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

[Horizons]

What have you been doing for 94 turns ?

As much as I can (i.e. not enough)

I reckon I don't chop enough in the early game to rush production. I'm basically averse to it because I see it as wasteful in the long run, but I need to train myself to see the early game as more important.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

I dont think it's a lack of chopping. Before feudalism, i only chop to make space for districts myself. I don't want to be spending 1/3th of a worker to chop for like 30 production. Too much of a waste of opportunity.

I don't know what is the problem tough. You have a small fraction of what one would expect by turn 94. Can't blame the AI for building a few units.

 

[oSiyeza]

Can anybody say CATAPULT, CATAPULT, CATAPULT?

This is the state of play after I've already killed half a dozen of them:

The only saving grace is the AI doesn't actually use them - if it did, it would wipe out my units through sheer attrition and it would be impossible to win.

Strange logic here: give the AI the ability to make dozens of units but program it not to actually use them in order to give the human a chance.

This is a known bug with catapults. Funny enough is not actually a flaw in the AI, the catapults are not listed as able to attack or deffend but to siege a city. I would say that solving this and a couple of other stupid punctual mistakes would make wonders to perceive the AI as capable.

However my biggest complaint (besides throwing all their resources into aid requests), is that the AI cares too much about grievances and rarely start proactive wars in the game.

Early game development the AI used to go rampant against city states but we complained so much that they fixed that. However, they should try from time to time to conquer their neighbours.

Now a Military Victory is imposible for AI, it has always been. I don't think anyone has ever seen one of these, and it is a shame. A militaristic AI should try to expand. I don't think they do anything more than conquer a city or two. And worst thing, this is probably to some extent intended behabiour.

 

[Horizons]

I'm a rubbish player

The point though is that if the AI was actually using those catapults (other than for sieging cities) or if it built other units instead I wouldn't be able to win that war.

Hence, this is a case where even massive cheats for the AI don't overcome the basic flaws in its logic. Game designers really don't care about AI.

 

[Horizons]

Is it normal for a city-state's borders to snake out as far as this or is this another 'annoy the human in lieu of decent AI'?

I am finding playing at Emperor is just really frustrating, all work and no play.

https://i.ibb.co/LC2X0S0/2019-08-28-00-56-47.jpg

 

[WackenOpenAir]

Are you competing hard for its suzerainship ? It's supposed to grow 1 tile for every envoy beyond the first. (but maybe it benefited from culture bomb mechanics, not sure if thats available for CSes somehow ?)

And yes, emperor is work instead of play I see the difference, you progressed a lot in 1 day. I usually play 10-20 turns per day. (and every 10 turns spend like an hour to make plans, sometimes many hours googling stuff i need to know for those plans) I think honestly that is the biggest difference between playing deity or medium levels. If i just click trough stuff rather quickly, it can indeed be rather hard. Espescially the first 100 turns are important. After playing 100turns carefully, i usually am in a good enough position (and getting bored of the game) that i start clicking trough. After playing a bunch of games like this and googling everything in the process, it starts to go a bit faster. Still, "fear the next turn button" is the correct mindset.

 

[Haig]

King is comfortable to me, but sometimes enemy empires have surprised me and won a cultural or religious victory.

Emperor I struggle with, unless I have some cheesy start. I wield obsolete units against modern enemy armies.

 

[Victoria]

Emperor is work for 80 turns then play. Does it help expansion or eurekas or getting envoys? Then don’t do it. Do things cheaply with cards if you can
The Hong Kong border has happened like that because there was only a few envoys in it and other civs expanded their borders to squish Hong Kong then it looks like it got an addition 12-15 envoys quickly which cause the squiggly expansion.
Not normal before last patch but now the AI is saving more envoys...

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

I have noticed on my last few games of King, a couple of AI opponents have not even bothered to build walls. It has made the game even easier as the Ottomans.

As to Emperor, I find it more tedious than difficult. The AI is only a threat early, where it can crank out warriors in no time. So you play defense for a bit and then get playing.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I have noticed on my last few games of King, a couple of AI opponents have not even bothered to build walls

Same @ Immortal; I never got why they make them such a low priority.

 

[Acken]

I've played a few games after a long pause (since the vanilla release) and while I think the AI is a bit better than it used to, the game remains rather easy even on Deity... if you survive a potential rush. Really only the initial turns can be scary in civ6 from my experience so far.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

Can anybody say CATAPULT, CATAPULT, CATAPULT?

This is the state of play after I've already killed half a dozen of them:

The only saving grace is the AI doesn't actually use them - if it did, it would wipe out my units through sheer attrition and it would be impossible to win.

Strange logic here: give the AI the ability to make dozens of units but program it not to actually use them in order to give the human a chance.

Whenever I see more than 2 catapults in one place, I take it as a sure sign that the AI wants to become a part of my empire but can't breach the subject with its captains, local governors, etc...too small to be included in the grand civ strategic window.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

As anyone ever seen a catapult attack anything other than a city?

 

[Victoria]

As anyone ever seen a catapult attack anything other than a city?

Yes, the do attack my troops, just not consistently. They may be attacking yours as well but at -17 you are not noticing.
Imagine how many archers they could have and the huge difference it would make.
The AI is not bad with archers either.

 

[Beaver79]

As anyone ever seen a catapult attack anything other than a city?

Barbarian catapults will attack your troops. City state catapults will attack your boats. Enemy civ catapults seem very broken. Not only have they never shot at my troops, but if one is fortifying a city that you are attacking, they will even move out of the city to not do anything reducing the fortification bonus to the city in the process. Imo this is the biggest flaw in Civ 6 at the moment. If they would fix that one issue it would make early warfare much harder since once the AI can make catapults, that is all they seem to make.

 

[Horizons]

If they made the AI halfway competent with units it would be unbeatable at Emperor, considering the huge bonuses it gets.

 

[Horizons]

So the answer is no it's not difficult ... if you learn the correct routine. Then it's just a sausage factory, dispatching the AI's spam hoards.

 

[Victoria]

Then it's just a sausage factory

Then at emperor you are more free to mess rather than stress.
I’ll play a whole game with 3 or 5 cities or 20(ugh) doing whatever. Once you get the gist it’s not hard.

 

[Horizons]

Then at emperor you are more free to mess rather than stress.
I’ll play a whole game with 3 or 5 cities or 20(ugh) doing whatever. Once you get the gist it’s not hard.

Bummer ... I just got spam-bashed into submission again.

Guess I done lost my Civ mojo

 

[Horizons]

loooool! I played through and managed to win a SCIENCE victory as Poland. At one point the AI had modern armour when the best I could do was Cuirassers.