Normal Deity Games

Fluphen Azine

What is Fluphen Azine?
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
1,512
Location
Las Vegas

I have been watching this recent Lets Play on Youtube from TheGameMechanic.
He is playing Spain on Standard Settings but his map type is Small 2:1.
He also plays with the CS Wall Mod which I am sure hurts the AI Armies compared to Standard.
I am guessing the Map Type changes things compared to Standard but that isn't exactly the point.
My point is how slow going this game is and he gets a Knight Army up around turn 115 or so.
Generating around 30 SPT on turn 120.

He does go for Religion so perhaps that just slows you down too much and it is better not to go for it.
I suppose Exploit and Abuse are a major factor in general in all games and when comparing them.
If one doesn't exploit as much as another you will see major differences in benchmarks!?
I notice he isn't pillaging much as well which is a big difference when you double pillage for Science/Culture/Gold.

Many of my games are slow going like this as well.
I was thinking that getting Knights around turn 75-85 was the Norm for Top Players but perhaps that is wrong.
Recently I played a game as India.
I was forward settled by Kongo and America.
The game was very slow going and I should of been rolled.
America didn't press as hard as they should and I was able to beat them back with Archers/Warriors.
I ended up getting a peace deal and took them out after turn 100.
I won the game after turn 300 which is very long for me.
Many of my games on Pangaea have been like this where I have two or three Civs all over me with Barbs at times.
I was thinking this can't be normal but perhaps it is.
 
Last edited:
(Didn't watch the vid but just going off of general Civ knowledge) You said it, going for a religion really slows down your early game. Also doesn't help that Spain gets very few early game benefits. Turn 115 is late for a knight push, top players normally get it around turn 85-105. Also it is important to note that while "TheGameMechanic" is a very good player, as a streamer he often goes for entertainment value over pure efficiency. Compare this to a steamer like Civtrader who is trying to win as quickly as possible.

Keep in mind that there is more to a knight push than simply getting the stirrups tech. You need to (a) Pre-build your heavy chariots, which are not cheap in the early game. (b) Get enough gold to upgrade them into knights and pay the maintenance. This can often mean having to divert to irrigation to get luxuries to sell. (c) Secure an Iron resource. Given the proximity of Bronze Working to Stirrups you may have to delay Stirrups a few turns while you secure an iron resource.
 
It is obvious he is going for more entertainment value over speed.
I don't see him abusing the game nearly as much as he could.
In this game he is showcasing a Lower Tier Civ trying to get into a Conquistador Push.

However, like many of my games he has to deal with an aggressive AI and it is America.
When you spawn more so in the middle of the map on Pangaea you are going to deal with getting Forward Settled.
This game isn't even that bad.
Many of my games recently are pretty ugly where I am getting two AI's right on top of me.

I find it very difficult to get that Knight Rush under turn 100 when you are either dealing with a mass AI invasion or Barb Invasion right from the get go.
Not so easy to go Builder/Settler in these type of games/starts and that seems to be the Normal for All Random/Deity/Standard/Standard in many of my games.

When you spawn on the edge of the map it is a completely different game.

I also find the game is very dependent on CS meets.
I mostly play the Standard 12 version with no CS Walls.
Most of the games most CS's get swallowed up very fast.

On the games where you find a bunch of different CS's the game is by far easier.
I must be chopping the wrong way.
Many games where I have 1 to 3 cities and focusing on Army the first 40 turns I do not see how you guys get up 10 cities by turn 100 with Lower Tier Civs.
Using Higher Tier or even Medium Tier Civs is completely different.
Using Civs like Spain and Tamar and having neighbors like Tommy, Aztecs, Rome... etc seems to be troublesome.

Currently I am playing a game as Pericles.
The land is all hills which isn't a bad thing.
The problem is that Kongo and Genghis boxed me in pretty early.
Kongo attacked and wouldn't make peace until turn 50.
I never lost a soldier but the game is ruined and I don't think I could finish before turn 300.
2 cities on turn 50 with not much expansion room gets to be difficult.
 
If you are getting boxed in early might I suggest going for the double oligarchy swordsmen rush instead of the knight rush. It has the advantage of being earlier (often before walls) and you can start building your army from the get-go instead of having to wait to tech wheel. This way even if you get DOWed or Barb Swarmed before you are ready you at least have a few wars to help defend. This is especially useful for Civs with an early melee UU who can also get to political philosophy quickly (think Greece, Rome and Persia).
 
Thanks Softly.
Most of the time I am talking about using Civs that are weak or the weakest.

I am starting to get the hang of things a little better.
After reading about Victoria saying to keep population lower at around 5-6 and many 2 pop cities I had one of my best games last night.
I played Pericles and had a nearby wonder with horses.
I didn't get to expand until after I built up a horse army.
I took down a CS with a few archers and warriors.
The map was kind because it was very flat.
I tried to focus on smaller cities with 6 pop but a eventually I lost focus and some cities got to 8/9/10.
It worked pretty good though.
I went with an Encampment and focused on Great Generals.
I built the Government Plaza and wasn't able to get a Campus in the Capital until after turn 100.

