How powerful are the "exploits"?

[Lily_Lancer]

I've never quite understood what motivates people to be so unnecessarily aggressive on a forum about something as a trivial as a videogame - whatever it is, I hope it works out for you.

As for Lily's game, I'm not especially interested in the use (or not) of 'exploits' but I am very interested to get a closer look at how Lily plays, because it's certainly on a different level to me!

Due to the rule change I guess I'll play very differently than in normal games in this game.

 

[bengalryan9]

Like, how freaking desperate are you guys to play this game?

Coming from a guy who evidently doesn't have anything better to do than post in a forum about a game he doesn't like, that's pretty rich.

 

[Tabarnak]

Good thing with Canada: Easy fights through toundra plains against zombies
Bad thing: toundra(looks like he started in desert but it feels the same)

 

[Lily_Lancer]

About to enter the classical era. Leave horseback riding at 120/144 science so that it'll automatically finish when the game enters classical and the cost being reduced to 120.

capital switch to horseman, when finished the horseman, then return to monument.

capital building list: horseman--monument--government plaza--encampment--warlord throne

1st city building list: horseman --horseman --horseman --horseman

2nd city building list: pyramids


Upgrade some archers and wait for the horsemen. The Canadian invaders must be punished.

 

[AntSou]

I don't think civ 6 can be played without at least partial role-playing attitude or personal habit, because when going fully competitive the game adds nothing to the experience as compared to games specifically tailored for this, like chess.

Yes it absolutely can. It's one of the ways to approach the game, especially when it gets boring. You just try to beat yourself and your own records.

I find this whole argument between roleplaying and err... hardplaying(?) a bit hilarious though, because for me they are not opposites.

Personally I roleplay for the exact same reason another person might attempt "Y victory type by X turn". It's an artificial way of increasing challenge.

I would be less inclined to roleplay if the AI was challenging enough.

Good god. Imagine having to honestman this much just to have some semblance of a challenge in a game.

Better civs exist guys. Did you know that? Not ones where a bunch of 24 year olds got in a room and made a game based off 'great ideas', with bad execution. So sad. Might as well play Settlers of Catan.

Unfortunately for you plenty of us here if not most are Civ veterans who have played other Civ iterations in the past, so I suggest you leave your attempts at contempt in either reddit or the youtube comment section where it belongs. Thanks.

Trying to get on a high horse is silly by standard, but over a video game? That's a woolly mammoth you're trying to get on.

View attachment 560917
View attachment 560918
Achievement achieved-- Being declared by Canada within the first 20 turns of the game.

THIS is what I'm talking about when I say Deity can be easier than Emperor or Immortal at times.

I already know what follows. The AI is over-aggressive, will throw a bunch of units at Scythia, will lose them all while not bothering to keep up in military production, Lilly will counter-attack and take the cities for minimal grievances (since he has a bunch of free grievances).

A lot of Deity games seem to be like this. You either get crushed or trampolined to victory and it's all usually decided at this stage.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

T 46 Classical Era Save

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Spoiler :

Start producing horsemen.

Spoiler :

Capture Halifax almost immediately after horsemen arrives.

Spoiler :

Then, Ottawa

Spoiler :

Policies

 

[bitula]

Yes it absolutely can. It's one of the ways to approach the game, especially when it gets boring. You just try to beat yourself and your own records.

I still don't understand what plus does it give you when playing purely competitive as compared to chess or games where chess figures are animated but otherwise strategy and tactics remain pure. Do you play Chess? And Lilly, do you play chess? Don't you think that demonstrating your intelligence would be much more interesting for others in a pure context, such as chess? Sorry, I just don't get it how can someone enjoy civ games in the same manner one enjoys chess, or in a way, for example, when one solves a math exercise. And these latter are not relaxed, but rather intense on your mind, you need to concentrate, you need to "work", which is not something one would expect from a game. And this has nothing to do with casual play.

 

[AntSou]

I still don't understand what plus does it give you when playing purely competitive as compared to chess or games where chess figures are animated but otherwise strategy and tactics remain pure. Do you play Chess? And Lilly, do you play chess? Don't you think that demonstrating your intelligence would be much more interesting for others in a pure context, such as chess? Sorry, I just don't get it how can someone enjoy civ games in the same manner one enjoys chess, or in a way, for example, when one solves a math exercise. And these latter are not relaxed, but rather intense on your mind, you need to concentrate, you need to "work", which is not something one would expect from a game. And this has nothing to do with casual play.

Respectfully, you don't need to get anything. Maybe just play the way you want to play and mind your business?

 

[Lily_Lancer]

I still don't understand what plus does it give you when playing purely competitive as compared to chess or games where chess figures are animated but otherwise strategy and tactics remain pure. Do you play Chess? And Lilly, do you play chess? Don't you think that demonstrating your intelligence would be much more interesting for others in a pure context, such as chess? Sorry, I just don't get it how can someone enjoy civ games in the same manner one enjoys chess, or in a way, for example, when one solves a math exercise. And these latter are not relaxed, but rather intense on your mind, you need to concentrate, you need to "work", which is not something one would expect from a game. And this has nothing to do with casual play.

I am a casual player which takes game as casual as other casual players, the only difference is that I know the strategy of how to build things in the correct time, how to make your cities yield more precise and efficient, how to make use of rare issues that others may ignore, how to play in different styles while still maintaining efficiency, etc, better than other casual players, but that doesn't change the background that I'm a casual player. Maybe you're talking about some chess players but I'm definitely not one of them.

