Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Steve Eric Jordan, May 19, 2019.
Play as Victoria or Canada.
And restart until you get a flat grasslands start as opposed to the opposite.
Increase the number of civs and decrease the map size.
Do not restore back for any reason.
I have seen people say they never lose on deity then find the rerolling starts and restore and replay.
Fractal Maps. IMHO they are harder to manner my units get a numerical advantage over the AI when fighting.
So you are now saying the endgame is an issue as well as the AI?
What the hell is a Dom player even discussing an endgame for? You finish by T150 I would hope. If you are not then maybe up your game?
One thing I do is track both my record and my time (for all win types, not just deity). So the goal is to both win, but also get a fast time. If you're too conservative (always getting units early, and having them in defensive positions all game) you won't have many losses but will have slow times. If you're too reckless (expanding and teching too fast), eventually you get caught and actually get run over. That might not be a big deal to people who just happily reload, but if your record your stats and have to look at permanent loss on your record every time you record a game, you're going to want to play more conservatively and avoid those mistakes. Generally if you play a more conservative early game then middle and late game will be a bit more competitive, though in general the game getting a bit more boring is just something you have to accept across all victory modes.
In all honesty? I went back to Vox Populi.
If you frame the question only about civ 6, then all I can say is that after I won a non-setup-cooked (never did that) Deity game with only 5 cities, after having lost two of them in an early war and recovering them later, with a SV mind you, I couldn't find more ways to "spice it" than to just go back to the best AI there is as of now.
Try Smoother Difficulty mod with the new difficulties above deity. It adds progressive bonus through the eras so the farer you reach the harder should be.
Also you can go and mix it up with Real Strategy if you think that's not enough.
I love fine-tuning my play for low win times in peaceful games. I find it immensely satisfying to have everything come together perfectly. There's meaningful stuff to do every turn, and important strategic decisions until the end of the game, with a bit of math and calculations to keep it interesting. I find it much more exciting to dominate the game this way than mow the enemies over with war. To me, it represents a huge in-depth understanding of many different mechanics of the game.
My best (peaceful) culture victory is T128 (China, Pangaea, R&F), which I am *very* proud of.
The only thing I hate about this is that most of the starts are crap for doing this. It's pretty easily apparent whether this will be a start I can get a sub T200 victory or not. And if it's not, I don't find it fun. So I do a̶n̶ ̶o̶b̶s̶c̶e̶n̶e̶ ̶a̶m̶o̶u̶n̶t a bit of rerolling...
The problem with spamming warlike civs is that they don't tech or threaten other victory conditions well. Thus if they can't kill you, you will eventually wind up shredding their armies and winning most likely. T300 benchmark for deity win is generous; if you're fighting you can expect an even later finish from the AI, and that's on average. This suggests you could literally sit at or below 100 science/turn for most or all of the game and still win.
If you crowd the map sufficiently you can get forced into early dark age and flipped out of existence. I lost that way once recently, Maori came up on deity and I was so boxed in by starting settlers I couldn't get more than 2nd city down. Rome attacks, I defend successfully but the required commitment to units and utter crowding out of barbarians meant no feasible era score and no way to defend from loyalty pressure.
If I had been spoiled in advance about those settlers it would have been winnable I think with early war + warrior shenanigans, but once the cities were down it was pretty dismal.
How about just wait with your war? If the early conquering is what makes the game easy, then start off by playing peacefully and first consider to rage war in modern era. That's how I tend to play. Peaceful starts are much more challenging and there are more ways to go than an early war. Besides later war is much more fun against the AI if they still have many units. Especially after they started building aircrafts again.
I find that people are too focused on getting the AI neigbour's city way too early and then complain about no exciting wars later on. It's just that people are playing the same style in each game because conquering the AI neighbour's city is almost a guaranteed win.
BTW, I don't think any AI ever won a domination victory in any of the civ games
Also you say you don't want to put a handicap on yourself, so does that mean you reroll your starts untill you don't feel handicapped?
Honestly if people wants a war game from turn 1 they should go play a RTS instead.
I agree with you that "speedruns" is a weird concept but has always existed in the civ community. At least on CivFanatics. Most players play to enjoy the development/progress in the game but "breaking" the game has always been a hobby on CivFanatics. I do often question myself if the players claiming "Deity is easy" ever play like the game was actually intended but it has always been a liable tactics for the deity players to use exploits. Personally I find exploits to be gamebreaking (because they are) in the sense of the way Civ was intended to be played. Playing the game "as it was designed for" often allows the player to experience a much more broader pallete of the game.
This being CIV6 - General Discussions I would think it apparent that the question was framed around civ 6 and not inviting to yet another discussion on why previous iterations of CIV are better than CIV VI.
Many people like to be challenged and as the last podcast stated, the only half decent measure of optimal play is shorter victories and as winning is not difficult it is the sensible option left to those that like a challenge, and there are a lot of them. Not weird in my book or theirs.
These games find optimal strategies and some of them may be deemed exploits but they are left in the game.
For example I find the public transport card an easy way to milk thousands of gold out of the system but they then doubled the gold gained in a patch indicating they were fine with it.
It all comes down to what each of us considers an exploit. For example taking all the gold off a civ before fighting it I will not do.
But speedruns are not weird to many, they are the only way they like to play and they do find optimal play that often is not exploits and many have taken on board.
