[R&F] Devs Play as India

[Lily_Lancer]

It is not campuses that are overpowered but chops and warfare. Campuses are indirectly good because of these things. Now remove chops and make warfare expensive and everything will change.

Reduce chop profits and making warfare more costly is what I always want them to do.

And they never do that but nerved the already bad districts instead.

 

[Kimiimaro]

And they never do that but nerved the already bad districts instead.

They've nerfed Holy Site and Aerodome? When?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Yeah that is strange. Chops should never improve with techs, Keep it at 20-25 from start to finish and instead encourage people to develop their land like it have been in previous games. Disticts and their buildings could be cheaper than they are now.

Unit heal should not be free but cost gold, that mean taking damage would be more problematic which would probably help the ai. Also change how unit and combat work overall.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

They've nerfed Holy Site and Aerodome? When?

Holy Sites suits 100% Religious victory, and maybe 5~10% of Domination Victory for the faith purchase, and another 10~20% Culture Victory from relic strategy.
Unnerfed IZ suits none.
Unnerfed CH suits only 50% cases of Science victory, in that situation being same importance as Campus.
Aerodromes are simply too late to come out. Aircrafts themselves are powerful city-defense bombarders, if you start at modern or later they're very useful.

So which one is worse?

 

[cvb]

a city made with a captured settler should have a very low loyalty

they could program the game so that a settler stolen from another civ will found a city that counts as being conquered from the other civ, so that the city can be reconquered without causing warmonger points.

So does the stolen settler (probably depicted in chains to be distinguishable from a regular own settler) need permanent escort then from the captor unit to prevent them from elopement until the foundation of the city?

 

[Leyrann]

Unnerfed IZ suits none.

And yet first time I went for a science victory I gave up on the game when I realized how expensive spaceships were...

 

[Josephias]

You are aware that barbarians are a thing, right?

They are, so you escort your settlers when sending them into the big open (that or you have some units exploring around that can "inform" no barbarian is coming).

And, for the same reason, it is more likely that you (as a player) send unescorted settlers along other civ borders: there is still a gamble element, but is a much less risky one when traveling "civilized" (and expected peaceful) lands: the other civ's military will be taking care of approaching barbarians, and also their mere presence avoids barbarian camps out of the blue. Lastly, you can get signs of "fight" in certain directions, showing areas you must avoid.

Also, they could program the game so that a settler stolen from another civ will found a city that counts as being conquered from the other civ, so that the city can be reconquered without causing warmonger points.

This is an interesting question: ¿if you found a city out of captured settlers, should they be loyal to you?

 

[Lily_Lancer]

And yet first time I went for a science victory I gave up on the game when I realized how expensive spaceships were...

They may only suit for first-players. Since soon you'll realize that you actually do not need to build them and just use great people. After those IZs being nerved my victory time becomes significantly better because I just don't build them

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Thanks for watching the stream, folks - appreciate the feedback, and you're giving me some great ideas for things to show next time!

Welcome to the forums Sarah and thanks for the stream, really enjoyed it.

I think before talking publicly about Civ 6 you should all go back and play Civs 1 through 5 so you would remember about Asoka and Religous Victories in BTS and not claim things as firsts that aren't!!

Things like seeing no new pantheons, and no obvious changes to the tech tree make me think that they didn't give the base game a good looking over for this expansion. I'd like to see them make some changes that show they've played and understood the base game they made before they expand upon it.

I suspect much of the development of Rise and Fall is either stuff that didn't make it into the launch or was started on very soon after launch, probably a different team working on the expansion than on bug fixes and improvements.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Holy Sites suits 100% Religious victory, and maybe 5~10% of Domination Victory for the faith purchase, and another 10~20% Culture Victory from relic strategy.
Unnerfed IZ suits none.
Unnerfed CH suits only 50% cases of Science victory, in that situation being same importance as Campus.
Aerodromes are simply too late to come out. Aircrafts themselves are powerful city-defense bombarders, if you start at modern or later they're very useful.

