Last game rage-quitted and my observations about it.

[DeckerdJames]

Well, I know I have encouraged you to try playing "very tall" and I hope it isn't a waste of time. I will include some of the victory condition screens so you can see how well, and in most cases how badly, my civilization compared to the deity AI.

Spoiler Overall :

Spoiler Score :

Spoiler Science Victory :

(all traveling at 1 lightyear per turn)

Spoiler Culture Victory :

Neither domination or religion were close. Alexander had 13/20 for diplomacy. I missed out on keeping Gandhi a friend. I can't remember if that was a problem. My defense is so weak that anyone can annihilate me in a war. I don't think I will replay the end to find out how it went.

I think tall can be played much better than I did here, but these images are the reality of this game. It takes a long time to play a game of civ 6, so use these to determine whether you even want to try. Your thread started out about getting enough territory and playing tall might be something to think about, but I think you still need a good deal of space.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well, I know I have encouraged you to try playing "very tall" and I hope it isn't a waste of time.

Don't worry, you haven't encouraged me in the end to play this way. And even if I try, it couldn't be more a waste of time that it is already.

Your thread started out about getting enough territory and playing tall might be something to think about, but I think you still need a good deal of space.

Ah ! Obviously ! I wondered why all the talk for a moment. Well, that's one way to deal with this particular issue I guess.

 

[Naokaukodem]

OK, 2 other chapters of "I rage quitted Civ6"

First, Jules César, Immortal, Huge, only 6 civs, barbs on obviously. First encounter : CS, like 5-6 tiles of my capital ? OK, no cities here. Next ? Another CS, like 5-6 tiles of my capital ? OK, no cities here. Next, CS, like 5-6 tiles of capital, OK, no cities there. But cities WHERE goddammit ! Rage quit.

Second, Jules César, Immortal, Huge, only 6 civs, Barbs and... 0 CS. Turn 4-5 two barb scouts, one north one south. While i was building warriors to scout them, and even slingers (3-4 total, upgraded into archers quickly), it appears, that in fact, a camp north east was going total mad. I quickly eliminated the 3-4 horsemen it sent to my capital, along with horse archers, went towards it and found 2 more horsemen and mybe a spear. I had all my army there, it is to say a bunch of warriors and a bunch of archers. Man, it constantly spawned several units per turn, it was insane. Just before I rage quitted, nearly my entire entire army was decimated. Man, this game is INSANE.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Wait was this thread ninja-moved to Ideas & Suggestions with no mention of it ? I'm confused.

Edit : no it wasn't, nevermind.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Another typical rage-quit :

After an easyly won Prince game with Jules César (yeah, still him), I go for a game with no city-States and 10 (max) civs on a small map. (King difficulty)

Obviously, no iron... not even horses ! This game should scrap strategic resources, they are no good at all. (and I couldn't even "turtle" as there was no mountain on the map in spite of putting world age on "new", no reefs, no geothermal fissures...)

Or it should scrap custom settings if it's not able to give us a normal start with them. I spawn near the giants causeway (without river) but really it did me no good... this game sucks hard, it's total garbage.

 

[reddishrecue]

If I raise the level above kIng I will rage quit! I never stay until the end and get defeated because it lets the hall of fame you're a loser.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I never stay until the end and get defeated because it lets the hall of fame you're a loser.

You can still have a bad score and win you know... the score is not much relevant in Civ6, unless you play with one only victory type active which is score. But again, it enters in the scope of "custom settings", which Civ6 is not good at believing my experience.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The way strategic resources work in Civ has been terrible since 3, especially in the era’s before the industial age.

Iron is the poster child for this. The main hindrance to making iron weapons up till alloy steel was a thing was always knowing how, not having the right deposits. Iron is fracking common, literally as dirt. Charcoal becomes a limiting factor before iron ore does.

Whether or not you can make iron/early steel is 100% a tech tree thing

This is also a terrible gameplay mechanic. I mean it has been a meme for ages that “no iron and/or horses = restart” for a reason

What makes it even more annoying is that there *was* an ancient era weapons tech that did have a hard “you have the deposits or you don’t” requirement.

