Is luck too important?

[Kyro]

@nzcamel

Yup I don't think you understood what I was saying at all. You said that you are for starts being balanced but you find it nonsensical that they would be equally potent. You then go on to claim they are very close when that is clearly not the case. Do you even understand what Game Balance means?

The fact that you claimed the difference in values of starting resources are "subtle" implies you don't understand how those differences can cause things to snowball for the bad or worse.

Starts have a Compounding/Cascading effect on gameplay and you are wrong to judge the values of starting resources on the surface like that. That is why they have such a huge impact on the game and why they have to be equally potent so that no one can Snowball from just that.

The Reason why Sugar/Spice is drastically better than resources like Tea/Incense is because it facilitates the ONLY efficiently viable opening strategies in Civ 6 which requires you to build/expand/defend as soon as possible. Food and a Larger population for Production, which Sugar directly helps in and which Tea/Incense does not is the reason why Tea/Incense etc are very underpowered. They DON'T help in alternative strategies because those don't exist.

I would Love to be flexible but the game does NOT encourage that because it does not facilitate alternate and equally potent strategies right now; only a select few.

 

[Victoria]

Sugar and spice are all things nice (and citrus) but these are no good to me on a grassland plain so it is situational.
I would rather take elephants over Salt... production is better than food IMO

I do not think one -2 luxury tiles make too much difference, it is about your 1st 2 rings of tiles really and has a significant impact on your first 20 - 30 turns. If you can get a settler out to a heavily hilled area you can make up for it if you can survive. I have never rushed excitedly to flat grassland but if I see plains hills aplenty I go all gooey.

 

[Kyro]

@Victoria
You are right sugar without production is pointless. Production is in the end why we want more food in the first place. I've recently had a start with 4 Sugar and Multiple plain hills with Forests. Nabbed me 3 early wonders on Emperor.

Spice on the other hand tend to spawn with forests and can actually spawn on hills. 4 Food 2 Production /3 Food 3 Production tiles are beautiful indeed.

3 of those would be sufficient to cause a snowball I think.

I hate flatlands too and always set world age to young for them hills.

 

[DeutschDachs]

It's not that much worse than Civ V in terms of resources. Salt was a ridiculously good start in V, for example. V still had Natural Wonders that could heavily skew a game particularly if 2 or 3 were near one civilization. I will say that the randomness of how screwed by barbarians you get in VI is frustrating and antifun though. If they just didn't spawn horse units from the beginning of the game it'd be a lot less oppressive

 

[Kyro]

It's not that much worse than Civ V in terms of resources. Salt was a ridiculously good start in V, for example. V still had Natural Wonders that could heavily skew a game particularly if 2 or 3 were near one civilization. I will say that the randomness of how screwed by barbarians you get in VI is frustrating and antifun though. If they just didn't spawn horse units from the beginning of the game it'd be a lot less oppressive

Spice is the new salt if spawned on plains and hills.

3 Barbarian horse camps around the capital is amongst the worst starts possible and immediately leaves you with no choice but to conquer your neighbors to make up for it. I would just restart.

 

[Victoria]

jungle hill ele's are nice

I might add that spice is not that nice and that salt is better in the long term because you mine it. For me the new Salt is Gypsum.

 

[nzcamel]

@nzcamel

Yup I don't think you understood what I was saying at all. You said that you are for starts being balanced but you find it nonsensical that they would be equally potent. You then go on to claim they are very close when that is clearly not the case. Do you even understand what Game Balance means?

The fact that you claimed the difference in values of starting resources are "subtle" implies you don't understand how those differences can cause things to snowball for the bad or worse.

Starts have a Compounding/Cascading effect on gameplay and you are wrong to judge the values of starting resources on the surface like that. That is why they have such a huge impact on the game and why they have to be equally potent so that no one can Snowball from just that.

The Reason why Sugar/Spice is drastically better than resources like Tea/Incense is because it facilitates the ONLY efficiently viable opening strategies in Civ 6 which requires you to build/expand/defend as soon as possible. Food and a Larger population for Production, which Sugar directly helps in and which Tea/Incense does not is the reason why Tea/Incense etc are very underpowered. They DON'T help in alternative strategies because those don't exist.

