It's not actually an even trade if the city has the Suguba, since that offers a purchase discount. It will require less gold than the "equivalent" production to acquire the item purchased. So assuming the gold per turn generated by a mine directly offsets the equivalent production otherwise generated by the mine, the gold necessary to purchase an item will be generated [by the mines, at least] in less time than the production required to produce the item.
Yeah, I'm assuming that if everything's going your way, the only thing you ever want to build with hammers (beyond early game) is the commercial district, which is half price and doesn't have the "buildings and units" production penalty. I think I'd be tempted to just run constant Com Hub project constantly after that.
The behavior aspects of the agenda are fine, but the diplomatic aspects are stupid and pull me out of the immersion of the game; they make the AI seem more mechanical, not less. Oh no, Rome hates me because I'm not as big as them? What?
I especially love the agendas where the leader says something cryptic and there's no explanation for what he/she means. What?
Just to clarify since I feel like the description is a bit confusing, the mine improvement itself gets -1 production, it won't reduce -1 from the hill, only from the mine, in a way that the mine will give 0 production but you still get the hill production. The mine won't negatively impact the hill. So if a desert hill give +1 production and you build a mine on it, the total yield will be +1 production (from the hill) and +4 gold, then +2 production with Apprenticeship, then +3 with Industrialization.
In the video we see a desert tile (no hill) with silver (3 gold), then when the mine is built the yield is +1 production and +7 gold. I assume apprenticeship was researched since the tooltip when you hover the build a mine button show the normal mine yield (+2 production, +1 base and +1 apprenticeship), so the +1 production come from apprenticeship and there's no base production because the mine got -1.
To simplify, the yields of the Mali's mine is +4 gold. That -1 production in the description make it look like it will literally reduce the production of the hill, which doesn't seem to be the case. The mine doesn't give production into it get updated by apprenticeship but the hill production remains the same.
That's a typo. He's actually Lord of the Mimes. He wants to show you an act where he tries to escape an invisible box, then struggles against strong winds.
Exactly. When you look at it from this perspective, it makes more sense. You realize the agenda is designed in a way so Trajan will go after smaller empires. Makes sense.
Of course Mansa's may be backwards. He should want to go after people with large sums of gold, not small sums.
Not looking forward to this. Perhaps the most boring aspect of this civ. Don't forget though, we still need to get up holy sites and campus districts. I think the main 3 will be Commercial hub, holy site, and campus (alternate some cities with theater square or encampment for one city). After that though, running this project over and over may be the best way. Keep in mind that there is no nerf to building actual districts, just the district buildings.
I'm excited for Mali, so had to put a quote from my favorite SMAC faction in my signature. Yeah... I'm just going to pretend Musa is Morgan.
Exactly. If you play as Mali you want to be half and half. You want to settle on the edges of deserts or spots that have floodplains on one side and grassland/plains hills on the other side. You can have one or two desert only cities, but that would be it. The majority will hybrid ones, with enough just to get your bonuses activated.
Which brings us to the point that FXS still don’t fully realize, or don’t want to accept:
Bad tiles are still inherently bad tiles. Giving civs decent bonuses for those tiles isn’t a real advantage, you are merely evening out the playground. A civ still needs food and production, something these bad tiles cannot provide - which is why you end up with “tundra/desert on the edges” kind of strategies. Also, the border expansion logic avoids these tiles like a plague. Even if you have Petra, the game will consider desert tiles as low priority, because it doesn’t consider the added bonus of Petra when choosing the next tile for expansion.
For this same reason, I am still extremely skeptical about the Inca. No, just because you can work mountains doesn’t mean you will have better yields than other civs.
Not looking forward to this. Perhaps the most boring aspect of this civ. Don't forget though, we still need to get up holy sites and campus districts. I think the main 3 will be Commercial hub, holy site, and campus (alternate some cities with theater square or encampment for one city). After that though, running this project over and over may be the best way. Keep in mind that there is no nerf to building actual districts, just the district buildings.
