Frustrated Deity Player

[BeTheRowdy]

I keep loading up Civ 6, starting a game, and quitting in frustration around the Medieval era.

It's not that I think I can't win. It's that I feel extremely unfocused every time I play. I feel like my build order is always wrong, like I'm not hitting enough eurekas and inspirations, like I'm not properly lining up production with policies, like I'm not planting districts in the best locations, like I didn't use my starting position correctly, like I should have settled more, or less, like I grew population too much, or not enough. I just feel completely inefficient all around, regardless of whether I'm actually losing.

I really wish I could relax and enjoy this game, but for whatever reason, even after 1000 hours played, I struggle to find the most efficient path to victory. Every single game feels bogged down in inefficiencies. Does anyone else feel this way about Civ 6? Does anyone feel focused and effective when they play? How did you get to that point?

 

[MIS]

I felt like you do, I would make it a competition. How quickly can you win this game. Play from the same T1 - how much time can you save. Avoid cheats e.g. going straight for goody huts you haven't seen yet.

I also think it's the best way to learn, because you think about how to maximize everything, which you wouldn't have the head-space for.

"blatc" has the quickest CivV science win. How did he learn? He replied somebody else's T1 save about six times until he learnt as much as he could.

Best,
M

 

[Victoria]

This is exactly why I like this game... the choices are often quite situational and its easy to loose focus.
The moment you loose focus you have lost 10 turns or worse... you have to really decide on what will help and stick to it.
There is also a lot to remember because it has more to think about. For example some people prebuild builders with 30% before Feudalism because its more efficient... I just forget and it disrupts what I am doing and makes the game a bit interrupted for me.

 

[Tur4]

Its why I don't play on deity. I just enjoy having fun. Even if I'm crushing the computer every game. I have won on diety, and won easily. Its just not that much fun for me to play it more than just occasionally.

 

[playshogi]

I found it helpful last game to record on my laptop the turn I got a eureka and the turn I got the tech or civic. I also recorded my government cards, so I don't forget to change government policies when I can.

 

[Abraxis]

This is a hold-over from civ 5 I think. With enough dedication you could make everything line up perfectly, and it was really satisfying especially in the early game to know that you were doing things at the absolute peak efficiency. You could be satisfied with your choices knowing they were objectively superior to the other choices. In Civ 6, it's not always so simple, very often you'll be weighing several equal (or seemingly equal with the information you have) choices, so no matter which one you pick you'll feel like you lost out on several other things of value. If you're approaching it with the same mind-set as Civ 5, you will always feel like you're losing or falling behind. You just need to accept that you're not going to hit every mark perfectly, you don't need to hit every mark perfectly, just make the best decisions you can and move on. Save the retrospect until after the game is over when you can better judge the sum of all your choices objectively.

 

[ShakaKhan]

Several thoughts on the original post:

First, I know exactly what you're referring to and can relate. I also get this tingling in the back of my brain saying, "If I did X instead of Y 50 turns ago, then Z would have happened and caused this chain-reaction leading to that chain-reaction and so on and so on, leading to a significantly different overall complexion of my empire." You just have to let it go, analyze what options you have at any given time, and decide which is the best course to pursue given those options. While this, in a way, excuses or even rationalizes sub-par play, it's also probably the main reason why I play civ6 instead of Civ5, which I think is a better game (in the state of being a completed game as opposed to Civ6 which has yet to have any expansions.) I've beaten civ5 Deity over 100 times and more than 30 times in consecutive attempts, and it's just not fun for me anymore because it's more or less "solved." But if you struggle to accept this and really want the reassurance of feeling that you're playing optimally...

...Second, give yourself some time. Remember that the game is still less than a year old. As @Abraxis alluded to, we approached our most recent games of Civ5 with the mindset of, "I know what I am doing. Whatever happens next turn or 30 turns from now, I've seen before and know the most effective method of responding to it, and I know the steps to take to achieve victory, in fact I know which steps to take to sway the game toward the victory type of my choosing, and if certain events occur, I know the most effective way of transitioning from this victory type towards whichever victory condition becomes more obtainable." We knew it inside and out, and there was a comfort zone that we created which we no longer experience with this newer game. In time, we'll achieve the same comfort zone with this game, but I advise enjoying your time without the comfort zone while it lasts. In a way, we are currently in the child stage of the game, and children can look at the clouds and vividly see elephants and kangaroos and princesses, but in time we will develop into the adult stage of the game, and adults are able to move through life more efficiently and with greater impact, but no longer see anything in the clouds as they are mundane and rote and lost their magic.

