Has the game gotten harder or am I off my game?

[acluewithout]

That would make life easier. If the attack was automatic at the AI's discretion but the movement was player directed, I don't think the unit could get itself into too much trouble. Maybe a tier fire solution (set & forget)...Ranged 1st/Melee 2nd/Cav 3rd/City 4th/etc...

It's just too much for me without heavy hitting, fast moving, ram enabled cav.

I was thinking ranged need like a “fortify and defend” function. You press it, and then the ranged unit fortifies and in subsequent turns attacks any nearby enemy units. So, you don’t need to actively manage that unit any more unless you move it again.

You could do the same with Seige units, except they’d automatically target cities when selected the function.

The game is a lot more fun and challenging when you understand the systems less, and play more intuitively, I think.

I’ve been thinking for some time that Civ VI is maybe designed around a different meta to what people on this forum play. In particular, I don’t think FXS’s “default” meta includes pushing large numbers of settlers early, spamming campuses or placing early districts and then chopping them in later. I’ve noticed that if you avoid doing those things, the game is much better paced and stays challenging longer (because you don’t start outstripping the AI in tech quite so quickly).

Put another way, for better or worse, I think the game is heavily balanced around fairly inefficient play. (Although, that said, FXS have slowly slowly started balancing with more efficient play in mind - eg nerfs to Rams, overflow, chopping, shift-enter. Really, it’s quite hard to work out what is FXS’s vision for the game sometimes.)

 

[PhilBowles]

I've sworn off deity @ standard speed. With the cav nerf I can't make it through bottlenecks (2/3 movement tiles, encampment ZOC's, multiple crossbow defenders plus walls, etc...) in a timely manner. The game has morphed into a clickfest if you want to war. I mean I think I'd still win, but I don't think I'd have much fun at it. Emperor level or lower building festivals I think.

Not something that's really registered with me as I tend not to play aggressively unless I'm boxed in (in which case I need to expand long before the AI has anything like those defences up, and generally before I could get cavalry). I've never been in the anti-1UPT camp, but combat is too much of a tedious slog - especially as I favour Huge maps - to go for domination. I strongly disliked stacking and the associated unit spamming, but it did have the virtue that once you had your doomstack, you tended to roll across the map very quickly.

The advice I've seen is to focus on battering rams for early war.

I
I’ve been thinking for some time that Civ VI is maybe designed around a different meta to what people on this forum play. In particular, I don’t think FXS’s “default” meta includes pushing large numbers of settlers early, spamming campuses or placing early districts and then chopping them in later. I’ve noticed that if you avoid doing those things, the game is much better paced and stays challenging longer (because you don’t start outstripping the AI in tech quite so quickly).

I've always deliberately avoided using exploits and only know what most of them are through watching Let's Plays (which rapidly became tedious because of those very exploits). I haven't even memorised the tech and culture trees and describe my general progress in most games as a 'random walk'. It does have the advantage that by the time I get to my end game the AI is close enough most of the time for the game to at least seem a challenge, but it's still routinely winnable on Deity.

I don't have a problem with Firaxis' approach and expectations per se, but I do have an issue with the lack of difficulty scaling (somewhat the converse of the thread's original complaint that the AI does the same things on Chieftain/Prince as Emperor). There should be difficulty levels that require increasingly tight play to be successful, even if you don't necessarily have to rely on cookie-cutter exploits to win at the highest level.

I didn't use exploits in older Civ games either, but I needed to learn the systems in more detail and play more efficiently at higher levels - I became very experienced playing that way in Civ V, and suspect that as a result I may have been a stronger player than some reliably winning on Deity with default strategies (with the experience that many strategies they dismissed were perfectly viable), although I played on Immortal and could expect to win about 50% of the time there (and very rarely on Deity).

I certainly can't see a need for the game to be made easier than the standard set by Civ V, which was unsatisfying for a number of the most experienced players but seemed to keep more casual players challenged and the default expectation for me - having played the series since Civ I was released - was that I could play on the second-highest level without automatically winning.

 

[Horizons]

The best fix for cheap exploits is to refrain from using them. But a lot of players seem to be quite indignant when you suggest that. I watched a Youtube video last night where the guy tried to trade coal with Arabia, the offer was 111 gpt per turn for 20 coal or something like that, so he cancelled out and bought one coal at a time from Arabia for a few gold each. The simplest fix for that is just not to do it, surely?

 

[Victoria]

The simplest fix for that is just not to do it, surely?

Or from your side do not watch his/her clips. What idiot posts online a clip where they bore the audience to death with that?

 

[MrRadar]

The best fix for cheap exploits is to refrain from using them. But a lot of players seem to be quite indignant when you suggest that. I watched a Youtube video last night where the guy tried to trade coal with Arabia, the offer was 111 gpt per turn for 20 coal or something like that, so he cancelled out and bought one coal at a time from Arabia for a few gold each. The simplest fix for that is just not to do it, surely?

