Is luck too important?

[Morgawr]

Yes luck is pretty important but it's a good thing. I am one of those that like the randomness. The designers did a good job with it. Especially the CSs nearby have a huge impact on the early game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Some luck element is okay, spawn to your death is not okay. In competitive MP/PvP, vastly disparate start positions are a bad thing.

Regardless, civ 6 is not more luck based than civ 4, and this is one of the rare areas 6 is better than 4. Most civ 6 positions are reasonable, almost all are winnable on deity in SP.

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

Personally I think it's easier to overcome poor starting positions in Civ6 than past versions but only because of AI deficiencies. The barbarians are definitely tougher though.

 

[Kyro]

I was going through a lot of the complaints towards the game, and I noticed a trend-

Luck of the starting roll seems to be extremely important. Now, luck has always been a factor in all the Civ games, but it seems that here, in VI more than any previous iteration it's taken on a an aspect that it can completely negate any attempt at strategy or thinking, especially on higher difficulties.

No city states nearby? You lose out on those incredibly powerful single envoy bonuses- which DO stack up, in terms of gold, faith, production, etc.

Barbarian camps can pop up almost anywhere and wreak utter havoc with your early game, be it capturing civilians to cutting that trade route you JUST opened where there WASN'T a camp just a turn ago!

Production being so much more important- god help you if you have a low production start.

And the list goes on.

So is that really the case? Or is it just me?

It is. Sugar and Spices break the game. Especially when others are getting relatively useless luxuries like tea and incense.

Meeting/Not meeting a few City States early based on pure luck can mean a 30 turn difference.

Bad starts are terrible unless you're a warmonger, which makes war a solution for everything.

 

[Ryika]

The gap between a good start and a bad start is definitely really large, but I think in terms of Singleplayer, that's fine. In terms of Multiplayer I remain of the opinion that there should be map-scripts made available that focus a lot on balanced landmasses.

The real problem I see in Singleplayer is that the whole "Play the Map"-idea just doesn't work. A bad start is a bad start, and there's nothing you can do about it. There is no "Oh, I started surrounded by deserts, so let me run a strategy that makes deserts useful!"-decision, the only decision is "My starting location sucks. Guess it's time to beat up my neighbors."

 

[nzcamel]

It is. Sugar and Spices break the game. Especially when others are getting relatively useless luxuries like tea and incense.

Meeting/Not meeting a few City States early based on pure luck can mean a 30 turn difference.

Bad starts are terrible unless you're a warmonger, which makes war a solution for everything.

Sugar and spices are +2 food. Not sure what is game breaking about that. Yeah, your city will grow faster, but +1 science from tea or +1 faith from incense are very useful too (getting a better chance at early pick of pantheon makes incense the one of these four I'd most like to have in my starting city).
City State & Nat wonder locations are a bigger issue...but I do hope you complained about them being in V too.

The gap between a good start and a bad start is definitely really large, but I think in terms of Singleplayer, that's fine. In terms of Multiplayer I remain of the opinion that there should be map-scripts made available that focus a lot on balanced landmasses.

The real problem I see in Singleplayer is that the whole "Play the Map"-idea just doesn't work. A bad start is a bad start, and there's nothing you can do about it. There is no "Oh, I started surrounded by deserts, so let me run a strategy that makes deserts useful!"-decision, the only decision is "My starting location sucks. Guess it's time to beat up my neighbors."

If you get a start where you are literally surrounded by desert in every direction then yeah...you may be screwed out the gate. But that start is rare. And there are ways to compensate for that. The map can be played the majority of the time. If in some games you are forced into early conquest...so what? What do you exactly think was going on back in the bronze age??

 

[Ryika]

If in some games you are forced into early conquest...so what? What do you exactly think was going on back in the bronze age??

Not only is what happened in the Bronze Age completely irrelevant to what I have said, I also never claimed that it's a bad thing to be "forced into early conquest" in some games. My argument, and I really think it's pretty easy to understand, was that it's bad that going to war is the only way to really improve a bad starting location, and that the decision between accepting a bad start and playing it peacefully with overall slower progress, and going to war is a really restrictive one. There should be options to turn somewhat bad starting locations into something that allows for decent progress when played right, and unfortunately the game just isn't built for that.

 

[Kyro]

Sugar and spices are +2 food. Not sure what is game breaking about that. Yeah, your city will grow faster, but +1 science from tea or +1 faith from incense are very useful too (getting a better chance at early pick of pantheon makes incense the one of these four I'd most like to have in my starting city).
City State & Nat wonder locations are a bigger issue...but I do hope you complained about them being in V too.

+5 Food tiles near the begining vs the average +2 isn't breaking? That's more than a 100% difference early. These are found on Marshes and Floodplains and with Lady of the reeds and marshes pantheon they give 5 Food and 1 Production each.

Spices give 1 Food 1 Production. Which means 3 Food 3 Production on plain hills.

Both Luxuries allow a player to have a huge headstart in getting a higher population to work more tiles faster. You can't produce those settlers faster if you don't have workers for production tiles and you can't keep building settlers if your growth doesn't replace the loss in population from building settlers. The same rationale goes for wonders and it all links back to who was able to work more tiles faster thanks to a bigger population.

You're losing out on efficiency if you actually work tea/incense tiles instead of food and production.

Oh and +30 Gold in Civ 5 isn't as overpowered as +100%/Science/Culture/Production for the early game.That's essentially what a misleading +2 envoy looks like early game in Civ 6. Also in Civ 5 you also got 15 Gold instead of 30 for not meeting it first. In Civ 6 you don't get half an envoy or +1 to production etc. You get a generous sum of nothing.

 

[nzcamel]

There should be options to turn somewhat bad starting locations into something that allows for decent progress when played right, and unfortunately the game just isn't built for that.

Big call.

+5 Food tiles near the begining vs the average +2 isn't breaking? That's more than a 100% difference early. These are found on Marshes and Floodplains and with Lady of the reeds and marshes pantheon they give 5 Food and 1 Production each.

Spices give 1 Food 1 Production. Which means 3 Food 3 Production on plain hills.

Both Luxuries allow a player to have a huge headstart in getting a higher population to work more tiles faster. You can't produce those settlers faster if you don't have workers for production tiles and you can't keep building settlers if your growth doesn't replace the loss in population from building settlers. The same rationale goes for wonders and it all links back to who was able to work more tiles faster thanks to a bigger population.

You're losing out on efficiency if you actually work tea/incense tiles instead of food and production.

Oh and +30 Gold in Civ 5 isn't as overpowered as +100%/Science/Culture/Production for the early game.That's essentially what a misleading +2 envoy looks like early game in Civ 6. Also in Civ 5 you also got 15 Gold instead of 30 for not meeting it first. In Civ 6 you don't get half an envoy or +1 to production etc. You get a generous sum of nothing.

Yeah...I'm not sure why you are playing Civ if this is all so painful for you. There are plenty of other games that will give you an identical start to everyone else in them. Civ isn't and shouldn't be that game.

 

[Kyro]

@nzcamel. It is possible to have different but equally potent starts for everyone, the two are not mutually exclusive concepts. Just like there can be different but equally potent strategies in Civ 6 which for some reason the Devs just don't like.

It's this making of stuff less powerful than others for the sake of "diversity" that's both needless and senseless.

Nobody likes to play around handicaps it's just not fun because you inevitably lose out on progress, wonders etc. unless you choose to warmonger.

 

[bbbt]

agree with statements about some luck having a place, but i would argue being able to settle on a river is TOO important, so luck playing into whether you can settle on a river or not in turn 1 isn't a good thing. now, my idea would not be default all settlers to start on a river, but rather to balance the game such that rivers are not so powerful in comparison to non-river cities.

While I know Civ isn't really a historical sim game, one of the things that bugged me about Civ 5 was how rivers weren't that important to settle on, given how most major cities were founded on one.

Given 1UPT and movement rules, I'd actually like to see them move rivers back into tiles (rather than between tiles) and make them navigable again. But that's clearly a Civ 7 wish list item.

 

[nzcamel]

@nzcamel. It is possible to have different but equally potent starts for everyone, the two are not mutually exclusive concepts. Just like there can be different but equally potent strategies in Civ 6 which for some reason the Devs just don't like.

Sorry, what's an example of the Devs not liking "equally potent strategies"?? I think the starts are different but equal, enough.

It's this making of stuff less powerful than others for the sake of "diversity" that's both needless and senseless.

Nobody likes to play around handicaps it's just not fun because you inevitably lose out on progress, wonders etc. unless you choose to warmonger.

Any push for diversity for diversities sake annoys me. At least cultural diversity only, which tends to be the context in what that word is often used, here and elsewhere. But I don't think that 1 faith is automatically worse than 2 food. Not to a game breaking level. If you're not that excited about your first city location you can build a settler sooner rather than later.

Civ is not dry chess with its close to utter fairness. It's not monopoly either, and that game has a far more variable start with the luck of the dice. But once you decide to play it, don't complain if you don't land where you want on your first few turns! Play the game! I bet you do though. Complain that is. Monopoly is a rubish board game really. There are far better games that make luck much less of a factor. But the starts in all those games will still effect players far more significantly than anything in Civ.

The level of equity you want in the game would make it mind numbingly dull for everything I can see.

While I know Civ isn't really a historical sim game, one of the things that bugged me about Civ 5 was how rivers weren't that important to settle on, given how most major cities were founded on one.

Given 1UPT and movement rules, I'd actually like to see them move rivers back into tiles (rather than between tiles) and make them navigable again. But that's clearly a Civ 7 wish list item.

What dif do you think having rivers in the tile would make?

 

[Esperr]

This game is way less sacky then other games. The sackiest factor is who randomly spawns next to Gilgmaesh in MP, other then that you can play your way out of most things. Not to mention in SP you can't really lose anyway.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

Am I the only one excited for Silver, Diamonds and Ivory nearby?

Though I don't mind anything the games throws out to me as starting resource. Some are good, some are worse, but a Pantheon can straighten out most of them.

Life gives you lemons, so grab some ice, rum and sugar and make a Daiquiri out of it.

 

[Morgawr]

The river fast movement is easy to simulate w/o making rivers actual tiles. This was done in Civ 5; give units a extra movement while moving ALONG rivers. Either a promotion or applies to some/all units.

 

[nzcamel]

The river fast movement is easy to simulate w/o making rivers actual tiles. This was done in Civ 5; give units a extra movement while moving ALONG rivers. Either a promotion or applies to some/all units.

Did it only work towards the sea?
I don't actually remember that lol. Was it a mod?

 

[Morgawr]

Did it only work towards the sea?
I don't actually remember that lol. Was it a mod?

It was while moving along rivers, both ways... come to think of, only towards the sea would make more logical sense lol. Yes I think it was the VP mod and Songhai had that ability. They treated moving along rivers like roads. It was cool because you could go super fast even if there's a jungle or hill on the tile - makes sense because you are actually supposed to be moving along the river so the actual tile you are on didn't matter.

My point is, they could easily implement this if desired in Civ 6 too.

 

[Kyro]

@nzcamel
You must be joking right? Have you heard of archer rushes? Scythian/Sumeria "zerg" rushes? Warmongering has never been as overpowered as it is now, it is the single most potent strategy in Civ 6 due to misleading non-existent warmonger "penalties".

Or perhaps you have not heard how ICS is just compulsory now along with commercial hubs?

This: "The level of equity you want in the game would make it mind numbingly dull for everything I can see. " Is evidence that you don't understand what equal but different means.

Equity and Interest are not mutually exclusive concepts. You have already made up your mind that equal starts will be boring, when I already told you that is not necessarily the case.

Which implies you:
A) Don't accept that starts just being different is enough, they have to be inbalanced on top of that.

B)Don't accept that Starts can be different but equally potent.

C) Don't understand what "different but equally potent" means.

If you don't agree that different strategies/starts have to be equally potent to encourage diversity then there's nothing left to discuss, please educate yourself on Game Design and balance.

If you disagree that the game's balance is off now please prove that the strategies I mentioned before are not the most efficient strategies for winning. Just claiming they're not is pointless.

 

[Victoria]

Variety is important in any game, if you want to call that luck then fine.
My ratings for 'bad luck' bits are, based on a scale of 1-5

1. Meeting a gold CS early helps but does not really help. In essence put it down to +2 production in a single city as the game seems to consider 2 gold = 1 prod. - Rating 1
2. Not next to water? not a big deal you just have to adapt, its not the end of the earth, you just have to pump out some settlers early as a strategy to overcome this deficit. - Rating 0-1
3. Next to an OP AI?... use some diplomacy skills. There are ways and means and sometimes yes they will attack and kill you with a really bad start position bu it is rare, normally I can overcome this with diplomacy. Rating 2
4. Starting with no luxury? ... is a bit of a pain but normally there are others around and its about just adapting but it is an annoyance - rating 1
5. Starting with lots of bar camps around you?... This can be quite limiting, I do not see it often but especially if they are horse barbs they are quite disturbing - Rating 3
6. Starting on a stupid tiny island or large amounts of tundra? You can sort of cope but its not nice and you really are unlikely to win - Rating 3
7. Starting with literally no production, flat featureless plain? You are pretty much in trouble, you just cannot make anything fast enough. A lack of production is so important to the game - Rating 5
8. Starting with medium production, nothing above 2 prod initial and little to chop. Its not so bad but gets harder as yuou get higher - rating 2

These are what I would consider the ratings and am quite happy for you to feel differently because it is personal. Based on these above I tend to think if I have a total of 6 its going to be too much of a struggle so restart.

I never used advanced options like abundant resources but I do know others do. That's fine in SP, your game. The game currently does not need these advantages but i guess they can be considered a countermeasure for a bad start. But other civs get them too.

Of all of the above, lack of production I find the nastiest, you just grind away while other civs jump ahead of you. If playing on prince its not such an issue but as difficulty gets higher then it does become a serious issue. So when we talk about luck, you need to be luckier to win on higher levels perhaps. I do not think anything is insurmountable on prince so it is important to qualify such a discussion with level.

Like playing the Earth TSL on deity with a tiny island nation like Japan or England (Rating 5 - combination of 6 & 8)... you can still win, you just have to be flexible.

MP games I do not play but it must be VERY annoying to get a bad start location. Human skills in MP will be fairly close and so depend on terrain much more than versus an AI.

 

[nzcamel]

@nzcamel
You must be joking right? Have you heard of archer rushes? Scythian/Sumeria "zerg" rushes? Warmongering has never been as overpowered as it is now, it is the single most potent strategy in Civ 6 due to misleading non-existent warmonger "penalties".

I'm glad they removed the war monger penalties in the pre-classical area. Nothing much breaks your immersion more than having enlightenment values floating round in the bronze age! I appreciate that makes warring easier. It should! It is however the lack of immediate bombard that makes the bigger practical difference. As a result people need to build more units to begin with to make their fledgling cities an undesirable target.

Or perhaps you have not heard how ICS is just compulsory now along with commercial hubs?

I dunno about compulsory. The game is more flexible than V's 4 city strategy.

This: "The level of equity you want in the game would make it mind numbingly dull for everything I can see. " Is evidence that you don't understand what equal but different means.

Equity and Interest are not mutually exclusive concepts. You have already made up your mind that equal starts will be boring, when I already told you that is not necessarily the case.

I disagree. One of the reasons that I love IV over III is the variety it introduced. V backtracked on this and VI has brought it back
And it is good for their to be subtle differences in the value of resources etc. If I...as a player...do not like what I have, just like in history, I seek to improve my lot. I think you are the too rigid thinker. That you assume that two food is always worth more than one faith is mind boggling to me. That speaks volumes about your inflexibility.

Do you play on those maps specially made for MP where the land layout is equal? I have no interest in them, cos I want the variability of maps. I'm glad they are an option for those who do want them...but if the main game ever headed in that direction I'd be off, cos I would find it boring.

Which implies you:
A) Don't accept that starts just being different is enough, they have to be inbalanced on top of that.

B)Don't accept that Starts can be different but equally potent.

C) Don't understand what "different but equally potent" means.

If you don't agree that different strategies/starts have to be equally potent to encourage diversity then there's nothing left to discuss, please educate yourself on Game Design and balance.

If you disagree that the game's balance is off now please prove that the strategies I mentioned before are not the most efficient strategies for winning. Just claiming they're not is pointless.

Starts do not have to be imbalanced. But I am not interested in a game that would seek to make them utterly equal.
I think the starts are very close to equally potent.
I think I can guess at your different but equally potent...but in the end it becomes nonsensical as you do not like any difference that may lead to an advantage. Yawn.

"Encourage diversity", "educate yourself" - what we have here is a progressive social justice warrior bringing their political language into a game forum

I don't have to provide a formula for winning when there is variability in starts. It just comes with being competitive.