If that is the case can you explain why the pro's choose knights? Potato archers and Warak'aq's are perhaps an exception but even then, when knights appear they become 2nd class to some degree.
They just need to land and make it to Construction... The issue comes when you get fussy over where you land. Once you are over that you realise @Noble Zarkon is correct... Maori and Inca and Hungary just have some powers that equal the reason Sumeria is banned.
Incan's are sort of like Mongols but different, if you do not stop the Warak'aq before it gets to move after shooting you are going to face some really smart play.
Playing Ottomans their loyalty bonus seems really strong. (Not losing population is also a loyalty bonus). I could just invade a foreign landmass at the other side of the map without having to slot three civic cards to keep stuff together. And this was late game where Kongo had a bunch of 15+ cities packed together.
Knowing that there will be patches, tweaks and other adjustments, I think GS is an enormous success.
It's beautiful and interesting, and will be absolutely glorious when Gedemon et al knock the Terra maps into better order.
My family will get at least 5,000 hours play out of it, so it's value for us. YMMV.
Most of the OP criticism comes around the balance issues. I think this many well be all relevant especially for multiplayer games. I expect there will be a major balance patch on its way sooner rather than later. Until then, hold your horses (OR NOT!) and enjoy the most amazing civ game in a long time, even if that should be single player mode I guess.
That's the reason I think MP should have a separate balance. Maori is a good example, spawning in the middle of the ocean without a pre defined good spot to settle is an amazing experience for SP, the possibility of finding yourself in a bad spot is part of the challenge, it's a different way to play. That doesn't work so well for MP though, so should SP pay the price to balance MP in a game that is SP focused and which most players play SP? No, definitely not, which doesn't mean MP should just be ignored. Idk how feasible it would be for Firaxis to do a separate balance for MP but that is the best solution imo. The Maori should spawn without a good spot nearby on SP but on MP it get a decent spot that you can find near you.
Hungary could be solved in a way that works for both MP and SP, just keep it free to upgrade with gold but you still need to pay with strategic resources, even if it's only half the price. This way SP players can still buy resources from the AI and have their fun while MP players won't sell resources, so it will be harder to do the same.
All of OP's arguments are correct. Gathering Storm has a lot of "great idea, bad execution" issues, just like Civ VI overall. The World Congress for instance is a total bust, with numerous issues such as the flawed voting system, the lack of control over voting topics, game-halting bugs in multiplayer where you get stuck in the voting phase, and the mere fact that it somehow starts in the medieval age before all the members even are aware of eachother.
The strategic resource rework is good, but the actual unit costs make zero sense. Why are horses only used for 2 units when there are 6 horse-mounted units in the game? You absolutely shouldn't be able to have knights without horses. Make them cost 10 horses and 5 iron, for example. Likewise with Cavalry and horses/niter. Infantry should not require oil, especially when they are unlocked before refining in the tech tree. Ideally there should also be alternative fuels for late-game units. In Civ IV, your battleships could run on coal or oil, and your submarines on oil or uranium. I understand that system might be a bit inelegant for Civ VI though.
Basically, you want to make strategic resources important - enough to go to war over, unlike in vanilla Civ VI where too few units relied on them - but provide a decent amount of alternatives if you lack them, and have the requirements follow real-life logic to make the historic simulation aspect more satisfying.