However, if you really want to "solve" the game, you need to play a few experimentation games, but they take a very, very long time. As you're playing, save often. Keep a notepad document open in the background. When certain crossroad moments occur, save the game, make a note on your notepad like, "turn 95 - could DoW Germany now-opting to delay to see if England Dows them and waiting for knight and crossbow upgrades" or "turn 25 choosing to invest in founding a religion" or even simply, "turn 15, opting to make first settler at capital size 4 instead of waiting for capital size 5." In all cases, play through the next 50 or 75 turns and save the game, then go back and try it the other way, play for 50 or 75 turns. Then analyze the results. Is one choice clearly better in all regards? Or did one choice leave you in a more advantageous position in some ways and less advantageous in other ways, and which is more important to you?

 

[stormerne]

Does anyone feel focused and effective when they play? How did you get to that point?

Yes I feel focused, but not necessarily in the way you might think of as focus. And how did I do it? To explain...

A few months ago, I started playing Civ6 in the same way as I did with all editions of Civ right back from the 90s: I started off on the lowliest difficulty level, explored the possibilities, incremented the difficulty one level at a time, one game at a time, exploring the different victories types, different civs etc until I eventually arrived at deity three months later. That's a lot of games, and they didn't all turn out like I expected, but it gave me the confidence both to focus but also to adapt to the situation. Being pig-headed about a particular type of win doesn't work reliably in Civ6, and I really like that about the game.

I used to be a rock guitarist. I did a lot of improvisation during performances. You can play things by rote, but if you do that you may as well play your audience a recording and stay at home. That's not what they're there for. The more you play in various situations, different gigs, different audiences, different halls and sound set-ups, the more practice you get and the more confidence you have to let go and improvise. Because you know you will always make mistakes, but you also know that you've pretty much seen it all before and you can recover seamlessly before anyone outside the band notices.

And that's where there's the parallel with Civ. You need a focus that can adapt situationally, even when you think you've made a mistake and need to change strategy. You're still focused - you're not floundering about or marking time at any point - but you're alert to possibility or necessity for change. And the confidence to do that comes from practice in all sorts of different situations.

Practice doesn't make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect. But I learned to throw away even the requirement of "perfect" years ago, and instead adapt to the situation. Life - and music, and Civ - is a whole lot richer, a lot more fun, and a lot more relaxed as a result.

 

[Abraxis]

Yes I feel focused, but not necessarily in the way you might think of as focus. And how did I do it? To explain...

A few months ago, I started playing Civ6 in the same way as I did with all editions of Civ right back from the 90s: I started off on the lowliest difficulty level, explored the possibilities, incremented the difficulty one level at a time, one game at a time, exploring the different victories types, different civs etc until I eventually arrived at deity three months later. That's a lot of games, and they didn't all turn out like I expected, but it gave me the confidence both to focus but also to adapt to the situation. Being pig-headed about a particular type of win doesn't work reliably in Civ6, and I really like that about the game.

I used to be a rock guitarist. I did a lot of improvisation during performances. You can play things by rote, but if you do that you may as well play your audience a recording and stay at home. That's not what they're there for. The more you play in various situations, different gigs, different audiences, different halls and sound set-ups, the more practice you get and the more confidence you have to let go and improvise. Because you know you will always make mistakes, but you also know that you've pretty much seen it all before and you can recover seamlessly before anyone outside the band notices.

And that's where there's the parallel with Civ. You need a focus that can adapt situationally, even when you think you've made a mistake and need to change strategy. You're still focused - you're not floundering about or marking time at any point - but you're alert to possibility or necessity for change. And the confidence to do that comes from practice in all sorts of different situations.

Practice doesn't make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect. But I learned to throw away even the requirement of "perfect" years ago, and instead adapt to the situation. Life - and music, and Civ - is a whole lot richer, a lot more fun, and a lot more relaxed as a result.

Hah, I deleted half my last post because I went off on a tangent on how I thought it related to music in this very same way. I almost wish I hadn't deleted it, but seeing you articulate it so much better makes me kinda glad I did

 

[cazaderonus]

I very much prefer that feeling compared to the civ v feeling of always playing the same exact game aka 4 cities, nc by t90 into universities rush.

 

[SaMatra]

This is why Civ 6 is good and replayable game despite being unfinished buggy mess - there is no one and only approach or strategy.