In this case this is not a cheap exploit, but a faulty algorithm, and the poor guy has to resort to the time- and clicks-consuming workaround - buying some quantity of the wanted strategic resource one by one if he wants to get a reasonable price, instead of wasting loads of gold for nothing.

As for the game getting harder, that is not my impression. In vanilla AI at least used to win from time to time, if you allowed the game to reach T300 or so. Now it seems very much confused. If a deity game can be won not even using districts and governors, post t300 and while not being threatened very much, it hardly has become harder. War is still superprofitable, eurekas and inspirations can carry you a very long way, and pillaging benefits are still obscene.

 

[steveg700]

Couple questions:

Is the AI building aircraft now?

Is the AI using aircraft now?

 

[steveg700]

The best fix for cheap exploits is to refrain from using them.

Thing is, that does not actually constitute a fix.

If you go to the doctor and say "it hurts when I move my arm like this" and he says "well, don't move your arm like that", don't be so quick to cheerfully pay the bill. The doctor hasn't actually fixed you.

Likewise, playing a game where you play with a hand tied behind your back--such as not building aircraft because the AI doesn't--is not fixing the problem of the game not presenting a challenge.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

I was thinking ranged need like a “fortify and defend” function. You press it, and then the ranged unit fortifies and in subsequent turns attacks any nearby enemy units. So, you don’t need to actively manage that unit any more unless you move it again.

You could do the same with Seige units, except they’d automatically target cities when selected the function.

That sounds like a simple improvement that would be easy to implement and relieve some of the drudgery found in the present state of no war in the game (WWI's krieg without the WW2's blitz).

 

[PhilBowles]

The best fix for cheap exploits is to refrain from using them. But a lot of players seem to be quite indignant when you suggest that. I watched a Youtube video last night where the guy tried to trade coal with Arabia, the offer was 111 gpt per turn for 20 coal or something like that, so he cancelled out and bought one coal at a time from Arabia for a few gold each. The simplest fix for that is just not to do it, surely?

I can't imagine why anyone has the patience to either enact or watch that rather pointless nickel-and-diming with the Civ interface. The benefits accrued would be marginal - the exploits people talk about are things like setting '100% production for walls/naval units' policies just to chop-build a very cheap unit and use the overflow to accelerate production on something unrelated (this one may have been fixed, but is one I recall from a stream). Setting down districts the moment the city population allows just to fix the cost and then producing something else until you need the district is another example.

Personally I can't see why anyone wants to play the game that way - it's thoroughly immersion-breaking quite apart from simply being unnecessary.

Couple questions:

Is the AI building aircraft now?

Is the AI using aircraft now?

1. Yes. 2. No. Mostly. Same as it has been since the pre-GS patches. I have seen some more use of aircraft in games since the most recent patch, but not very much and still without any kind of coordination - sending bombers at targets the AI has no intent or ability to attack with ground units.

The AI doesn't really need bombers, it needs to be able to use fighters to defend against air attack since - as Civ VI doesn't have anti-air city defences as Civ V did - it can't currently answer enemy air units ta all.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

...but combat is too much of a tedious slog - especially as I favour Huge maps - to go for domination.

Prior to the June patch I had quite a bit of fun running the time gauntlet against the AI relative to tech advances and didn't see warring as tedium. It's not always a clickfest now, but if AI happens to stumble into creating a 2/3 movement chokepoint with city walls, encampments, crossbows, and mountains (Maginot Line) you can spend a LONG time there. Ex: I just spent 470 years sieging this deathtrap. While I was sieging, the AI teched up and now the next group of cities have 70/80 garrison strengths. I may as well not even bother trying for a dom victory without unit spam and clickfest tedium (aka scratch domination victories from my list of things to do).

Spoiler 580AD :

Spoiler 1050AD :

I suppose I should have scouted the area previous to attacking and chosen another target. Or perhaps I should instead of choosing another target, I should choose another game. Can you tell I actively dislike this cav nerf?

Edit: I was rather fond of large maps myself, but for domination. As it stands now, at least half the time based on random map characteristics and random closest civ, I don't think I'd have the patience for a domination victory even for a standard sized map.

 

[PhilBowles]

Prior to the June patch I had quite a bit of fun running the time gauntlet against the AI relative to tech advances and didn't see warring as tedium. It's not always a clickfest now, but if AI happens to stumble into creating a 2/3 movement chokepoint with city walls, encampments, crossbows, and mountains (Maginot Line) you can spend a LONG time there. Ex: I just spent 470 years sieging this deathtrap. While I was sieging, the AI teched up and now the next group of cities have 70/80 garrison strengths. I may as well not even bother trying for a dom victory without unit spam and clickfest tedium (aka scratch domination victories from my list of things to do).