I play MP with a circle of my friends and we've all really enjoyed the expansion so far. We've all mostly tried a new Civ each in 5 matches and it's been pretty good. To be honest. we've always had some house rules in place because the game has always been balanced around single player and I wouldn't have it any other way. It's easier for MP to adjust than the reverse. Some thoughts I've had from our matches:
-- I'd face 10 Kupe's over one Amanitore or John Curtain. I quite like his risk reward. In one of our games, he absolutely cultured the crap out of us, in another game we had to restart because a storm killed his settler on turn 2 (hahahaha btw)
-- Hungary is probably overtuned, but we've never had a particular issue with him. If I see Hungary, I beeline straight for the city state. Conquer it if it's one I like, and if I don't like it, I just declare war and kill all its units. That seems to tone Hungary down somewhat
-- I won 3 of 5 with Phonecia (science). I think Dido is in a great spot. She comes out the gate quite fast and I built my infrastructure across the globe fast. My friends did conquer a few cities but they are spread out in such a way that I could lose a few without getting too set back. They have reported that the boats healing to full in a turn is pretty frustrating. (It's esp sweet when you canal into a lake for an in land boat defence). Also, I'm not sure why but my settlers were getting 6 movement from the moment I could embark them, so I was able to spread far and wide quite quickly. (+2 from Dido herself, and I assume 2 from a tech I researched on the way)
-- Eleanor is no joke, I don't think she would realistically flip too many cities but you really have to think about where she is when you conquer other cities, and when you settle. One friend lost a city to her when he was conquering a city state, just because she was nearby
-- My friend who played Mali strugged a lot. We play shuffle to be as fair as possible across the Civs and he only got a desert start once in the five games. Maybe his bias is weird? (or maybe it was shuffle?)
-- No one played Kristina, but I would welcome thoughts in MP
Overall I like it. I LOVE the natural disasters, I like the CO2 thoughts and the world congress is fine, I would have liked a smidge more control over it if I'm honest
If that is the case can you explain why the pro's choose knights? Potato archers and Warak'aq's are perhaps an exception but even then, when knights appear they become 2nd class to some degree.
.
Ofc big movements is another feat that humans can abuse.
But knights are good becuase better ratio between power and cost compared to other similar units.
But not sure now in GS with the new cost how they are...
Hide in a corner and culture your way to a fast victory is her best bet, good defensive troops. If JC is making good culture it could be a problem. Culture is hard in MP, Kupe is a big problem if going for culture.
Early civ powers like Nubia will always beat later ones if close enough. Kupe just needs to find a base not too close and push to construction, quite possible. It’s about a GG which Pitati’s do not get.
MP is such a different game, and amongst friends is often not as brutal as in the exploit ridden world of anonymous MP.
Diplomatic Favor -- Success
AI asking me for 1 diplo favor for 1 iron every other turn -- Failure
Weather -- Success from a flavor perspective
World Congress -- Failure; the voting system is really convoluted.
Future Era -- Who? Failure.
New Map generation -- Success. Love the new mountain ranges and continent boundaries.
Grievance System -- Huge success.
Even though a lot of the major advertised systems are busts imo, GS is still a hugely enjoyable improvement on the already great (imo) Civ 6. I expect a lot of the kinks with the new systems to be ironed out through patches in the coming months. I'm loving GS more for its small changes (power, weather, grievances, new civs, governor changes) than for its major headline systems.
Hide in a corner and culture your way to a fast victory is her best bet, good defensive troops. If JC is making good culture it could be a problem. Culture is hard in MP, Kupe is a big problem if going for culture.
Early civ powers like Nubia will always beat later ones if close enough. Kupe just needs to find a base not too close and push to construction, quite possible. It’s about a GG which Pitati’s does not get.
MP is such a different game, and amongst friends is often not as brutal as in the exploit ridden world of anonymous MP.
Agree. Natural disasters alone make the game much more interesting as the map become more important and picking a city site becomes more interesting. It also makes the map feel more alive. Grievances are so much better than the old warmonger mechanic and the World Congress is great. Rock bands are super fun and make the culture victory more engaging. The new civs are great! In fact, I consider GS to be much better than R&F. Firaxis just needs to fix the balance issues and tweak some of the mechanics (I still want to see loyalty fleshed out to include rebellions) and civ6 will be fantastic.
Agreed. I don't mind that the civs aren't balanced, but I'm also not a multiplayer player. Sometimes I want a challenge and will play a weaker civ like Spain or Egypt. Sometimes I want to relax and watch a plan come together, which is easy and enjoyable with the varied gameplay of the too-powerful GS civs.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
