Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by acluewithout, Jun 21, 2018.
Kandy and military city states in general
The AI loves them, so at higher levels you better use them even if peaceful.
I believe England ruled the world with a minimal army. And their empire wasn't as contiguous as say, Mongolia. Whether this is due to starting on their own island is a nature/nurture discussion but it means they are going to be tricky on a lot of map types.
A lot of people are unhappy with what's happened to England, but it isn't because people want them to be over-powered. Their UU was bugged when the game released, and their abilities have been adjusted (it seems) with almost every patch as they have tweaked both the Civ, and the core game mechanics. At this point England feels slip-shod and awkward in comparison to the other Civs. It's irritating to me, and I can only imagine what it would be like for fans of that Civ. Personally (in all versions of Civ) I'm drawn to Rome, probably out of nostalgia for my high school Latin. In VI they're extremely strong while in V they were modest, but they played well. I'm sure it was an accident of design but England has been treated like an unloved step-child in this iteration of the game. They don't have to be OP but they should provide a quality gaming experience.
The fact that they were a powerful force IRL has nothing to do with how
powerful they should be in Civ 6. BTW, they were my favourite in Civ5 on
Gedemon's TSL maps because they were the only real challenge for me (and
my extended family eventually). It took a long time to get off that tiny
island while being harrassed by hairy galoots in frocks.
I've found even on deity the AI isn't so good at fielding them consistently, especially if you kill the initial ones it just reels back into full on failure mode throwing regulars around.
It's not so much a separate issue as it is a way of changing the subject every time someone brings up the very legitimate issues with the England. People aren't angry because they want England to be OP they're angry because the Civ is a mess. I have never said their relative power should reflect history; that's a straw-man argument.
The main problem with England is that so many of their abilities are tied to easily exploitable core mechanics, so when an exploit is taken out or emphasis is moved from districts to buildings they wind up taking a hit
They were explicitly nerfed in a unique way (other continent conquest unit) despite not being particularly strong compared to top tier civs based on evidence in either SP or MP.
The problem with England is that the devs didn't apply self-consistent rationale in altering the civ.
I know you didn't. I pointed out that you brought up England's perceived weaknesses
and dullness as a civ to play in response to my comment.
Some people do have an issue with England's state, and in all likelihood Firaxis will
do something about it. Most arguments end up with ways to make them more powerful
and "we are amused" that the same people (most, anyway) contend they just want the
civ to be more fun, or not a "mess", as you put it.
Early culture rather than science
Post nerf democracy (still the best out of the 3 imo)
UI which give culture
I know, it's a UA, not a UI, but the free Monuments in my starting cities is why I like Rome so much. I don't need to worry about building them ever and I get my government up real quick.
There are other threads discussing the England nerf and what (if anything) should be done about it.
This thread is about something entirely different: things other people generally think are not strong or well liked but which you think are strong or fun (hence “underrated”).
Unless anyone is saying that England is “underrated”, then I don’t see the relevance of discussing England, “nerf” or otherwise. Even then, maybe discuss it somewhere else. There are enough threads arguing about England.
England are fun to play because of the greater challenge they present.
At a meta level, because of the passions that England's perceived weakness inspires, it's like
our very own Brexit here, with Leavers, Remainers and Vacillators! That's meta fun!
Impossible when there are so many details to thrash out - units, districts,
potential alternative leaders, their place in the hierarchy of civs.
Fine. +2 internet points for you. Post what you want, where you want. Knock yourself out.
I agree. I didn't know Logistics was under appreciated. It is just awesome. It's always fun finding a military card that's useful.
Also agree with Corps and Armies. I only realised how powerful that was when someone here explained how combat works and the impact a few points difference in combat strength makes. Plus, it's super cool if you're behind in tech, but ahead in culture, and can thump people because of corps. Just so awesome. I really like how Civ VI makes it so that being ahead in tech is not really a slam dunk, because culture provides its own combat edges and ultimately it's own means of generating additional science to close any gap (cards, envoys etc).
Happen to have as link? All I have is napkin math. Roughly speaking, if unit strength is 40% behind attacking unit strength then it will get 1-shot.
From what I read, https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/hans-lemurson-figures-out-the-combat-formula.606147/ , it's not about the percentage in Civ6. Each point of power has exponential increases in damage. Hans concludes that after the 0-30 power range a 10 point power difference is enough to cause 150% damage and only take 67%.
From my understanding, and what I've seen in practice, 150% and 67% damages come out to the weaker unit losing 50% health, and the stronger one only losing 25%. I think the math is a little different in the 0-30 range, probably more like the stronger unit losing 33% health because I've had Warriors die when I thought they were fine health wise (all other factors [flanking and terrain bonus ect] considered).
One thing I think is a bit underrated are per district policy bonuses, eg meritocracy.
By “underated”, I mean what’s underated is that they apply to all districts even underpowered ones. So, yeah, they apply to campuses and theatre districts, but also to aqueducts and entertainment districts.
I think the +0.5 per adjacent district is also often a bit underated. If I have some jungle, and city centre / campus / aqueduct or maybe theatre district or commercial hub triangle, with the campus getting some additional boost from the jungle until I chop them ain’t all bad. And I usually don’t need to but tiles to build.
I’ve also found that building cities on a hill and on defensible terrain has become more important.
Does anyone think Monarchy, or perhaps specifically its housing bonus, is at all underated? I haven’t experimented with it much, but surely Monarchy is pretty cool for Poland?
Personally, I dislike the housing bonus for monarchy, because it can cause me to overpopulate a city. Giving me the 1-2 housing conditionality if I am in monarchy means that if I want to switch governments, I then need a way to create that same housing later. Worse, if I try to preempt the government change by building ahead of time, I increase the housing cap farther, only to have it shrink again if I switch to something else other than democracy. There’s no graceful way out of monarchy, except straight to democracy.
Separate names with a comma.