 

[Balkans]

Funny, for me, the exact opposite causes frustration. I can play any situation optimally, and this makes it fun for me, to crawl out of a hole, i clearly see what to do based on opponents, proximity, map and optimize my build and research paths with no problems. I'm obsessed with eurekas and inspirations and through playing i have a nice feel what path to take and almost every game i miss only the impossible ones (build a city on coast and there is no coast, ). And in the moment i feel that i snowballed, more precisely when i accumulate the critical sum of good choices the game is dead for me. There is absolutely nothing left to play but to click into your victory.
"Every single game feels bogged down in inefficiencies" - i swear to God i feel the opposite. I feel that i can "exploit" so many game mechanics and outplay the AI that i almost find it unenjoyable.
What helps me to crush the game and find it interesting (at least till snowball) is slow, metodical and flexible play adjusted to the current game. For me min/max is the only way i enjoy playing because i want my empire to slowly squeeze every drop of greatness juice. This way i enjoy first 100 turns and at any moment behind that the benefits of this style are almost over powered. This is how i see the game. But other issues, i don't want to get into kinda killed it for me...
Can't say i'm playing lately, but i'm waiting for the new patch, to see if they plan to do anything more with this game, and if they finally plan to integrate all the stuff they left at release as place holders.
You can call me another frustrated deity player, but for all the other reasons, but i don't want to cry anymore about what bugs me about the game, it's almost pointless.

 

[cll3]

You're quitting games that you're able to win because you have that power gamer mentality. You have some goal to optimize some set of conditions beyond just winning. So you quit and make a new game if you didn't min these variables, max those variables, to the point where you think that set of conditions are still possible. I only play deity+huge with max number of civs and city states; I'm also somewhat of a power gamer. If you don't define your list conditions, then what you end up seeking is perfection... that one perfect snowball only possible through RNG. It's madness, but it'll be much less frustrating if you formally define your list of lose conditions.

I used to quit games if I failed to hire James Watt. Then I added "failed to found a religion" as a lose condition. Got a commercial hub or industrial zone pillaged by barbarians. Failed to snowball to some level of science/culture by turn x etc the list grew on. Then I added "failed to find Stockholm." which isn't even something in my control... Eventually I added failed to hire "Abu Al-Zahrawi" before the AI progression rate deleted him, and I found I was losing almost every game, and I realized how ridiculous it all was because resources are limited and many of those conditions conflict with each other (ie if you gotta build or conquer at least some holy sites early on, there won't be campuses in the holy site's place).

Stars needed to line up perfectly to satisfy all conditions simultaneously, and it restricted my games to the same play style every game, not to mention being completely unnecessary and somewhat boring. You can still snowball into infinity in true power gaming fashion even if you miss any or all of them; you just have to make up for it somewhere later on. You have to keep going to find out which ones are easier/harder to make up for later on, and which ones that have less/more impact. Their marginal impact in each "one more turn" will help you min/max better in future games. So nowadays I still try to satisfy all my ******ed conditions, but if I fail some, I take note of it and and I continue forward. I've found the game much more fun that way, and no frustration.

Actually, just a little... when that 3000 BC rampaging horsemen camp you can't get around to, suddenly goes from ~20 to 36 atk and you still can't get to it... lul

TLDR My advice is 1. define your conditions. 2. keep going

 

[kb27787]

I have no idea what you people are talking about... Civ VI basically has no alternate options at all when it comes to early game... It's always the same old archer beeline and hope the AI doesn't rush you at turn 10 with five warriors... If only they would make early game cities stronger and give at least the star capital a range attack... Personally I think giving palace guard +20 instead of a measly +3 would do wonders for making the opening more varied... Otherwise why bother putting pottery at the start of the tech tree if people invariably go for animal husbandry or mining first anyway...

 

[unpossible251]

I think its kind of like poker. you gotta accept that some hands are rubbish, and you're rarely gonna get a straight flush. pros dont get better hands than anyone. you just gotta... something.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

I have no idea what you people are talking about... Civ VI basically has no alternate options at all when it comes to early game... It's always the same old archer beeline and hope the AI doesn't rush you at turn 10 with five warriors... If only they would make early game cities stronger and give at least the star capital a range attack... Personally I think giving palace guard +20 instead of a measly +3 would do wonders for making the opening more varied... Otherwise why bother putting pottery at the start of the tech tree if people invariably go for animal husbandry or mining first anyway...

Making the palace guard +20 is way too OP, but at +7 it seems to be balanced enough to protect the capital while still allowing a quick death should your units stray too far away. By the way, that command is *not* split off from City States -- it's the same for everyone. Hence, the +7 also helps more of the CS's survive (but not all of them, it's more in balance again).