I'm excited for Mali, so had to put a quote from my favorite SMAC faction in my signature. Yeah... I'm just going to pretend Musa is Morgan.
Exactly. If you play as Mali you want to be half and half. You want to settle on the edges of deserts or spots that have floodplains on one side and grassland/plains hills on the other side. You can have one or two desert only cities, but that would be it. The majority will hybrid ones, with enough just to get your bonuses activated.
I think the early game disadvantage might not be as much as claimed. Your cities will grow very fast early on, which means they can work more tiles right away. You can easily get a pantheon, and while many people are talking about Desert Folklore, Lady of the Reeds and Marshes might make up for your production deficit since you can easily have several tiles that are get the +1 production from this in desert cities. -30% production is negligible for slingers (maybe 1 or 2 turns at the most unless you got really unlucky with your start) and you generally won't be competing with other civs for desert, so Mali should be safe in the early game long enough to get their traders out.
Well said. It is a massive immersion killer and hurts gameplay. The entire system is junk and was a great majority of the reason why the game was awful at launch (AI issues aside). The one sided denouncements mean we denounced each other are terrible too.
They had a killer system with Civ5, where certain civs, were geared towards various things based upon their personality and their situation on the map. The drama of balancing the popularity contest between everyone was challenging and very interesting at the same time. It almost felt like you were playing against real people at times. Each new game felt like a TV show episode.
This agenda system is just flat, boring, and super predictable. Send an envoy to a city state and wait next turn for Germany or Pericles to get angry and/or denounce you. You literally get punished just for playing the game correctly.
Well, the agendas are supposed to provide some consistency in terms of AI behavior. They aren't supposed to lend themselves to unpredictability.
As I and others have said, the agenda system becomes more sensible when it deals what the leader respects or avoids, versus the more jejune notions of "like" and "dislike".
It can make sense that an expansionist civ has aggression towards smaller, weaker civ's. Then again, such a civ might have abilities that work well in alliances, so such a leader might seek out allies. Likewise, civ's focused on building wonders or generating works of art might try to curry favor with a stronger civ. Then again, if they have effective turtling capabilities, they might have bold disdain for a warmonger gobbling up neighboring cities.
Consistent tendencies should be desirable to some extent. The problem I have is that it's all reactive. They have a system for keeping and requesting promises, but the player can't ask an AI civ what it can better do to improve relationships. It can't even ask the AI to make a promise not to do something (settle nearby, convert cities) unless the AI has actually already committed the act against them.
Most of the non-random agendas make some degree of sense in terms of making them react negatively towards civs that would either interfere or be easier to conquer. Norway likes you when you have big navies, but it also means he usually hates guys that will be easier to conquer. (this can be weird on a Pangaea though I will admit).
Some of them are more annoying than others, Monte for instance tends to come off as an ******* to everyone because his thing is he hates anyone who has a Luxury he might want, or Kongo that just dislikes you because you couldn't spread your token religion half way across the world to him. If this guy didn't hate you for settling good desert spots, I'd think there was a problem.
Man this is a serious Deity contender unless they made a lot of tweaks to the Bank of AI. 20% more buying power? Half cost for what is arguably the best District? Wonder how it stacks with other purchasing modifiers.
M
Some of them are more annoying than others, Monte for instance tends to come off as an ******* to everyone because his thing is he hates anyone who has a Luxury he might want, or Kongo that just dislikes you because you couldn't spread your token religion half way across the world to him.
Most likely will not be playing Mali very much ...as before. Not impressed.
Allowing the Cavalry unit to impede the sacking of trade routes is the only noteworthy thing.
Don't forget, they can supplement their forces by levying city-state units. Mali has the buying power to do that whenever they want instead of having a large standing army.
Well said. It is a massive immersion killer and hurts gameplay. The entire system is junk and was a great majority of the reason why the game was awful at launch (AI issues aside). The one sided denouncements mean we denounced each other are terrible too.