I would Love to be flexible but the game does NOT encourage that because it does not facilitate alternate and equally potent strategies right now; only a select few.

VI does encourage massively different strategies (esp with Civs who have very different skill sets compared to V where the variety was minimalist). Just not as fast out of the gate as V did; cos in V it didn't matter where you settled or who was near by, you could do whatever the hell you liked. Yawn.
Different resources with actual differences (rather than the sameness you want) in your start city does allow for meaningful different plans. If I have a incense or two I can afford to run Urban Planning instead of God King for quite a few early turns say.

I get that your start can affect much of the rest of your game. This is true in any game. But Civ is a long game. There is plenty of time to overcome early setbacks. Many other games there is not.

I think I understand plenty more than you'd like

I hate flatlands too and always set world age to young for them hills.

See...you don't play the game. You rig it to get the only conditions you think you can win with. I'm not the rigid one out of the two of us!
Which is fine. I'm glad the options you like are included in the game, as options. But it sounds like you would like to impose them on the rest of us...and that isn't cool.

It's not that much worse than Civ V in terms of resources. Salt was a ridiculously good start in V, for example. V still had Natural Wonders that could heavily skew a game particularly if 2 or 3 were near one civilization. I will say that the randomness of how screwed by barbarians you get in VI is frustrating and antifun though. If they just didn't spawn horse units from the beginning of the game it'd be a lot less oppressive

Actually in terms of fairness...barb camps near horses creating horse units is kinda fair from the pov that anyone who starts near horses has an advantage over anyone who has to build a city quite a way away to get horses. Maybe they could be toned down a bit, but if you're wanting fair -like Kyro is- the horse barbs make sense.

 

[Ryika]

VI does encourage massively different strategies

...you say, and then your example for a "meaningful different plan" is...

If I have a incense or two I can afford to run Urban Planning instead of God King for quite a few early turns say.

That's insane. Your example is a micro decision, nothing more than that, and the ridiculously small scale of the example you provided makes you look like you haven't even understood what people are talking about.

It seems to me that you simply have no clue how the system could work, how "different but equal"-design as many rts use them enriches the game by actually making you think about what strategy is appropriate for your starting location, and thus are content with the system that exists now, while the people you argue with actually have a vision of what would be possible on a grander scale.

Moderator Action: Please refrain from using scorn and derision when responding to other posters. This sort of abuse has no place in a civil discussion, and constitutes trolling under our rules.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[nzcamel]

...you say, and then your example for a "meaningful different plan" is...




That's insane. Your example is a micro decision, nothing more than that, and the ridiculously small scale of the example you provided makes you look like you haven't even understood what people are talking about.

I don't have to give you examples of meaningful different plans Ryika for them to be available to you. That micro decision does not sum it all up - all I was doing there was pointing out to Kyro how his dismissal of incense when compared to other resources is plain daft. Yes - the early game in VI does force you to do things that V didn't. Then V is boring as hell for turn after turn. VI isn't. And as the game goes on, you get to expand upon what you are doing from surviving to making your own path.

It seems to me that you simply have no clue how the system could work, how "different but equal"-design as many rts use them enriches the game by actually making you think about what strategy is appropriate for your starting location, and thus are content with the system that exists now, while the people you argue with actually have a vision of what would be possible on a grander scale.

There is only a couple of you I am arguing with. Strategies as applied to start locations are more meaningful in VI. In V...it really didn't matter too much. You could make any choice you wanted out of the gate cos the lay of the land was almost irrelevant. Which when compared to the real world is bullocks. Not that Civ has to be an exact simulation, which would be impossible for a game with such a large scope. But the closer they get it to reality where possible, the more interesting it is.

You can make your case for "different but equal" design if you like; but that doesn't change that luck is not too important in this game. It is a factor which will play into how things turn out; but only one of many.

 

[DeutschDachs]

VI does encourage massively different strategies (esp with Civs who have very different skill sets compared to V where the variety was minimalist). Just not as fast out of the gate as V did; cos in V it didn't matter where you settled or who was near by, you could do whatever the hell you liked. Yawn.
Different resources with actual differences (rather than the sameness you want) in your start city does allow for meaningful different plans. If I have a incense or two I can afford to run Urban Planning instead of God King for quite a few early turns say.