And do not merge the deity is easy people in with all optimal play players. It is a bit more complex that that.
I've struggled with finding the game settings that I like the most. There are so many variables it's inevitably a crapshoot, but I usually play on Emperor-Huge Continents-Epic speed. I use the mod that adds walls to City States. I liked the mod that increased the research costs of Technologies and Civics, but I don't think it's been updated for Gathering Storm; I also think it didn't adjust the Era Scores for Historic Events to be commensurate with the elongated Eras, but overall, it was on the right track. I don't like having vulnerable Civs right near me at game start, because they're too easy to roll, but I also don't want to be isolated for a long time, because I get bored playing in a sandbox by myself. It's tricky to find the right balance.
In addition to the AI's lack of military prowess, I'm lately finding myself thinking about the fact that war is (almost) always profitable, and is (almost) always an effective means to the end, (almost) regardless of which victory condition you're pursuing. I rarely go for a Domination victory, but unless I'm messing around, experimenting with something, I always beat the stuffing out of my nearest neighbors in the Ancient and Classical Periods. The fact that it almost always works in the short term is compounded by the fact that it almost always works out in the long term.
I'm not a modder: Is it possible to raise unit Maintenance Costs the further from home they get? I'm thinking logistics, the cost of building and holding together an ever-growing nation, specifically in military terms. That's what hampered the Persians and the Mongols, in the end. And you could make a case that, in the way Civ abstracts things, getting too far from home is what caused the Chinese fleet under Zheng He to turn back (in reality it wasn't the cost, not really, it was internal politics, but Civ doesn't have any internal politics, but we can sorta model and abstract internal politics by increasing the various costs of things). Anyway, just thinking out loud...
S'funny, I have the polar-opposite impression of the game, that any time I'm not trying to take advantage of the AI, to grow my Civ towards achieving victory, that I'm not playing the game as intended*. For example, I sometimes play peacefully, and it feels almost embarrassingly artificial. I don't mean just ahistorical - although it is that, too - but that it's not the game designers' intention. It seems to me that warfare is an integral part of this game. Playing a Civ with no religion or no art & music feels less bizarre to me than playing a Civ that never fights a war and never tries to screw its competition.
* There's nothing wrong with not playing it as intended, btw. It's a single-player game, the only person you have to satisfy is yourself. And anyway, creating an outlandish history of an alternative Earth is precisely what this game was intended for. Let your freak flag fly, I say.
Peacemongering is maybe a bit of a strong word but keeping the peace is a very realistic philisophy in the modern world. Naturally, if an AI is running away from you, you will need to deal with it and it makes it more fun if you need to reconsider your play in order to stop a runaway AI. Especially if it's on the other side of the continent and you are closed in by other AIs since you never went to war early on. Everything just becomes too easy when going straight into war because everyone will be your neighbour so you don't have to bribe your way to open borders in order to your army to your enemies, etc.. You should go to war on the enemies that are threatening your victory or have a critical ressource, or you don't want heresy in your religious empire. That is the true reasons of the modern world to go to war.
That "modern world" you reference is, at most, still less than 2% of the timeline represented by Civ 6. There's a reason Civs are littered with unique military units. Of course one can still opt to put a self-handicap in the interest of fun, or roleplay a 2019 western nation in the middle ages, but it would be strange to think this "realistic" .
I wish it were that simple. You can stay at peace as long as you like, and you're still unlikely to get an interesting war from the AI. At least as of R&F. I haven't played GS, but from the comments of those who have, nothing has changed. The AI will rarely start late game wars against you, and when they do they rarely accomplish anything beyond giving you favourable terms in the subsequent peace treaty.
The "problem" isn't that war is too easy or that early war is too easy; you can play peacefully and win easily. The "problem" isn't that chopping is overpowered; you don't have to chop anything to win easily. The "problem" is that the game is designed to be "win your way". Which is only really a problem if you enjoyed the challenge level offered by past versions of Civ and wish Civ 6 offered something similar.
There are other, more fundamental issues, I have with the basic design of Civ 6, the imbalance in the economic system, the ease of managing your happiness level, the underwhelmedness of Wonders such that they're only for flavour, the sameness of the AI leaders behaviour, etc. But all of those stop being "problems" when you view Civ as a simulation for you to build the empire you want, largely unimpeded by the AI civs. From that lens, the problems reverse, and you wonder why barbarians can crimp your early expansion, why the AI will attack aggressively in the early eras (and effectively, thanks to their initial starting advantage), etc.
I greatly object to you calling my way of playing wrong and lame. You make a thread specifically asking people what *they* do to make the game more interesting for *them*, and you call mine wrong? Why even bother making a thread then if you won't listen to things that go against what you already believed?
I've done plenty of no-restart games. It's a fun novelty. I got bored of that about 2000 hours ago though. I find it both more challenging and rewarding to improve the small details of my play on going for speedrun wins. Sure, winning from a tundra island start is nice, but I find it more frustrating than it's worth.
Here is what I do that actually makes deity really challenging:
No reloads as you discussed earlier.
Absolutely no trading with the AI (except when suing for peace, then I think it’s fair to loot them)
Most catching up with the UI relies on selling lux, art, dipole favor, resources, or trading right before dow
Separate names with a comma.