Hills are overpowered

[Atlas627]

Good starts are removed from multiplayer because players from a good start can use diplomacy as well as players with a poor start. So diplomacy doesn't remove the imbalance.

I would think that means that the Diplomacy failed. Several players with worse starts should be agreeing to band together against someone with a good start.

You understood correctly so I dont see what confuses you. I disagreed with your statement and provided an example. Thats it. Its not "my modded map" by the way. Just the one competitive multiplayer civ5 use often.

Edit : Unless you re saying that you know already but still feel this way therefore my response was useless. If that is where this conversation is heading. About the flow of conversation rather than the subject. Dont waste your time im not really interested in that over the internet.

You implied the imbalanced starts were removed. That's where I got that idea. So when you say you don't see where I got that idea...I got it from you. So I still have no idea what your point was.

So are you saying that they are or aren't removed?

I am saying that I don't see a point in removing them. Can you respond to that?

 

[Acken]

You implied the imbalanced starts were removed. That's where I got that idea. So when you say you don't see where I got that idea...I got it from you. So I still have no idea what your point was.

Ok I think I got your confusion. Im asking you for what reason would they remove salt if skill and diplomacy were enough ? I asked a rhetorical question to underline my disagreement.

I am saying that I don't see a point in removing them. Can you respond to that?

I did, twice, and Kirriktwo rephrased the same argument.

 

[Atlas627]

Ok I think I got your confusion. Im asking you for what reason would they remove salt if skill and diplomacy were enough ? I asked a rhetorical question to underline my disagreement.

Ok, I see what you're trying to say. I think that diplomacy is enough, yes. The strength of 2 players should be able to overcome the advantages of a good start.

Have you played the game "Diplomacy"? Anything can be done with diplomacy if you play your cards right. Even if you have few cards.

 

[Atlas627]

Yes and no, Italy and Austria are widely regarded as the hardest nations to play as, while Russia is the easiest. Look at the victory percentages of difference countries in any online diplomacy community.

Yeah, though online Diplomacy is a completely different beast than in-person. Knowing your opponents are going to remember your betrayals next game changes it a lot. In Civ, that's handled even with random opponents because the diplomacy isn't about backstabbing as much.

In my games on online Diplomacy, France has the lowest winrate, followed by Russia and Austria (everyone gangs up on them), then Turkey and England (they at least are rarely eliminated), then Germany, then Italy. It might be because I got Italy more often than not, but I found winning as Italy quite easy. You just have to be *very* careful with your diplomacy.

 

[treadwin]

I don't think hills are over-powered. They are the best tile, but not unreasonably so. Bland homogeneous tiles would be boring.

The early play version is easy, AI is not tuned, and it is Prince level. D O N T P A N I C !

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Civilization VI is not a balanced game. While non of the civs seems to be particular stronger then the others which map type you play will decide which civs are strong and weak.

 

[Nefelia]

New game. New mechanisms. New standards.

Let go of the preconceptions formed during previous Civ iterations. They do not serve you well if they drive you into a snit over what could otherwise be embraced as refreshing changes to the norm.

 

[Nefelia]

I think the problem isn't that some tiles are better than others, it's that hills are the best. That's counter intuitive. Everyone expects flood plains and riverside tiles to be good, but hills? Slightly strange imo

And yet historically accurate.

Western civilization (and agriculture) started in the hilly region north (north-west?) of Mesopotamia. In China, agriculture and civilization was first formed along the more elevated terrain found along the middle reaches of the Yellow River.

Flat land was hardly an advantage for early civilizations.

 

[Leyrann]

And yet historically accurate.

Western civilization (and agriculture) started in the hilly region north (north-west?) of Mesopotamia. In China, agriculture and civilization was first formed along the more elevated terrain found along the middle reaches of the Yellow River.

Flat land was hardly an advantage for early civilizations.

Not trying to shoot you down, but I'm wondering what the explanation for that is.

 

[Nefelia]

Not trying to shoot you down, but I'm wondering what the explanation for that is.

For which part?

Agriculture in China took off in what is known as the Loess Plateau: a region that has - over millenia - accumulated a thick layer of wind-borne sediment called Loess. That Loess turned the region into one of the most fertile areas in the world.

As for the early start of Western agriculture (along the South-Eastern fringe of modern-day Turkey, if I recall correctly), part of it had to do with the fact that one of the local grains (wheat) was quite easy to improve via natural selection. I don't recall the local weather/fertility advantages beyond that, however.