And it was bronze. Which is always resource free in Civ games.

When critical resource deposts becomes important is modern steels when you need nickle etc.

 

[reddishrecue]

You can still have a bad score and win you know... the score is not much relevant in Civ6, unless you play with one only victory type active which is score. But again, it enters in the scope of "custom settings", which Civ6 is not good at believing my experience.

Yeah, you could be right. That happens on some lower difficulties as well.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Yeah, you could be right. That happens on some lower difficulties as well.

Actually if I'm right the score doesn't depend on difficulty level. I don't know exactly, but I saw somewhere (IIRC) that population and number of cities had the most impact on score.

The way strategic resources work in Civ has been terrible since 3, especially in the era’s before the industial age.

Iron is the poster child for this. The main hindrance to making iron weapons up till alloy steel was a thing was always knowing how, not having the right deposits. Iron is fracking common, literally as dirt. Charcoal becomes a limiting factor before iron ore does.

Whether or not you can make iron/early steel is 100% a tech tree thing

This is also a terrible gameplay mechanic. I mean it has been a meme for ages that “no iron and/or horses = restart” for a reason

What makes it even more annoying is that there *was* an ancient era weapons tech that did have a hard “you have the deposits or you don’t” requirement.

And it was bronze. Which is always resource free in Civ games.

When critical resource deposts becomes important is modern steels when you need nickle etc.

Bronze was a thing in Civ4, but you needed Iron for Swordsmen.

Sorry, but I guess it's all my fault : it's me, between Civ2 and Civ3, who suggested Firaxis to include strategic resources. I thought it was a good idea, that it would force you to modify your strategy for acquiring, for example, oil in modern times. (I had the Iraq wars in mind most probably) It would even force you to adapt in antiquity, but then there was the colonies in Civ3. (a single defenseless structure that could catch up resources outside your territory, overwritten by any civ city, so : better build a city ? if any unit could build colonies, scouts included, that would be way easier to make it useful)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Over the years I've looked for examples of anyone, anywhere, who was limited by a lack of 'strategic resources' in what they could build and do.

There aren't any.

You heard me, THERE AREN'T ANY.

What there are, is examples of people who had to pay extra for a resource, most notably the copper - tin combination for Bronze since those two ores are rarely found in the same place - so you wound up importing one or both of them, sometimes from Far Away and paying relatively dearly to get them.

But there are also numerous examples, dating back to the Neolithic, of people importing resources they didn't have from all over, and having no problem at all finding someone willing to haul it to them if they were willing to pay for it. That included, from pre-history, such 'strategic' resources as Copper, Obsidian, big ship timbers, and high grade iron ore. If you were willing and able to pay for it, someone was willing and able to supply it.

Scarcity of resources only becomes identifiable when the requirements for resources jump enormously in the Industrial Era. When you need copper, iron, coal and other resources by the hundreds or thousands of tons instead of hundreds of pounds, the number of useful sources drops enormously, and you find yourself (frequently) competing with other powers for the high-volume sources now required.

And, of course, animal resources (Horses, Elephants, etc) MOVE. Horses were not originally native to anywhere south of a swath from northern Europe across Central Asia to Mongolia. People introduced them to other places like southern Europe, the Middle East and India, to places where they became so comfortable that Arabian or Spanish or Persian ('Nisean') horses became immensely valuable. Likewise, as a bonus resource, the cattle that were domesticated were in northwestern India and the Middle East, and were spread by humans north into Central Asia and Europe.

The entire Resource system in Civ desperately needs major revision: no strategic resource should be of any importance before the Industrial Era except in extremely rare circumstances - like if the game wants to model an entire continent with no useable draft or riding animals or a biome full of insect-bourne fatal animal diseases that isolates entire people from useful critters like horses and cattle. I guarantee, though, that most gamers starting in such a resource desert will do the same thing many do now: Restart Immediately.

 

[BuchiTaton]

For me the best way to represent "strategic" resources is making them to provide some significative discount (plus their corresponding bonus effects) to the creation and maintenance cost of units and buildings. So wathever you produce your own resourse or get it from an diplomatic trade agreement you will note some advantage, still dont own it will not sentence your game.