I get that your start can affect much of the rest of your game. This is true in any game. But Civ is a long game. There is plenty of time to overcome early setbacks. Many other games there is not.

I think I understand plenty more than you'd like



See...you don't play the game. You rig it to get the only conditions you think you can win with. I'm not the rigid one out of the two of us!
Which is fine. I'm glad the options you like are included in the game, as options. But it sounds like you would like to impose them on the rest of us...and that isn't cool.



Actually in terms of fairness...barb camps near horses creating horse units is kinda fair from the pov that anyone who starts near horses has an advantage over anyone who has to build a city quite a way away to get horses. Maybe they could be toned down a bit, but if you're wanting fair -like Kyro is- the horse barbs make sense.

Yeah it makes sense but there's not really an advantage when 6 horse units show up at your capital before you can complete your first build. It's almost literally impossible to escape because they will kill any units you send out and will respawn more horse units just about as fast as you can kill them.

 

[nzcamel]

Yeah...that could be a fair criticism of the game. But the ones who complain about that most (I'm not saying that is you) seem to be very reluctant to build a warrior first and/or want to build a scout first, every single game.

 

[DeutschDachs]

Yeah...that could be a fair criticism of the game. But the ones who complain about that most (I'm not saying that is you) seem to be very reluctant to build a warrior first and/or want to build a scout first, every single game.

Yeah I've completely given up on scouts for Civ VI. They barely have any exploration advantage until they're promoted and can't defend effectively. Between barbs and early DOWs it pretty much has to be a warrior unless barbs are off

 

[Kyro]

@nzcamel

Working anything else over food and production or save maybe gold to buy that relavant tile to work on isn't a valid strategy. It's a mistake because it's not efficient. You failed to point out how working Incense can be strategically just as efficient as Sugar or Spice. How many turns does it save? How does it facilitate snowballing?

Yeah I play with more hills and mountains. How does that prove anything? I simply don't like warmongering on Deity so I play on Emperor with more Hills. That's the only way I can play the way I want to.

Oh and skipping Scouts for a Warrior means missing out on game breaking +2 outputs from City States. That's not even sound.

Barbarians can't raze your Capital so a slinger first after scouts is way better. 2 warriors can't fight off horsemen swarms but a slinger can. You can build an army after the first wave of raids.

All you've done so far is ignore my rebuttal to your points and claim that you've disproved them. How convenient.

Explain how +2 stat outputs from City States don't speed up early game progress significantly.

Explain how being able to build more units faster is not a strong advantage in the early game.

It takes only a match to set a whole forest on fire. And here you are trivalizing the match because it's "subtle".

I'm just going to remind you again the next post you casually dismiss them because you can't come up with a proper answer.

 

[nzcamel]

@nzcamel

Working anything else over food and production or save maybe gold to buy that relavant tile to work on isn't a valid strategy. It's a mistake because it's not efficient. You failed to point out how working Incense can be strategically just as efficient as Sugar or Spice. How many turns does it save? How does it facilitate snowballing?

One incense allows you to choose Urban Planning over God King from the moment you get Code of Laws. Two incense means that you'll 90% get first pick of pantheon (still without using God King), and will have quicker access to Apostles to buff your religion with the beliefs that suit your game. Sounds good to me

Yeah I play with more hills and mountains. How does that prove anything? I simply don't like warmongering on Deity so I play on Emperor with more Hills. That's the only way I can play the way I want to.

Then drop a level. Have the kahuna's to admit that you aren't good enough to play every which way on deity.

Oh and skipping Scouts for a Warrior means missing out on game breaking +2 outputs from City States. That's not even sound.

Skipping scouts is sound if it means that your city isn't pillaged and your non military units can move around unmolested. Are you one who will also make the daft argument for cutting off your nose to spite your face, cos if you can't have a scout first build you'll throw your toys!? I shouldn't be surprised I suppose.

Barbarians can't raze your Capital so a slinger first after scouts is way better. 2 warriors can't fight off horsemen swarms but a slinger can. You can build an army after the first wave of raids.

Hey...whatever works. But stop whining about luck. It seems you can plan for problems.

All you've done so far is ignore my rebuttal to your points and claim that you've disproved them. How convenient.

Explain how +2 stat outputs from City States don't speed up early game progress significantly.

Explain how being able to build more units faster is not a strong advantage in the early game.

It takes only a match to set a whole forest on fire. And here you are trivalizing the match because it's "subtle".

I'm just going to remind you again the next post you casually dismiss them because you can't come up with a proper answer.

Righto lol As to "proper answers" - pot meet kettle. I've asked you a few things too, and you've ignored them.
None of this list of questions you have above makes a case for there being too much luck in the game.

 

[HF22]

People still build scouts?

Free envoys seem a poor reason to do so. You would only get first meeting for city states which are close, and you are likely better off just conquering those as a freebie with the army you should have built anyway.

Save your envoys for city states further away, which are not worth attacking, once you see which are going to survive the early AI city state conquests.

 

[Morgawr]

People still build scouts?

Free envoys seem a poor reason to do so. You would only get first meeting for city states which are close, and you are likely better off just conquering those as a freebie with the army you should have built anyway.

Save your envoys for city states further away, which are not worth attacking, once you see which are going to survive the early AI city state conquests.

The free culture/science/production from meeting a CS early in the game is HUGE. You can effectively double or triple your early output by meeting a few of them before the AI. It's just too good to ignore. Early game bonuses have snowball effect and can change the course of the game. Especially the science, culture, and military ones

 

[nzcamel]

The free culture/science/production from meeting a CS early in the game is HUGE. You can effectively double or triple your early output by meeting a few of them before the AI. It's just too good to ignore. Early game bonuses have snowball effect and can change the course of the game. Especially the science, culture, and military ones

And in building a scout first to try and achieve that you are gambling. But no one makes you. If it pays off - awesome. If instead you get reamed by barbs, that is the risk you take.

 

[Victoria]

People still build scouts?

They certainly do. I build them about 1 game in 3 now dependant on start and a feel of the land from my clubman.

That CS bonus is handy but not earth shattering but an early suze on kandy can make for a hugely different and faster game and finding Kumasi means I can push its quests, not finding it is a limiter. It is such a powerful mid game CS.
It inceases my chances of those early eurekas
It provides great early game changing strategic decisions based on terain amd civ/cs locations.

The more open space there appears to be the more chance I will push a scout at build 1-2

There is no single best strategy is civ 6 which has been a failing of earlier versions. Now its all location location, location. Do not get me wrong, if all you want to do is blindly dominate every game then slingers are a great start but you will restart more games when the opponents are not close. I like to go with the flow.

People prepare for war, I prepare for Kumasi but its not as if not having it will cripple me.

 

[Ryika]

I don't have to give you examples of meaningful different plans Ryika for them to be available to you.

Well yeah, but if you can't provide good examples, then chances are that you don't have any - because they don't exist. The fact that you constantly speak in generalities when it comes to that topic, instead of giving concrete examples of what exactly you even mean when you say that different starting locations play meaningfully differently and are not just better/worse than other starting locations so other people can either tell you why they disagree, or reconsider their position, makes it seem like you're just trying to defend an indefensible position to me.

So make a concrete example of how you can make use of the unique benefits of a tundra-heavy start for example. Or, maybe more relevant because the game makes it seem like it was actually intended to play differently, a coastal start with bad land-terrain.

 

[nzcamel]

Well yeah, but if you can't provide good examples, then chances are that you don't have any - because they don't exist. The fact that you constantly speak in generalities when it comes to that topic, instead of giving concrete examples of what exactly you even mean when you say that different starting locations play meaningfully differently and are not just better/worse than other starting locations so other people can either tell you why they disagree, or reconsider their position, makes it seem like you're just trying to defend an indefensible position to me.

So make a concrete example of how you can make use of the unique benefits of a tundra-heavy start for example. Or, maybe more relevant because the game makes it seem like it was actually intended to play differently, a coastal start with bad land-terrain.

I'm no more or less general than you are Ryika.
How often do you get a Tundra heavy start?? (Peter maybe aside). One game in 20. I still won't restart that though. I play the hand I am dealt. But you can. It isn't the end of the world. And luck is still not too important in VI. You certainly haven't made a case that it is.

This:

There is no single best strategy is civ 6 which has been a failing of earlier versions. Now its all location location, location.

A thousand times over
And it is glorious!