scouts or stop the horsemen....Don't tell me you keep reloading.

Btw, starting from when starting with a scout is considered such a bad thing?

Starting with a scout - I would have thought was a bad idea from observing the first 'let's plays' on youtube. New game, new approach.
Maybe it's a bad habit that people who have only played V have. In IV the scout wasn't available for many civs out of the gate; and while your new city was still safer than in VI (animal barbs wouldn't enter your territory) if you had no effective defense, another Civ could just stroll in and take it. Especially the Incans or Aztecs etc.

'Are you suggesting players like me starting with slinger, slinger, scout, slinger a gamble?'

If it isn't working for you. Do you have other options? How about a warrior first, then a slinger? Or slinger, warrior, then a scout? Can you adapt? Or not?
I don't reload because of a perceived bad start.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

building warriors is now a decent idea, as the swordsman got buffed.

 

[sonicmyst]

Enemy Greek AI managed to nuke me during the late game, which never happened before the patch.
Also, enemy AI now trains archers and bomber planes.
Enemy AI also looks more aggressive now in conquering other enemy civs.

Tourism looks slower now, and enemy Australia outpaced me in science victory using only 4 cities in King difficulty (OP Australia?)

 

[ThERat]

I would always produce 2 slingers, then slinger or warrior depending on the situation. As I always play the aggressive game anyway. I am happy to see more military by the AI, but what i saw after the patch is, that after the opening phase, the AI often got pillaged to death by barbarians.

 

[nzcamel]

I do what it takes depending on the situation.
Sure, if I had to build five warriors in a row that would get a bit tedious; but that isn't the case. Getting one warrior into your first two builds along with a slinger should cover the vast majority of starts.