[GS] Does the target Civilization get any benefit from Send Aid?

I would rather like a "send aid/forment unrest" option. After all, "helping" the poor in history was often used to recruit an army, convert people, set yourself up as dictator, destabilize a country. Not all help was always well intended, maybe i want to use my "help" to spread my religion or to gain loyalty in their cities.
History? It's happening right now. Theres a reason Maduro will accept aid from the UN and Red Cross but not from the US. Abrams has a bad reputation for exactly that.
 
History? It's happening right now. Theres a reason Maduro will accept aid from the UN and Red Cross but not from the US. Abrams has a bad reputation for exactly that.

all i see on new is maduros men burning said aid while some hungry people cry on the sidelines ;)
 
History? It's happening right now.

And that's why I like quests like in civ IV that allowed me to support upheavals to damage buildings or tiles in a city. Civilization 6 is slowly developing a very idealistic, clean view on war and conflicts. Almost all civilizations are somehow nice guys. I think we also need the ruthless dictators & religious fanatics in the game - and the pacifists that might mean well but fail to defend themselves on deity.

Theres a reason Maduro will accept aid from the UN and Red Cross but not from the US. Abrams has a bad reputation for exactly that.

Err, I don't think you can defend Maduro in any way. He himself screwed up. But anyway, that's for the offtopic forum.
 
No defense of the guy personally. Its just super transparent what we're attempting with aid sent outside of official UN channels. I'd love to see what kind of "aid" my tax money put in those trucks.

It's a great example of what you're talking about though and adding it to the game would create incentive to maintain good relations with as many Civs as possible. Theres no reason why a hated enemy's aid packages should be just accepted carte blanche.
all i see on new is maduros men burning said aid while some hungry people cry on the sidelines ;)
Except he has accepted aid from other sources as I stated in my previous post. Elliot Abrams pulled the same Trojan horse operation with Nicaragua decades ago.
 
Except he has accepted aid from other sources as I stated in my previous post. Elliot Abrams pulled the same Trojan horse operation with Nicaragua decades ago.

i think u missed the key elements on my sentence.
1."all i see"
2. "news"
3. "wink ;) "

nvm
 
i think u missed the key elements on my sentence.
1."all i see"
2. "news"
3. "wink ;) "

nvm
lol yup that went right over my head. Apologies, I'm at work just doodling around with my phone between tasks.

At least propaganda is a policy in the game. Our machine is so good it makes a lot of authoritarian dictators jealous.
 
ps. how come everyone plays on deity?

Many players find the AI too incompetent to offer a sufficient challenge. Personally, I play at Immortal, where I win about 60% of the time. On Deity I'm probably at around 15-20%, not counting starts where I get wiped out before the Classical period begins. I don't find it relaxing to lose after spending so many hours playing, so I don't do Deity very often.
 
Many players find the AI too incompetent to offer a sufficient challenge. Personally, I play at Immortal, where I win about 60% of the time. On Deity I'm probably at around 15-20%, not counting starts where I get wiped out before the Classical period begins. I don't find it relaxing to lose after spending so many hours playing, so I don't do Deity very often.

just started my 1st immortal here, 2citys in i had to help Fez from being conquered by Brazil. so i steal the kill :D
now at war with Brazil(he so mad). anyways here i go
 
A lot of posters on this forum are also hardcore 4X gamers who've played Civ through multiple iterations. A lot of the "deity is too easy" crowd seem to forget that they over focus on mechanics in ways 95% of the people who play the game don't. The steam stats still look like less than 5% of Civ VI players have actually won deity.

That includes a lot of the devs. Not to toot my own horn but after watching a few firaxis livestreams I'm pretty sure I'd give some of their best a run for their money and I consider myself pretty middling in skill.
 
i see, usually i set to make my empire all rounded, excelling in many fronts.i guess i need to narrow my focus on specific attributes.
will investigate
 
I want your AI. :)

I always get like 7 flat gold and 1 gold per turn from the AI. This is on epic speed usually. I'm assuming these are from the aid project they are running since I get several of them from the same leader. It's not much, but I won't turn down free gold. I can care less about the diplomatic victory point, they aren't winning a dv over me.

They kept coming back every turn with another small gift of gold and gold per turn. All of them.
 
i see, usually i set to make my empire all rounded, excelling in many fronts.i guess i need to narrow my focus on specific attributes.
will investigate

Yes, at higher levels, you generally need to start focusing heavily on your win condition pretty early. While you don't want to completely ignore the other aspects, you can certainly concentrate on them less. For instance, if I'm heading for a SV, I don't usually build more than two or three Holy Sites. Just enough to give me enough faith to buy a late-game Great Person, usually, or take advantage of Jesuit Education if it gets spread into one of my cities. If I'm aiming for a Culture Victory, I won't build all that many Campuses because I really don't need late game tech other than Flight, Computers and Steel. I may max out the Culture tree and yet never be able to build Infantry.
 
If there is one thing I would like to improve with Send Aid mechanic is to make it help with allied civ's loyalty problems in cities that are under unrest.
 
A lot of the "deity is too easy" crowd seem to forget that they over focus on mechanics in ways 95% of the people who play the game don't.

The reason you see a lot of "deity is too easy" comments is because Civ 6 offers less challenge than Civ 5 which in turn offered less challenge that Civ 4. The original Civ 1 was tough at the upper levels, but in response to some players complaining that the top level wasn't hard enough, Sid added "Deity" level to Civ 2 to cater to people who wanted more of a challenge. Being able to appeal to people who enjoy playing at Prince and people who enjoy playing at Deity has always been part of the genius of the civ series. Some people, myself included, are disappointed that the current dev team has stepped away from that philosophy.
 
The reason you see a lot of "deity is too easy" comments is because Civ 6 offers less challenge than Civ 5 which in turn offered less challenge that Civ 4. The original Civ 1 was tough at the upper levels, but in response to some players complaining that the top level wasn't hard enough, Sid added "Deity" level to Civ 2 to cater to people who wanted more of a challenge. Being able to appeal to people who enjoy playing at Prince and people who enjoy playing at Deity has always been part of the genius of the civ series. Some people, myself included, are disappointed that the current dev team has stepped away from that philosophy.
I submit that the early Civs were harder because the average Civver game IQ was lower, not because the game itself was more difficult. People had not been playing as long, and there were not the online resources and guides from which to "borrow" or share clever ideas. Exploits or shortcuts were probably not available to you unless you discovered them yourself (and if you did you probably thought yourself super clever and good at the game, not that there was something wrong with the programming).

Plop Civ6 in its current form down in front of a 90s-early00s Civ player, and they'd get whooped.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom