So, first caveat: none of us have seen Immortal difficulty yet, so we're all guessing, obviously. And most of our talk on strategy, at least default, should be for Emperor/Immortal levels of difficulty. 6-7 out of 8, if you will. Diety is usually it's own kettle of fish, and below 6 is usually moot. You can do anything and win.
On Barbs, I think all of us were excited and commented to that effect. On the gameplay we've seen, raging Barbs is Essentially default, and it looks like they will be a thorn. But in no way will devs design a Level 7 difficulty where you need to build 3 military units immediately to survive. AI, for one, couldn't handle that.
So, what we're talking about is whether you can get 3 builds done before needing a few extra units. And I think that likely. And if you can wait until build 4 or 5 to build some military, then you can use your policies and rush them out. And then, while thorny, the barbs are no problem to handle.
Ed Beach said in passing in one of his videos that they recently fixed a bug with barb generation that caused a chance of barb generation on every player's turn rather than once a turn as intended.
There hasn't been a video after that fix that started early enough to compare with the large number of videos three/four weeks ago.
Ed Beach said in passing in one of his videos that they recently fixed a bug with barb generation that caused a chance of barb generation on every player's turn rather than once a turn as intended.
There hasn't been a video after that fix that started early enough to compare with the large number of videos three/four weeks ago.
Yeah, that particular build was funky. I believe what ed said was that before they went on air, he spent all morning fighting barbs because of that regen-bug, but it was unique to that day/week, essentially.
And that Spanish game we most recently saw, the AI did not look like it was doing all that well (obviously they fought an early war, which impeded), but it makes me think that whatever "5 of 6" that was, it really might still have been some sort of 5 or 6 out of 8.
We really haven't seen a fresh build with current barb/difficulty figured out, so who knows. I'd be surprised if the game didn't ship with at least 7 difficulty settings, but time will tell.
Certainly the Barbs on Prince back in the summer build were at least interesting. The poor players with all those vids suffered greatly; Marbozir had no problems, though even with just 2 Slingers most of the time (before upgrading and building good units after planting his 3rd city, and wiping the floor then).
Also, in those early builds, the City States had warriors roaming a long ways from their lands, like they were scouting or started following a barb and didn't stop. That was interesting to see, and will aid scouting.
And that Spanish game we most recently saw, the AI did not look like it was doing all that well (obviously they fought an early war, which impeded), but it makes me think that whatever "5 of 6" that was, it really might still have been some sort of 5 or 6 out of 8.
We really haven't seen a fresh build with current barb/difficulty figured out, so who knows. I'd be surprised if the game didn't ship with at least 7 difficulty settings, but time will tell.
I don't think 6 difficulties are the problem. It was in Civ2-3 and BE (5 in Civ1). It's just a matter of how AI bonuses are distributed between them.
Certainly the Barbs on Prince back in the summer build were at least interesting. The poor players with all those vids suffered greatly; Marbozir had no problems, though even with just 2 Slingers most of the time (before upgrading and building good units after planting his 3rd city, and wiping the floor then).
Prince difficulty isn't supposed to provide challenge for experienced player. Anyway, the build was quite old and a lot of rebalancing was implemented since it, so we can't say how strong barbs are now.
Keep in mind that, do to a programming error, the barb spawn rate was WAY too high in those early Let's Plays. So barbs might well be an issue, but you won't be swamped by them in quite that dramatic a way. Whew!
Ed Beach said in passing in one of his videos that they recently fixed a bug with barb generation that caused a chance of barb generation on every player's turn rather than once a turn as intended.
There hasn't been a video after that fix that started early enough to compare with the large number of videos three/four weeks ago.
One of my greatest hopes for the game is that there ISN'T a standard go-to build order at the start of the game, that circumstances vary enough that three consecutive games would call for three different build orders.
But whether this is the case or not, I'd be surprised if the OP were not right. Starting with a scout will be the smart play. Lots of upsides to a scout, many already mentioned. But it seems to me the Eureka bonuses would be less the point than being the first to find city states and goodie huts... and to find out the extent of the immediate barabarian threat... and to determine all the circumstances that influence what comes next. Are there near neighbors, and what are their identities? Are there ideal city locations valuable enough to justify beelining for a settler? The devs have said that the underlying goal is to induce us to "play the map" and, if this is indeed the case, it makes sense that your first priority would be to explore the map.
