I'm Not Even Building Tier 1 Buildings

MarigoldRan

WARLORD
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
2,349
I mean, what's the point? Consider: libraries only provide +2 science. That's like nothing. For the cost of 4 libraries, you could instead build 8 chariots to upgrade into knights and conquer a neighbor and use their districts for science.
 
Tier 1 buildings provide +2 of their yield for each City State of their type that you are the Suzerain of.
 
Why would you want to play civ VI most efficiently? It‘s a sandbox building game, not a competitive one. At least that‘s how it feels for me. I know I could almost always just conquer my neighbor and be better off afterwards. But I don‘t see the point in doing so. Why would you even build the campus if you can just pillage and train more troops? You would ignore 90% of the game and mechanics, but finish earlier.
 
Tier 1 buildings provide +2 of their yield for each City State of their type that you are the Suzerain of.

No...you just need to have 3 envoys with a scientific city-state in order to get the extra +2. You don't need to be their suzerain. Big difference.

Also, libraries are cheap. They seem worth it in my mind. They may not be as obviously powerful as markets/lighthouses because of the trade routes, but they are essential for catching up on Emperor and above.
 
No...you just need to have 3 envoys with a scientific city-state in order to get the extra +2. You don't need to be their suzerain. Big difference.
Right, that was the point I was trying to make also. Thanks for the correction/clarification. :goodjob:
 
Yeah, show that military AI who's the boss! Must be so tough...

That's exactly the point! The military AI is so incompetent that it's almost always better to get units than buildings.

I mean Is there even a point in building districts other than campuses barring Mali, Greece, Zulu, or Germany?
 
Why build anything at all? Just equip the raid card and pillage a mine. You can go to a backwards civ, pillage a mine and get like 200 science out of it. And you thought chopping a leftover wall into a wonder was dumb. It has nothing on this.

I tried a war game with Ottoman yesterday and it was like really stupid and I pretty much ignored what my cities were building after a certain point. Then I realized I screwed up. I should have only just chopped catapults, lol. Oh yea, Greece tried to win culturally and actually would have won by like t150! But I just wiped out a few civs and there was no chance of a tourism victory.
 
Last edited:
The point is that you won't need to build chariots in every city, all the time. You just don't need and probably can't afford that much units. You might prioritize units in early game when you have few cities, if you want to go for early conquest but there's no reason to avoid building that T1 building eventually, mostly considering that Civ VI focus on city specialization. Building units everywhere is overkill and eventually become a waste of production, you just don't need that many units. Meanwhile, you could use more science to upgrade your units, culture, gold to keep that huge army of yours...


That's exactly the point! The military AI is so incompetent that it's almost always better to get units than buildings.

I mean Is there even a point in building districts other than campuses?

Yeah, there's that thing called a trade route, know in some cultures as OP route. You get one from a commercial hub or harbor so you might want to have a few of those. Government District can give you a nice production boost, a well positioned IZ will let you pump out those units faster, same for encampments and harbors. Faith can be used to build units if you're going for that strategy. Campus isn't even a priority, commercial hub/harbor take that post. The only district that is really low priority unless you're going for cultural is the Theater Square but it still worth building some eventually. Edit: I forgot to mention entertainment complex and water park, though that is mid/late game. It still relevant if you conquering everything in your path.

You also need to consider that you can play Civ peacefully. Yeah, conquering from the AI is good but far from the only strategy that works. If you're going for peaceful, all you need is a decent stand army to show force and defend yourself.

I'm repeating myself in multiple threads now but Civ VI focus on city specialization. You can and should do both units and buildings, each on the cities that are better suited to work towards that specific thing. Focusing on units and ignoring the rest make zero sense. Instead you prioritize your strategy, in this case being aggressive but still develop your empire on other areas.
 
OP's point is that it doesn't matter what he builds. He could be spamming scouts in all his cities, and it would have little difference as long as he keeps pillaging and capturing (or not even capturing)
 
OP's point is that it doesn't matter what he builds. He could be spamming scouts in all his cities, and it would have little difference as long as he keeps pillaging and capturing (or not even capturing)
I think most people in this thread get that point, the question is why did he bother posting it on the forum, as a separate thread, with a very indirect indication on the issue. Pillage issue is already known to forumers too (and "conquest is always better" is known since dawn of the game). There's really no point in doing this at all, and people get confused and post to see if the OP has any hidden message to say, but apparently not.
 
Because "building 8 chariots to upgrade into knights and conquer a neighbor and use their districts for science" is the most boring and mindless way to play Civ. It's the most unfair strategy in the sense that it's a) the strongest (obviously), and b) where the difference in competence between an AI and a human player is the greatest. If you only try to play the game in the "best" possible way then you're ignoring everything else that's technically weaker, and thus missing out on most of the content and features of the game itself

I don't play Civ competitively or to beat some kind of personal record or whatever. I play Civ as a pastime to have fun. Thus, playing a total warmonger is the worst possible strategy for my goals because it gives me next to no enjoyment or satisfaction at all
 
I'm Not Even Playing non-Tier 1 Civs

I mean, what's the point? Consider: non-tier 1 Civs can't conquer the world until Knights. That's like nothing. For the cost of Knights, you could instead build early game UU's and conquer everyone and use their districts for everything.

:sarcasm:
Who want's variety and stuff like that.
 
I mean, most civs tend to have around 10 science per turn by the time you unlock libraries. That's a pretty considerable increase percentage wise.

Also, that +1 great scientist per turn is huge even late game.
 
b) where the difference in competence between an AI and a human player is the greatest.

This is an important point. Humans have the greatest advantage in this area. I have more respect for a player that can win on deity with someone like Canada without ever going to war or ever pillaging a single tile. Even more respect if they never chop.
 
This is an important point. Humans have the greatest advantage in this area. I have more respect for a player that can win on deity with someone like Canada without ever going to war or ever pillaging a single tile. Even more respect if they never chop.
That's funny, I'm actually playing as pacifistic Canada trying to go for diplomatic victory on a huge map in my current game lol (on Immortal though). With a near-zero production start I might add >.>
 
Top Bottom