Spoiler 580AD :

View attachment 532679

Spoiler 1050AD :

View attachment 532680

I suppose I should have scouted the area previous to attacking and chosen another target. Or perhaps I should instead of choosing another target, I should choose another game. Can you tell I actively dislike this cav nerf?

My point was that, since I find endless warring boring, I'm not even familiar with the cavalry nerf since I wasn't using them with any frequency before. I like Civ V/VI's combat system, but it's a good system for warring strategically - grabbing random cities you need or that are in the way, or in the late game trying to stall an opponent. It just gets boring doing it continually as the main focus of the game. I find the religion system dull for the same reason (though, when actively going for a religion victory recently, I found it was a little less tedious and with a bit more nuance than spamming faith units at each other - though probably more because AI religion spam behaviour has been scaled back rather than any improvement in the mechanics).

Edit: I was rather fond of large maps myself, but for domination. As it stands now, at least half the time based on random map characteristics and random closest civ, I don't think I'd have the patience for a domination victory even for a standard sized map.

I still pine for the lack of a random map size option, as found in every past Civ game - even better, one with the option to toggle individual map sizes on or off so that I could have a random choice of everything but duel maps. I've started playing Standard maps a bit more, in case that affects the challenge since that's the size the game is built around. With larger maps it can seem harder for an individual AI to get ahead as they all compete for each other's Wonders etc. and distracted by their tendency to go to war against each other.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

My point was that, since I find endless warring boring, I'm not even familiar with the cavalry nerf since I wasn't using them with any frequency before. I like Civ V/VI's combat system, but it's a good system for warring strategically - grabbing random cities you need or that are in the way, or in the late game trying to stall an opponent. It just gets boring doing it continually as the main focus of the game. I find the religion system dull for the same reason (though, when actively going for a religion victory recently, I found it was a little less tedious and with a bit more nuance than spamming faith units at each other - though probably more because AI religion spam behaviour has been scaled back rather than any improvement in the mechanics).

Allot of people do for the same reason you (and I) find the religious victory option dull. Simple unit spam and click-festing. I mean, by-and-large, if you try for a RV you will win. Just the same for unit spam warmongering. The game that the cav nerf destroyed was not drudgery though. It was one where you had to plan so as to arrange for the right tech and cultural breakthroughs to be available at the right time so as to conquer 4 cities in as many turns pre turn 130. That game is gone. As is much of my love for this iteration. It's now a peacemonger/builders paradise where you may as well not even try to win militarily (all it will do is hold you back from building settlers/campus/theatre squares etc...).

 

[Victoria]

That game is gone.

What?
Well I have never had issues using foot armies with generals, movement upgrades and the logistics card to wipe the board clean just about as damn quick, more challenging than knights which were a true faceroll. Careful planning? Path! Planning yes but single unit type attack, pillage heal move on. Use a variety of units, pikes have their time too, albeit short but with multiple units, one unit is always ahead of the techs if not all. Just sounds like an overreaction.
Rather than knights kill the army and take the cities, they kill the army while your foot take the cities.

I am taking it a step further though. The speed game bores me, it’s the win a domination while still being friends with everyone I am enjoying. So much more engaging and feels more realistic than a medieval blitzkrieg.
Main issue I am having is a denouncement creates too much malus for too long and needs to be tweaked to decay more.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

What?
Well I have never had issues using foot armies with generals, movement upgrades and the logistics card to wipe the board clean just about as damn quick, more challenging than knights which were a true faceroll. Careful planning? Path! Planning yes but single unit type attack, pillage heal move on. Use a variety of units, pikes have their time too, albeit short but with multiple units, one unit is always ahead of the techs if not all. Just sounds like an overreaction.
Rather than knights kill the army and take the cities, they kill the army while your foot take the cities.

I am taking it a step further though. The speed game bores me, it’s the win a domination while still being friends with everyone I am enjoying. So much more engaging and feels more realistic than a medieval blitzkrieg.
Main issue I am having is a denouncement creates too much malus for too long and needs to be tweaked to decay more.

Tell me what movement upgrades or the logistics card could do in a situation like this? By the time even my musket got to a position where he could attack he was 50% damaged.

Spoiler :

The knight+ram was repeatable. What you're saying is certainly possible but not often actionable. Not that you're not right, it certainly can be done with a diverse mix. I think it's just more efficient to play peaceful and go all out settling now, hence I shouldn't even bother trying to war beyond a defensive force. The domination victory has been hamstrung, that game is gone.