So which one is worse?

I'm afraid I don't agree with you, same as I don't agree with you about Kongo being the worst Civ in the game.

Holy Sites are necessary for RV, that's correct. But I've never built any when I played other victory than RV. I've never built any on DV nor CV. I just think it's vaste of production to have faith, religion and some relic places compared to builder or maybe some useful wonder.
You forgot one thing. Science is only half of SV. The other half is production on a certain really expensive district and four really expensive projects. And that's where I use them. I also can use them in DV, to build troops faster. Or I can develope cities faster. Trust me, I'd much rather spend cogs on a district providing me more production compared to a district giving me faith.
CH and Harbour. I don't know how you, but I use money quite often to buy tiles, units or buildings in my new cities. These districts also give you traders. Their bonus is maybe minor, but take five of them, and you will get a nice pile of coins (and much more) from international trade routes or production + food from domestic trade routes (which is sure quite strong when I found a new city). Oh, and CH gives you Great Merchants, and GMs are one of the most desirable Great People for me.
Aerodome. I can assure you I can't remember if I even built it. Planes may be strong for defence, but I often try to play peacefully and maintain friendly relations with other Civs. And even if some Civ betrays me, I use the production + gold from CH and IZ to gain army quickly to beat my enemies The planes would sure help me to defeat the attacker faster, but I can definitely do well without them. They're a small boost I can live without, and that's why I don't build Aerodomes.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

I'm afraid I don't agree with you, same as I don't agree with you about Kongo being the worst Civ in the game.

Holy Sites are necessary for RV, that's correct. But I've never built any when I played other victory than RV. I've never built any on DV nor CV. I just think it's vaste of production to have faith, religion and some relic places compared to builder or maybe some useful wonder.
You forgot one thing. Science is only half of SV. The other half is production on a certain really expensive district and four really expensive projects. And that's where I use them. I also can use them in DV, to build troops faster. Or I can develope cities faster. Trust me, I'd much rather spend cogs on a district providing me more production compared to a district giving me faith.
CH and Harbour. I don't know how you, but I use money quite often to buy tiles, units or buildings in my new cities. These districts also give you traders. Their bonus is maybe minor, but take five of them, and you will get a nice pile of coins (and much more) from international trade routes or production + food from domestic trade routes (which is sure quite strong when I found a new city). Oh, and CH gives you Great Merchants, and GMs are one of the most desirable Great People for me.
Aerodome. I can assure you I can't remember if I even built it. Planes may be strong for defence, but I often try to play peacefully and maintain friendly relations with other Civs. And even if some Civ betrays me, I use the production + gold from CH and IZ to gain army quickly to beat my enemies The planes would sure help me to defeat the attacker faster, but I can definitely do well without them. They're a small boost I can live without, and that's why I don't build Aerodomes.

I think I figure out the main difference between us two.

All of your ideas based on "I think" and do not care about the victory time and quality, nor do you want to play the game on a objectively "better"(which means fewer turns and better empires for any type of victory)way, you don't apply your comments based on actual facts and comparison among strategies, but just on "I think", "I often", "I'd rather". I don't know how soon you finish your victories, but it'll be surprising for me if you always finish victories in less than 150 turns(or Sv for 180 turns, standard speed) as I do.

As for me, I play more objectively. I'm always curious on trying new strategies, adopt them if they really lead to good results, and forfeit them if they're not that promising. Instead of "I think" I compare the two types of victory time if I'm not able to decide which one being better at the first glance. Finally get into some conclusions that seems not very promising at the first glance but actually objective, such as Kongo being worse( This is because I cannot achieve as good victory as other Civs, nor have I seen such a strategy, instead of "I think Kongo being worse"), or unnerved IZ and CH being not that good. You can look at my Gotm games.

I'm not criticizing you, you can stick to your own ideas. But if you want to make better further discussion, or if you want to play better games, you shall be more objective.

 

[Duuk]

Welcome to the forums Sarah and thanks for the stream, really enjoyed it.