 

[reddishrecue]

Actually if I'm right the score doesn't depend on difficulty level. I don't know exactly, but I saw somewhere (IIRC) that population and number of cities had the most impact on score.


Bronze was a thing in Civ4, but you needed Iron for Swordsmen.

Sorry, but I guess it's all my fault : it's me, between Civ2 and Civ3, who suggested Firaxis to include strategic resources. I thought it was a good idea, that it would force you to modify your strategy for acquiring, for example, oil in modern times. (I had the Iraq wars in mind most probably) It would even force you to adapt in antiquity, but then there was the colonies in Civ3. (a single defenseless structure that could catch up resources outside your territory, overwritten by any civ city, so : better build a city ? if any unit could build colonies, scouts included, that would be way easier to make it useful)

Right, but what im saying is some ai get those score numbers and don't know easy to do. They just allow you to get your diplomatic victory for example.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Over the years I've looked for examples of anyone, anywhere, who was limited by a lack of 'strategic resources' in what they could build and do.

There aren't any.

You heard me, THERE AREN'T ANY.

What there are, is examples of people who had to pay extra for a resource, most notably the copper - tin combination for Bronze since those two ores are rarely found in the same place - so you wound up importing one or both of them, sometimes from Far Away and paying relatively dearly to get them.

But there are also numerous examples, dating back to the Neolithic, of people importing resources they didn't have from all over, and having no problem at all finding someone willing to haul it to them if they were willing to pay for it. That included, from pre-history, such 'strategic' resources as Copper, Obsidian, big ship timbers, and high grade iron ore. If you were willing and able to pay for it, someone was willing and able to supply it.

Scarcity of resources only becomes identifiable when the requirements for resources jump enormously in the Industrial Era. When you need copper, iron, coal and other resources by the hundreds or thousands of tons instead of hundreds of pounds, the number of useful sources drops enormously, and you find yourself (frequently) competing with other powers for the high-volume sources now required.

And, of course, animal resources (Horses, Elephants, etc) MOVE. Horses were not originally native to anywhere south of a swath from northern Europe across Central Asia to Mongolia. People introduced them to other places like southern Europe, the Middle East and India, to places where they became so comfortable that Arabian or Spanish or Persian ('Nisean') horses became immensely valuable. Likewise, as a bonus resource, the cattle that were domesticated were in northwestern India and the Middle East, and were spread by humans north into Central Asia and Europe.

The entire Resource system in Civ desperately needs major revision: no strategic resource should be of any importance before the Industrial Era except in extremely rare circumstances - like if the game wants to model an entire continent with no useable draft or riding animals or a biome full of insect-bourne fatal animal diseases that isolates entire people from useful critters like horses and cattle. I guarantee, though, that most gamers starting in such a resource desert will do the same thing many do now: Restart Immediately.

From what you just said, I can see a 'marketplace', disconnected from actual resources any civ has, from what you could buy those resources. Not only it would represent the vastness of the world, that a map of Civ fails to translate, but it would also represent the variety of resources and populations and the details a map should have. (tiles are overrated)

For me the best way to represent "strategic" resources is making them to provide some significative discount (plus their corresponding bonus effects) to the creation and maintenance cost of units and buildings. So wathever you produce your own resourse or get it from an diplomatic trade agreement you will note some advantage, still dont own it will not sentence your game.

That's a good idea, that would be basically shortcutting the idea of marketplace above, but I wouldn't say it modifies production and maintenance significatively, unless by it you mean "sensibly".

Right, but what im saying is some ai get those score numbers and don't know easy to do. They just allow you to get your diplomatic victory for example.

First, if there's a victory AI doesn't let you win, it's diplomatic : at about 16 victory points they all will vote against you. And second, I don't see how AI could have a big score in lower difficulty level as they settle less cities and have less bonuses so generate less pop. Or you might play with one city challenge or don't know how to found new ones...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

From what you just said, I can see a 'marketplace', disconnected from actual resources any civ has, from what you could buy those resources. Not only it would represent the vastness of the world, that a map of Civ fails to translate, but it would also represent the variety of resources and populations and the details a map should have. (tiles are overrated)

I don't see more generalized mechanics being added to the game (the World Congress Diplomacy Debacle is bad enough, thank you), but I could see a fairly simple construction, available from start or near-start, that enables Traders flocking to your door.

