Civ 6 too easy?

[Archon_Wing]

They should bring back stacks of doom if it will help the A.I. compete militarily. Units are a lot more expensive than they used to be. I miss the feeling of terror I felt when the A.I. declared war on me. I still have nightmares of the Mongol stacks coming for my cities.

There were city stacks too. Cities needed military units to protect them otherwise a barb are any other military unit could just walk in and take the city without a scratch. Correct me if I'm wrong but could paratroopers drop in and take an occupied city? Bring back paratroopers!

What happened to partisans? They should bring back partisans too if you take an enemy city. The number of partisans could be driven by government type and city size.

A return of corruption might be a benefit as well especially against the wide empires you have to build to win the games today. Corruption could be mitigated through various buildings cultural and governmental or even non-spy diplomatic units.

The game can be improved. We just need to stop turning our backs on features that actually worked in the past and just tweek them for the current iteration of Civ.

Going back to the past would dissuade people that played the game for 1upt, etc. That's not something that can happen, and honestly all the throwbacks (terrain movements, settlers -1 population) just feel too archaic. And furthermore it's also far more tedious unless we go back to units having 1 HP each decided by a dice roll again.

The 1UPT vs SoD issue has always been in my eyes way overstated. The AI has always been bad at war, and players have easily solved how to exploit the AI. It's not hard to kill 2-3x your units in Civ 4. even at tech pairity. I mean, people frequently forego archery. The difference is 4 had a much more better system of balancing unit costs to power.

Most of the problems are not SOD or UPT specific.Either way they'd have to recallibrate everything, so it is a meaningless battlecry. War in Civ has always relatively been simple, and easily figured out (and thus exploited). The AI fails because it builds inferior things and doesn't upgrade their units as well as the inability to handle basic escorts. It would also be a problem regardless of system and sure the AI probably loses more units getting them into position but I feel this is overstated. The unit balance is also broken. Previous versions of Civs new better and gave mounted units more mobility and power at the cost of no defense bonus and being hard countered by spear units. For some reason they thought it was a good idea to throw that out the window.

Partisans already exist. When you attack a city enough, it causes unhappiness and barbarians spawn to attack you from the happiness, it also exists when you capture a city and the unhappiness is high enough. Corruption was never particularly popular either, it serves as a factor to limit expansion and Civ 6 already has that with increased district costs since districts are the way to get yields of a city-- and people didn't like that either. Civ IV had "maintenance" which was more punishing than corruption but people simply built wealth and not even the buildings that reduce maintenance due to it being a waste of time.

IMO the most important things to do is to make religion and culture less one-dimensional. Bring back ideological pressure and city flipping! And make tile stealing universal.

 

[Victoria]

The combat damage is spot on now, really love it but as said spearman are just too weak, considering how many were used historically it's a bit annoying.
I just think there should be a local unhappiness for distance, it should not be a lot but it would help.

 

[Morningcalm]

I think 1UPT is a problem--not just because of religious unit spam either. The combat feels unwieldy, but we need not return to SoD as such--perhaps more limited stacking, which I note VI has somewhat experimented with. Also, IV is noticebly harder than VI for the simple reason that the AI is better at both peacetime and wartime strength in IV. In VI the only peacetime leader I fear is Afonso I (Mvemba a Nzinga).

 

[Gengsikan]

The reality has spotted here many times on this post: AI is totally scripted. All games if AI is near they DOW. No mater type of victory... Build 3 slingers if AI is near, rush archery, wait DOW, upgrade to archers, buy the 4th archer, clean AI military, get its cities, rush machinery and the game its done. So, everything about AI its a mess. I'm not a "pro player" but Deity on Civ6 has no challenge. On Civ5 I have a much more big learning curve to master Deity.
Most of my games I finish at start modern era.