They had a killer system with Civ5, where certain civs, were geared towards various things based upon their personality and their situation on the map. The drama of balancing the popularity contest between everyone was challenging and very interesting at the same time. It almost felt like you were playing against real people at times. Each new game felt like a TV show episode.
This agenda system is just flat, boring, and super predictable. Send an envoy to a city state and wait next turn for Germany or Pericles to get angry and/or denounce you. You literally get punished just for playing the game correctly.
I'm also concerned by the fact how the leaders' characters changed from Civ V to Civ VI. How they often become way too simplified and flanderized just to fit their agenda. We've gone from Ashurbanipal, a greatly modeled and voiced leader that felt like a strong man and conqueror (I love him being literally enraged in times of war), from Darius, a powerful monarch ruling the most powerful realm in the world, who is well aware of this fact (his shock by him being attacked is great - it just doesn't make sense for him that anybody would dare to attack the glorious and powerful Achaemenid Empire), from playful Theodora that ceases to play and becomes serious and cold to you when in war, to likes of Genghis Khan who doesn't forget to mention his horde or cavarly in almost every cutscene, to Cyrus the Great, who was reduced from a very well respected leader to a mere untrustworthy backstab-loving enemy of Tomyris, to Philip II the dramatic sword-waving maniac (while being historically known as "the Prudent"), and so big religious fanatic that he doesn't forget to mention his faith whenever he has opportunity.
Pedro II is the saddest example of this, turning from this respectable, old, tired man, who was still determined to work to ensure the best for his people and country, to a red-nosed jerk who keeps whining about great people all the time.
All I can think about is the obscene gold output from a super-specialised commerce city. Off continent Great Zimbabwe with Casa de Contratación/Kilwa Kisiwani/Colonial Taxes anyone?
I'm also concerned by the fact how the leaders' characters changed from Civ V to Civ VI. How they often become way too simplified and flanderized just to fit their agenda. We've gone from Ashurbanipal, a greatly modeled and voiced leader that felt like a strong man and conqueror (I love him being literally enraged in times of war), from Darius, a powerful monarch ruling the most powerful realm in the world, who is well aware of this fact (his shock by him being attacked is great - it just doesn't make sense for him that anybody would dare to attack the glorious and powerful Achaemenid Empire), from playful Theodora that ceases to play and becomes serious and cold to you when in war, to likes of Genghis Khan who doesn't forget to mention his horde or cavarly in almost every cutscene, to Cyrus the Great, who was reduced from a very well respected leader to a mere untrustworthy backstab-loving enemy of Tomyris, to Philip II the dramatic sword-waving maniac (while being historically known as "the Prudent"), and so big religious fanatic that he doesn't forget to mention his faith whenever he has opportunity.
Pedro II is the saddest example of this, turning from this respectable, old, tired man, who was still determined to work to ensure the best for his people and country, to a red-nosed jerk who keeps whining about great people all the time.
Pedro II is the saddest example of this, turning from this respectable, old, tired man, who was still determined to work to ensure the best for his people and country, to a red-nosed jerk who keeps whining about great people all the time.
As a brazilian, I couldn't agree more. I prefer the older version of Pedro, with which we are more used to and really represents his actual way of life and as a ruler. His LUA is Magnanimous, but the AI cutscenes is just stupid for him.
Don't forget, they can supplement their forces by levying city-state units. Mali has the buying power to do that whenever they want instead of having a large standing army.
This mechanic is extremely situational and currently not very useful at all. The AI would have to stop taking city states as often as they do now for that to be even remotely useful. Based upon the livestreams it seems that they still take them. If there is no serious diplomatic penalty or means to dissuade them, what is the point?
Unlike CIV 5, you cannot even arm city states with units to defend themselves against wanton aggression. Having a fav city state ally too far away to realistically defend is bascially a lost cause.
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.