To keep it as simple as possible, since Ancient trade routes started (from archeological evidence) prior to 6000m BCE (pre-Start of Game) and went from clear across the Mediterranean (Obsidian to the Middle East) or clear across Europe (Amber or Tin from Cornwall) or long distances across Central Asia (Tin from the area east of the Caspian), the game could also do away with limitations and simply have the Resource show up in quantities sufficient for whatever you are building, but with an increasing cost in Gold or some other 'currency' the more you require from places you don't control. The only limitation, then, would be your Civ's wealth and technology: you can't get anything from across the ocean if you have no ocean-going ships yet, and you cannot get Bulk Goods (Food, Industrial minerals like Iron, Coal, etc) unless you have a navigable water route or railroads to a source.

And since trade could be from Barbarian Camps, Tribal Huts or their equivalent, or City States or other Civs (with diplomatic relations, but with cash they don't even have to be friendly: I truly believe that the third oldest profession was 'smuggler') There would be few if any real limitations of barriers to getting any resources you really needed.

Just found another example of what I'm talking about. The Imperial Romans made most of their weapons and body armor out of Iron. But their helmets were made of the copper-zinc alloy Brass, and brass was also used for many fittings on the armor - clasps, buckles, medallions, reinforcements, etc. Multiply maybe 4 - 5 pounds of Brass times 500,000 troops estimated during the early Empire, and that's a lot of zinc and copper, and zinc is like tin, not relatively easily available. Yet the Roman Empire had no discernable problem obtaining zinc by the hundreds of tons to equip their forces - until they started running out of ready cash in the late Empire, when all kinds of 'imported alloy' materials and resources suddenly become relatively scarce.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Over the years I've looked for examples of anyone, anywhere, who was limited by a lack of 'strategic resources' in what they could build and do.

There aren't any.

You heard me, THERE AREN'T ANY.

What there are, is examples of people who had to pay extra for a resource, most notably the copper - tin combination for Bronze since those two ores are rarely found in the same place - so you wound up importing one or both of them, sometimes from Far Away and paying relatively dearly to get them.

But there are also numerous examples, dating back to the Neolithic, of people importing resources they didn't have from all over, and having no problem at all finding someone willing to haul it to them if they were willing to pay for it. That included, from pre-history, such 'strategic' resources as Copper, Obsidian, big ship timbers, and high grade iron ore. If you were willing and able to pay for it, someone was willing and able to supply it.

Scarcity of resources only becomes identifiable when the requirements for resources jump enormously in the Industrial Era. When you need copper, iron, coal and other resources by the hundreds or thousands of tons instead of hundreds of pounds, the number of useful sources drops enormously, and you find yourself (frequently) competing with other powers for the high-volume sources now required.

And, of course, animal resources (Horses, Elephants, etc) MOVE. Horses were not originally native to anywhere south of a swath from northern Europe across Central Asia to Mongolia. People introduced them to other places like southern Europe, the Middle East and India, to places where they became so comfortable that Arabian or Spanish or Persian ('Nisean') horses became immensely valuable. Likewise, as a bonus resource, the cattle that were domesticated were in northwestern India and the Middle East, and were spread by humans north into Central Asia and Europe.

The entire Resource system in Civ desperately needs major revision: no strategic resource should be of any importance before the Industrial Era except in extremely rare circumstances - like if the game wants to model an entire continent with no useable draft or riding animals or a biome full of insect-bourne fatal animal diseases that isolates entire people from useful critters like horses and cattle. I guarantee, though, that most gamers starting in such a resource desert will do the same thing many do now: Restart Immediately.