I think before talking publicly about Civ 6 you should all go back and play Civs 1 through 5 so you would remember about Asoka and Religous Victories in BTS and not claim things as firsts that aren't!!

Religious victory was a modded victory condition in BTS.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Religious victory was a modded victory condition in BTS.

No, it was part of the expansion via the Apostolic Palace. I guess it was called Diplomatic Victory rather than religious but you won it by spreading your religion around and being elected Religious Leader.

 

[Morningcalm]

You could win via the Apostolic Palace without converting *all* other civs though, and victory depending on being on good enough terms with the other AI following your faith to vote you in--it was an early diplomatic victory that relied to some degree on religion, not a religious victory. Civ VI is the first Civ game to feature religious victory as such.

 

[God of Kings]

It's great Sarah is communicating in this great website.

It was such a pleasure.

 

[Duuk]

No, it was part of the expansion via the Apostolic Palace. I guess it was called Diplomatic Victory rather than religious but you won it by spreading your religion around and being elected Religious Leader.

Oh, you meant the glorified diplomatic victory. Sorry, I literally forgot that existed because of the excellent Religious victory modded victory condition

 

[Kimiimaro]

I think I figure out the main difference between us two.

All of your ideas based on "I think" and do not care about the victory time and quality, nor do you want to play the game on a objectively "better"(which means fewer turns and better empires for any type of victory)way, you don't apply your comments based on actual facts and comparison among strategies, but just on "I think", "I often", "I'd rather". I don't know how soon you finish your victories, but it'll be surprising for me if you always finish victories in less than 150 turns(or Sv for 180 turns, standard speed) as I do.

As for me, I play more objectively. I'm always curious on trying new strategies, adopt them if they really lead to good results, and forfeit them if they're not that promising. Instead of "I think" I compare the two types of victory time if I'm not able to decide which one being better at the first glance. Finally get into some conclusions that seems not very promising at the first glance but actually objective, such as Kongo being worse( This is because I cannot achieve as good victory as other Civs, nor have I seen such a strategy, instead of "I think Kongo being worse"), or unnerved IZ and CH being not that good. You can look at my Gotm games.

I'm not criticizing you, you can stick to your own ideas. But if you want to make better further discussion, or if you want to play better games, you shall be more objective.

I'm sorry, but my main concern is not "rush, hurry, I must win under 200 turns, as fast as I can", my concern is to build developed empire, and enjoy the game. I want to try and adopt a playstyle that I like and I find enjoyable. And I guess this is the main difference between us two, and why we don't understand each other. You want to win fast. I also want to win, but I have no need to finish my game in 150 turns. All I want to do is to win and enjoy. Even if my games could take 300 turns.

Oh, and some other fact. I'm playing on King, and I'm still kind of new to Civ. This may also be a major difference between us.

 

[PYITE]

It's great Sarah is communicating in this great website.

It was such a pleasure.

Very brave as well to look at internet comments about a livestream that she did. I’m hoping she doesn’t repeat the feat with the YouTube comments when it’s posted, it’s basically a who can be most offensive contest on there.

 

[Zaarin]

At one point in the Livestream while the people playing were selecting a pantheon they discussed how the community felt that “God of the Forge” was a weak ability and that they shouldn’t pick it. This really annoyed me because it sounds like high ranking members of the Civ team (high enough to be a public face, anyway) are aware of imbalances in the game and yet they have done nothing to fix them. They know the community has been complaining about something but rather than change it or defend their decision not to change it they have decided to do nothing but say “don’t pick that I guess”. That just seems really lazy and apathetic.

I think that's fair, but I also think it's worth remembering that neither Sarah nor Brian are responsible for the pantheon beliefs.

 

[God of Kings]

Very brave as well to look at internet comments about a livestream that she did. I’m hoping she doesn’t repeat the feat with the YouTube comments when it’s posted, it’s basically a who can be most offensive contest on there.

Good thing about YouTube's Restricted Mode. It hides all comments at the cost of some videos becoming unviewable.