I don't have much faith in the "play the map" pr, at least for initial strategies. In V it seems like more of a meta-game problem with early build order, map type determined what was optimal. I don't see this changing for VI.
Why bother exploring the map when you know you'll be gated by techs you don't have yet (islands)? Why wouldn't you build a scout, or several, when there are so many benefits for doing so and real opportunity cost for delaying (continents or pangaea)?
This had to do with what the handicaps were.
Emperor was the first level in which the AI started with a Scout.
Immortal was the first level in which the AI started with a Worker.
Deity was the only level in which the AI started with an extra Settler.
A mod that added a level between Emperor & Immortal with the Immortal level handicaps without the Worker played almost exactly like Emperor.
If in Civ VI, if Immortal remains the first level in which the AI starts with a Builder & Deity the only level in which the AI starts with an extra Settler it will be rather difficult for both of the last steps to be much bigger a change than King to Emperor.
I do note though that Civ V also had AI worker speed bonuses starting on King that increased as you went up; but in far finer gradients than is allowed under the Civ VI system where default number of worker charges is 3. If there's a level in Civ VI giving the AI an extra charge for every builder; it's far more of a bonus than giving them a one time starting builder.
Why bother exploring the map when you know you'll be gated by techs you don't have yet (islands)? Why wouldn't you build a scout, or several, when there are so many benefits for doing so and real opportunity cost for delaying (continents or pangaea)?
I don't have much faith in the "play the map" pr, at least for initial strategies. In V it seems like more of a meta-game problem with early build order, map type determined what was optimal. I don't see this changing for VI.
Well, maybe I am wrong, but from what I see, locations for cities will matter a whole lot more in VI due to district adjacency bonuses. That will raise the stakes as to whether really valuable spots require an extraordinary effort to obtain them.
It's likely to be difficult to capture a builder that hasn't already used up at least one charge.
I saw one play thru video where the person tried to sneak attack the AI to capture a builder but forgot all about the new rule that you need sufficient movement points to enter the last tile and therefore failed miserably. (Shortly thereafter I stopped watching that video as their mistakes were too painful to watch.)
We can also be assured that if it's too easy to capture a major AI's builder via sneak attack; it will quickly be included in a balance patch that capturing a unit with more charges than you'd get if you built a new builder will result in the charges of the captured builder being reduced to your max.
I personally doubt capturing enemy Builders will be much of a thing in Civ VI. It just doesn't seem as worth it. Before, when you got that Worker, you got a (mostly) permanent asset. In Civ VI you get a couple of charges. But--thing is, you've got to catch the Builder while it still has all those charges. I think that will be very difficult to do short of cheezing the AI by camping right outside the city. You'd have to time it exactly right and be able to catch the Builder on the outskirts of borders. No longer do they need to stand in place for long periods of time, so this is much more difficult than before, and every turn you spend not catching them potentially reduces the number of charges they'll have.
I personally doubt capturing enemy Builders will be much of a thing in Civ VI. It just doesn't seem as worth it. Before, when you got that Worker, you got a (mostly) permanent asset. In Civ VI you get a couple of charges. But--thing is, you've got to catch the Builder while it still has all those charges. I think that will be very difficult to do short of cheezing the AI by camping right outside the city. You'd have to time it exactly right and be able to catch the Builder on the outskirts of borders. No longer do they need to stand in place for long periods of time, so this is much more difficult than before, and every turn you spend not catching them potentially reduces the number of charges they'll have.
I preface this by saying I'm being intentionally critical.
I think the exploration Eurekas are sloppy or boring design. It's already a no-brainer to scout early. I can't imagine not completing these condistions (except maybe the natural wonder) before these techs:
Find natural wonder (Astrology T)
Meet another civ (Writing T)
Discover a 2nd continent (Foreign Trade C)
Why even have these Eurekas? They offer no strategic decision to the player.
This one at least I can see as a mild hedge. With no tech trading in the game, meeting another civ early is generally a negative development, as you have more competition for ruins and meeting city states first, and someone to start getting mad at you for things you want to do, like expand, and starts grabbing land you like and who you have to defend against as a potential threat. So, now if you happen to meet a civ early you get a bonus for it. Or, since I guess this will happen most of the time, it might be better to view it as a slight negative to having an isolated start to counterbalance some of the positives of that.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