 

[Sardonic]

Have you tried just not doing that strategy? Play on a non-pangea map. Don't allow yourself to use archers in offensive wars. Try to win a tourism or religious victory. It is frustrating that the game has such a large and obvious exploit. It's a strategy game, we want to find the best strategy. But when you're bored of that, just force yourself to not use that strategy and discover a different way of winning the game.

Personally, I find forbidding myself to DoW on anyone in the ancient and classical era makes the game more interesting. I don't always play like that, but sometimes it's fun to.

Well I tried that but it always end up the same tactic anyway :/ When I did religious victory I kind of killed the other civs with better religion and then just waited... I see what u mean but I just can't try to playing a bad strategy. I think the AI need's some from Civ5 it does't play (as stated in other post earlier) melee and range/artillery. It's the same on water, just push out quamarines with 100% card and rush for frigates, uppgrade (50% card) and the win easy. But it's the same here, AI have s**t lots of troops but don't protect them with naval units (as it did I civ5). It's so strange that AI is better in previous game. (however I totally love the new city build and civil disorder system so It's still a great game, I don't don't like it!).

One question however, have anyone been able to get a prophet and fund a religion on deity? AI always get them unless I kill one AI with a lot of holy sites or play Arabia.

 

[Snorf]

Recently i finished a game with divinity as difficulty. This AI needs some correction...
Did it happen to you too?

 

[ztrapon]

Having that tactical unit feel to a game is more popular.

Although, square tiles (8 neighboring tiles instead of 6) and unit stacking (more detailed control), arguably makes the game more tactical than 1UPT/hex. Anyway, there aren't any tactics to speak of, as long as the AI behaves like a box of nails -- first things first...

I'm not really bothered by 1UPT per se, it's an alternative. But it does bug me that the Civ franchise has been hijacked and desperately forced into 1UPT, even to the point of it devastating the in-game AI. It's analogous to a new crew, developing the next Witcher sequel, insisting on transforming it into a side scroller. No matter what your stance on sidescrolling games or 1UPT is, you must admit that's a major dick move, against all the people who actually enjoyed what used to be Civilization.

 

[Victoria]

you must admit that's a major dick move,

Nope... you have to understand I played since civ 2 but did play other Meir games.... (colonisation being my fave) and I tried to like civ 4 but did have a disc burning ceremony because I hated doomstacks and sliders so much.
I only came back with BNW, I really enjoyed it until I overplayed it.
I have zero issue with what you deem 1UPT but is in fact 3 upt or even 6 upt with other units. My armies are not huge.

I have issue with the stupidity of an RSI prone interface, some poor coding and terrible testing. I understand the difficulty in programming a multi unit sea battle where there are many more combinations than a chess board and visibility rules to consider. Land is similar where terrain makes up for the shorter movement.

The game is not a strategic one, it's a combination. They have added complexity and more choice at the cost of AI intelligence.... would you rather a simpler clever game or a more complex stupid one? They also cut corners in so many ways as it is a money machine now rather than a game, that's called sell-out and everyone has their price. I used to work for a very high quality consultant firm bought out by an offshore company that had too much money and just wanted a way into the U.K. Market riding on a company with a good reputation. It all sucks but it's the way life is. Even notch had his price and his independence was to be admired.

The moment stacks of doom come back I am off, the rest I can cope with because I DO enjoy flanking and support and have seen very little issue with flooding. I have seen anti 1 UPT people use a picture of 100 helicopters as an example of the problem when the helicopters were created by them, not the AI. It's a choice, some people like it, some people don't.

The world is money oriented and the real truth is every dog has its day, civ has had its day and is now on the gravy train. It's still playable and I like its choices.

What is clear to me is there is no point in crying about it.

 

[Acken]

While I'd still prefer stacks, 1UPT in Civ5 BNW wasn't as bad (and Civ5 is my favorite game for other reasons). The main issue was more Range vs Melee related and its sad it was never fixed. My problem with Civ6 is that we went back to square one in terms of AI combat inaptitude with the same balance problems persisting.