 

[kb27787]

Making the palace guard +20 is way too OP, but at +7 it seems to be balanced enough to protect the capital while still allowing a quick death should your units stray too far away. By the way, that command is *not* split off from City States -- it's the same for everyone. Hence, the +7 also helps more of the CS's survive (but not all of them, it's more in balance again).

By allowing a quick death you mean at t15 when you just have a warrior and singer? ... At that point even if your units were there you still wouldn't survive 8 units from the deity AI... I find they just ignore my slinger and go straight for the city. Keep in mind +20 does not prevent them from shooting at the city... And it will not prevent your expansions from going down without a proper army. I find that it would be so much better if I didn't have to waste my time with unwinnable situations.

 

[Victoria]

I have no idea what you people are talking about... Civ VI basically has no alternate options at all when it comes to early game... It's always the same old archer beeline and hope the AI doesn't rush you at turn 10 with five warriors

There is a large number of people that say slinger slinger slinger is the only way to go, and they are just so wrong.
It is one option and some of our best GOTM players say scout first. These are players that have 20-25 cities by t100.
Scouts not only give great intelligence but excel at stealing settlers and misdirecting attacking barbs or civs.

I have once got a game where Japan came at me so early with all 5 barbs on deity I could do nothing about it. It's quite rare. Equally I have built a slinger before noticing I am on a small island and changed to a builder. There is no one golden answer but agree that slinger slinger slinger is a safe option.

 

[cll3]

Don't have to hope. Going at their 3rd free settler prevents AI warrior rushes with very high probability. Like 90%. If you succeed in stealing the settler, they go ballistic and tunnel vision on your warrior, or rather, the settler sitting under your warrior. Their military units that start in sight of your settler thief get triggered AF and will attack till death, even if you're fortified on wooded mountains across a river, and they have no chance of winning 1v1. If you plop the stolen settler right in their face, then success becomes 100%. They won't walk past the new city to go for your capital. Ofc on turn 1 make sure to look at strategic view to minimize the chance you go the wrong way; the border vision is much larger in strategic view compared to normal view.

I think slinger x3 is overkill. Alot of players (including me just a few months ago) get hung up on the eureka for 3 archers so they like to upgrade all 3 slingers together. But you don't need 3 for your first enemy civ wipe. Two is plenty. Actually even one is plenty if you have the scout for its ZOC. Even one tile of ZOC adjacent to an enemy city will prevent any unit inside the city from attempting to attack outwards if your unit isn't low enough to get one-shot, even if it can do so safely. It'll sit in the city awaiting sure death. If you chose to substitute it with scout, or if you got lucky from a hut, even a 2nd melee works fine even tho the timing is all wonky and short-term inferior.

Scout first can help juggling in early fights. Enemy units prioritize it and will often go for a full hp scout, even if they have a kill available on your warrior.

The enemy slinger and also archer AI ever since the change that made them "more intelligent" for capturing civilians actually made them less intelligent. They'll move to cap a builder and then not attack, even when they're fortifying a city. So you can bait any early ranged unit out of a city using a builder adjacent to the city, and then slaughter it with your melee. It never even fires a shot. Scout first helps this tactic, since enemy builders don't dodge well vs 3 movement. Stealing a builder along with the settler even eliminates those rare headaches where they buy out a ranged unit for defense.

The builder tactic can be extended for juggling as well. Enemy warriors will go for it over healing. A builder 2 tiles away with your warrior healing in a city will distract enemies from attacking your city while the # is low. You can make a group of warriors ring around the rosie by moving it through your city to the other side and they'll perpetually chase the builder and never catch up. Your warrior recharges, and picks them off without having to lose his life.

Scout slinger x2, or slinger x2, conquer no slower than triple slinger. Some make the case for the 3rd slinger finding the archer eureka, but even the first one can trigger it on the first city you siege. A city that hits 0 health from a slinger shot will trigger it, no need to find barbarians or last hit military units. You can just delay taking a city by a turn to give your slinger one attack to reduce it to 0 hp before taking it.

But yeah slinger first still constitutes the vast majority of my starts vs AI. Scout first 30% or less. But I almost never go standard slinger x3 anymore, even though it can't really go wrong either. It's just that cutting corners on the 3rd slinger can pay off big in a large % of starts.

 

[Victoria]

Nice write up @cll3 was unaware of the 0 eureka on cities, nice!