I modded Civ3, because it was the last Civ game to have an actual editor, to male every strategic resource a bonus resource and removed all strategic resource requirements

It is hilarious how much the game improved

 

[Naokaukodem]

Playing as Alexander in Deity. More than couple times to be exact. I stopped playing because I was too backwarded or my wars were not going so well, and then I had this game where I managed to start well with Alexander. (I must say that his starting locations are not amazing) I rage-quitted because I managed to raze one enemy city that could allow me to settle one more, I was quite happy and was killing Immortals. (against Persia I guess) Then, from my two upgraded melee UUs, one simply died on... a jungle forest fire ! Half my melee units disappearing like magic. It was TOO MUCH you hear ?

So my conclusion is beggining to be that there is TOO MANY FEATURES in this game, particularly with the expansions. Era score, I am often 1 point short for golden age or even last time heroic age... I'm too old for that crap.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I watched some let's play with Grand Columbia. Seems powerful ! OK, let's try a game. Huh, I mean, several. Last try was pretty crappy, but I managed to get first in science. (Deity) I wiped out England. Global military emergency against me for taking England's capital. Fair enough. Passes. Just gave me 200 diplo favor to sell. Gold shrinking (for some reason... I have not a particularly impressive army). Can trade again with Ethiopia. Never made peace with my neighbour. Took one of his crappy cities. Military emergency again ! And obviously it passes. So long for my trades... and gold. (in fact I still have 70 per turn -for "reasons"- but oh boy this is annoying) Will they do this for every single city I take ??? Plus the AI plays with my nerves by sending troops to my city-states south, while i was conquering north... they tried to send troops north but they didn't make it in time. And now they are harrassing my city-state... while my troops are north.

I just rage-quitted that crap. Conclusion : military emergencies suck. They suck hard.

 

[Naokaukodem]

A game of vanilla Civ5. (never bought the expansions, because multiplayer was crappy)

On Immortal. Took Persia. First, in their description it is said that all units have +1 movement. It's wrong. So I doubt for the +10% strenght too. Anyway. I was exploring quietly, I found two civs far enough from me. They declared war both. I could repel them at the cost of a scout (didn't remember Jaguar warriors could use forests as flat). They always asked peace for me to pay quite a significant amount of gold + luxuries. I was thinking about a retaliation but then France declared war, eventhough I didn't even know where they were. They must have been quite far away. Incidentally, I had an Immortal on top of a hill supposed to monitor Aztecs approaching unit. Fun thing is that they had a catapult that damaged my Immortal severely the same turn they declared war. It happened that I couldn't save it. I was left with a warrior. But man, the fact that I was trying to develop, build a settler eventually, but no I wasn't permitted to. That was anti-play. I suspect that's because I had a small army, but I think it was because I was human too. (that remote war from france, pffff)

One statement. Every Sid Meier's Civilization suck after Civ3. Maybe an exception for Civ4 multiplayer. Either they are boring in lower difficulty levels, either they are unfair in highests. Up to smash my head against walls.

I guess because I beat Civ5 Deity once and uninstalled the game, I could do the same with Civ6. Maybe higher difficulty levels demand too much concentration. But my attention is so much diluted in the slow pace, ridiculously low especially compared to AIs in highest difficulty levels.

Also, I guess I could just play middle-difficulty levels. But that's not supposed to prevent any crap. OK I will do that then, just to see. I will try I don't know, Civ5 vanilla or Civ6 Prince games. Thing is it can give bad habits, that's why I don't play them. I like to build a unit, and go to war straight up with it. Failed miserably in a number of Civ6 Deity games. (warriors one shoted by enemy CROSSBOWS and city bombardment -rage-quitted-, city strenght way too high even without walls for warriors, etc.) IT'S AGAINST THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE SERIES. In Civ2 Deity, you could build a Legion and conquer an undefended city from the AI. With a single unit ! After Civ3, defense became too strong. But in the same time, without such strong defense, I couldn't have repel 5-10 warriors with only a warrior and an Immortal and a scout. So... maybe put the emphasis on unit building, rather than any other thing early, and give scouts the magical ability to claim land ? (or they should disappear from the game) And obviously, make the AI awareness closer to their lands, because after all they surely have some enemy for not sending an army at the other end of the continent...

Don't get me wrong, this game of Civ5 wasn't lost [or at least well to be gone that way], it's just that I was pissed off. I wanted to expand in that direction goddamit !