 

[AntSou]

the only difference is that I know the strategy of how to build things in the correct time, how to make your cities yield more precise and efficient, how to make use of rare issues that others may ignore, how to play in different styles while still maintaining efficiency, etc, better than other casual players, but that doesn't change the background that I'm a casual player

Then what's the difference between a casual player and a non-casual one, in your view?

I think most of the stuff in that list disqualifies you as casual. You could be a veteran and play casually, but that doesn't seem to be how you play anyway.

 

[bitula]

Respectfully, I am not criticizing any ones abilities or gaming style. I am just curious about "what plus does it give you when playing purely competitive as compared to chess"?. Maybe if someone could answer this, I could try it myself. But so far my question wasn't even addressed. An other important question is "Do you play Chess?". Because if you don't you probably don't understand why am I asking this.

 

[AntSou]

Respectfully, I am not criticizing any ones abilities or gaming style. I am just curious about "what plus does it give you when playing purely competitive as compared to chess"?. Maybe if someone could answer this, I could try it myself. But so far my question wasn't even addressed. An other important question is "Do you play Chess?". Because if you don't you probably don't understand why am I asking this.

Chess has got nothing to do with anything.

If you were curious you'd just read the posts in this thread posted before you.

@bitula

Here:

Clearly some people here really enjoy improving their gameplay and I don't see nuffin wrong with that. You can win in Civ 6 at the highest diff with just about any strategy, playing entirely "suboptimally" and roleplaying for fun. I've done that, too. But it's not satisfying to me anymore at all. The knowledge that any game, even on Deity, is decided by T50 pretty much means that the only way I can find challenge in this game at all is by improving myself.

Civ 6 is also pretty much just applied maths, because it is one of the few games with zero mechanical skill involved, and I really like figuring these kinds of things out. A map is like a riddle. Many ways to solve it, some are more satisfying than others.

I'm not jumping into roleplaying threads and telling people to play this way or that way, and I don't understand why that courtesy can't be extended to everyone else. Not everyone wants to play optimally, sure, but are we at least allowed to talk about it? Do I have your permission, big bro?

 

[bitula]

Chess has got nothing to do with anything.

If you were curious you'd just read the posts in this thread posted before you.

Chess is a pure representation of tactics and strategy and therefore competitive game play. So it is a very good comparison. But forget it. I think you don't understand my question and I fail to see why, I'm not English speaker though, maybe this has to do something with this. But maybe others understand my question.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Then what's the difference between a casual player and a non-casual one, in your view?

I think most of the stuff in that list disqualifies you as casual. You could be a veteran and play casually, but that doesn't seem to be how you play anyway.

I don't think "casual" shall be synonym to "lack of skill" . "Casual" is a style that you don't put competitive playing in the 1st place, and generally chooses the more interesting route if two routes are roughly of similar efficiency . Being "casual" doesn't mean you have to develop your Civ badly and focus on ruining your Civ.

 

[PenngwynXVII]

Hmm... I would just point out that "casual" would be an antonym for "fanatical". Given the name of the forum we're all on here, and the frequency of posting/reading, I'm not sure any of us could really describe our relationship to this game as "casual".

Not that I think there is anything wrong with that.

 

[RealHuhn]

Back to topic: It was refreshing to see a builder first opening. That's something I should try a bit more often depending on the starting location. An early boost to Agoge can be quite useful as well, especially coupled with a religious opening where you need to save every hammer you can find.

 

[bitula]

I think from a pure fast guaranteed win point of view, I would try pump up as much warriors and slingers as possible and go for domination. And do really nothing else... These do not require maintenance. After some cities conquered there would be enough money to upgrade these to swordsmen and crossbowman respectively and maintain them, so just beeline those techs while you are at war and gaining promotions and then just go on warring. Am I missing something? One thing: you need settle on a place with high production output and to gain higher rate of unit production at some point additional cities may be founded. Never tried it myself, but I imagine that this should work.

 

[UWHabs]

Back to topic: It was refreshing to see a builder first opening. That's something I should try a bit more often depending on the starting location. An early boost to Agoge can be quite useful as well, especially coupled with a religious opening where you need to save every hammer you can find.

I just don't know how to avoid getting killed by barbarians if I don't get a slinger in my first 2 builds of the city. And I'm a little perfectionist in not being able to handle having unexplored lands within 4-5 tiles of my capital. Heck, there's a turn 54 screenshot there with an unexplored tile within range of the capital. I can just hear myself screaming "what if you missed your chance at a free envoy with a city-state? Or what if Mt Roraima is just around the riverbend?"

 

[AntSou]

Casual" is a style that you don't put competitive playing in the 1st place, and generally chooses the more interesting route if two routes are roughly of similar efficiency .

I disagree. If two routes are of equal efficiency then picking the most interesting is a no brainer.

A casual is someone who isn't even aware of all (or most, or any) of the most efficient routes, whereas playing casually means picking the most inneficient route out of two because you find the efficient one boring/uninteresting.

Being "casual" doesn't mean you have to develop your Civ badly and focus on ruining your Civ.

For someone who is already aware of all/most efficient paths, then everything which is not the efficient path falls into the "develop your Civ badly" category.

So you just described yourself as casual while removing from the definition everyone out there who is an actual casual.

Or at the very least, lumping yourself into the casual category makes the category pointless.

There's no actual competitive play in Civ 6. You are it. This thread is it.