 

[Horizons]

I just loaded up a game as Japan on Emperor. Not in the best frame of mind, but it was a demonstration of how tough this game can be if you're not ultra-optimizing and exploiting it. I was totally hemmed in by the AI and the sheer amount of AI unit spam made it impossible to capture any cities (if the AI spams enough units it will eventually make up for its terrible combat logic, simply through sheer numbers), meanwhile my economy, science and culture were tanking because of building only/mostly units and it basically ended with a rage quit and feeling depressed afterward. Maybe I am just a very bad 'gamer', that's highly likely, but the game isn't as easy as you think for most people I reckon.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Tell me what movement upgrades or the logistics card could do in a situation like this? By the time even my musket got to a position where he could attack he was 50% damaged.

Spoiler :

View attachment 532736

The knight+ram was repeatable. What you're saying is certainly possible but not often actionable. Not that you're not right, it certainly can be done with a diverse mix. I think it's just more efficient to play peaceful and go all out settling now, hence I shouldn't even bother trying to war beyond a defensive force. The domination victory has been hamstrung, that game is gone.

Mm... you really need more science. More of everything tbh. Your cities are really underdeveloped and you have 2 trade routes.

Also did he take defender of the faith? You can take wars of religion card and a spy for combat bonuses.

Your army should be larger too if you are banking faith. Taking out Nan Madol hurt your culture too.

I mean yes that is a hard spot to attack and this map looks unsuited for domination but it only has 37 str and you could be hitting a lot earlier. You also ought to prebuild some cheap catas to change to bombards if you spot niter.

 

[Victoria]

Tell me what movement upgrades or the logistics card could do in a situation like this?

you mean “tell me what you would do with a foot army”. I would take the encampment first then use distraction troops on the west side while muskets went east with a ram.
City defence will target skirmishers, domreys and ranged troops.

Or I would bypass the city as it is only 3 pop and will fall to loyalty, there are paths on both sides.
Or make peace and run a trade route to the city first.
No Rams?... look for Akkad. I tested it, works on foot (AC/melee) but not mounted - Akkad test

Have a look at Combat Quiz #11

 

[Loderingo]

In this case this is not a cheap exploit, but a faulty algorithm, and the poor guy has to resort to the time- and clicks-consuming workaround - buying some quantity of the wanted strategic resource one by one if he wants to get a reasonable price, instead of wasting loads of gold for nothing.

As for the game getting harder, that is not my impression. In vanilla AI at least used to win from time to time, if you allowed the game to reach T300 or so. Now it seems very much confused. If a deity game can be won not even using districts and governors, post t300 and while not being threatened very much, it hardly has become harder. War is still superprofitable, eurekas and inspirations can carry you a very long way, and pillaging benefits are still obscene.

I think the game has definitely got harder as the AI has improved. That said I’m sure many players have also become more skilled players so it may not feel like the game has got harder. In the current patch, the AI is badly impeded mid game by aid requests as it feels the need to spam aid request in almost all cities. Once this is patched I think we’ll see the AI improve again

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Tell me what movement upgrades or the logistics card could do in a situation like this? By the time even my musket got to a position where he could attack he was 50% damaged.

Spoiler :

View attachment 532736

The knight+ram was repeatable. What you're saying is certainly possible but not often actionable. Not that you're not right, it certainly can be done with a diverse mix. I think it's just more efficient to play peaceful and go all out settling now, hence I shouldn't even bother trying to war beyond a defensive force. The domination victory has been hamstrung, that game is gone.

I think a bit more scouting could have really helped you in this situation. Id have stationed a siege unit in Kompong Syay and whittled down the encampment. Your later picture revealed the mountain range to the east of Nagano also ends. I'd have sent some cavalry units around the back end. All in once the encampment was taken care of you could attack the city from all sides. Cavalry riding down from the north, a few troops coming in each choke and you'd have the city without too much trouble.

You could also have went further north and took out Tokyo or Kyoto which both seem to be softer targets and worked your way back down. I know Loyalty may have presented an issue early on but it could be overcome.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

I think a bit more scouting could have really helped you in this situation. Id have stationed a siege unit in Kompong Syay and whittled down the encampment. Your later picture revealed the mountain range to the east of Nagano also ends. I'd have sent some cavalry units around the back end. All in once the encampment was taken care of you could attack the city from all sides. Cavalry riding down from the north, a few troops coming in each choke and you'd have the city without too much trouble.

You could also have went further north and took out Tokyo or Kyoto which both seem to be softer targets and worked your way back down. I know Loyalty may have presented an issue early on but it could be overcome.

Well, yeah. I suppose. Theoretically anything's possible. The thing is that the time between images in the original post is 26 turns. Getting the cav, moving them around, hoping to get not too terribly beat up while we move to surround the city (in which case I'd have to retreat to friendly territory and heal)...Yeah, it's possible. I think the simple answer would have been to scout more thoroughly. Strikes me as more clickfest grinding. I mean why bother? Just build minimal units for defense, lots of settlers with ancestral hall, campus/theatre districts, make friends with the computer, and win. Allot less clicking.