I abused chops but I didn't abuse the Relic Trade Bug.
One of my first games where I had 400-500 science and 200-350 culture before turn 200.
Finished on turn 195 but someone with better skill could of finished very fast I believe.
Anyways it was good for me heading in the right direction trying to focus on Domination Wins before turn 200.
Cap 195.jpg
195.jpg
 
One has to be adaptable, and that means knowing your terrain so you can plan. No sand = no Pyramids, odd shaped land = no coliseum. Get attacked too much early and you really are hampered, no chance of much culture = delay in getting knights. No iron = archer / musket / ship options. Rubbishy start position = trickier game ( I got sick is seeing maps with 7-8 prod being considered the norm for 1 pop starts, because it is not). Civ 6 is not a 1 rule for all situations like V was, there is nothing quite as strong as the national college unless you think Magnus.

The real trick to deity is chopping as well, the AI just does not do it and you can catch up very fast doing that. You do not have to be fancy either, chopping in chariots and slingers gives loads of prod. chopping in a settler gives the same %. Golden age/ monument / harvest is game over, you can get 20 by T100, I’ve had 25 before in a GOTM but they are not normal games. Pushing settlers after Goverment does seem a good place. The biggest mistake is concentrating on districts too early, maybe 1 or 2 for the right reasons but expand before develop is a key point, expand naturally means into others as well, just keep saying to yourself they will do it to me if I do not.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the comments Victoria!

So your saying to focus on Settlers before Districts in most situations?
20 Cities on Pangaea before turn 100 must be flying.
Many games I am happy getting 8 to 10 by turn 100.
I must be focusing on Districts too much.
Have to switch that up to Settlers and Army First it sounds like.

I think one of my main problems in the past was I was letting my cities grow too much and too wild.
It seems this game is better like earlier version of Civs where you keep population lower and ICS.

I am currently playing a game as Spain and it was very slow going from a Barb invasion and bad start/land.
However it seems the AI likes to war with each other and I helped that along with trades.
Even though many consider Warmongering to be too easy or cheesy in this game it still is my favorite aspect.
 
Last edited:
I am saying harvest goddess, chopping, monumentality combo gives great settler prospects.
Fast knights with good fast land means fast killin.
The combo of those with a strong start position will give you the ability to be bloated by T100.

8-10 by T100 is really the minimum, you can stop and chop then, your chops will be strong enough to get the universities/museums you need for a 150 finish is life is truly good.

Bad starts slow you down a lot, your first city giving out 5 prod rather than 8 at the start is a big difference, it does not sound like a lot but it is about speed, luck... things like getting a +2 for a CS at the start is a big difference. Settling on a luxury is also a huge early benefit. Even someone declaring war on you for that difficult to get extra culture boost is a great benefit if it falls just right.

This thread is about normal games, not exceptional. Normal games 8-10 and knights by 80 is fine. If the opposition has knights you should still own due to the AI but someone like Mongolia can dampen your day still, hell the Mapuche made me stop going golden, the +10 on top of the deity +4 is mighty horrible and when they send a caravan your way you just groan.

Good on ya playing Spain, it’s just like playing England, just pretty much a vanilla civ and that means more of a challenge, Pangea allows for a much better start than continents, The times you just cannot find another continent early is quite high playing a continent map, just slows down your culture and that’s so important early. You do not need to max culture but you need enough amd early enough.
 
I was debating with another player on another thread that Pangaea was harder than Continents.
It sounds as if you are saying that Continents is usually more difficult?
I always felt I was able to take over my Continent faster than most of my Pangaea starts.

I will have to start rotating the two map types again since I like to play what is considered more difficult settings.

I prefer playing the Lower Tier Civs to make things more difficult but I still think I need better fundamental thinking and decisions.
The next step once I get better is to move onto specific rules like no trades/chops/war... etc. etc.
I am not sure I could play without war though... that is the most fun for me in the game.
 
It sounds as if you are saying that Continents is usually more difficult?
It is complex, not seen the other thread but off the top of my head

Continent Pro's
Less civs to contest with which means its a often a safer start. Also if going for a culture or science victory it could be consider more defensible.
More suited to Navy than continents
Stops a lot of civs knowing you were so warlike early on

Continent Con's
Less chance of getting a new continent inspiration
Less chance of getting many luxuries without going overseas
Meeting less civs early means less open borders gold, era points, trade opportunities, delegation gold and first impressions removal.
Scouts more restricted, often get bored once continent is discovered, less scouting distance.
Less huts, CS and wonders to find early - Lack of CS in particular but era points as well.
For domination or religious victories, continents limit your spread without going overseas, it certainly can slow down your victory.
 
Last edited:
I suppose one could say it takes longer to complete a Continents Game.
However every time I play that map type it is always a much easier win.
I never have the early game danger that I experience on Pangaea.

I also find that Continents Maps are much easier to get friendly with the AI and trade away with them.
Navy has always been easier to deal with compared to AI Armies
Perhaps I am wrong about Civ 6 but I still find Pangaea to be the more difficult map type.

I started a game as England on a Continents Map after reading your post.
I found it pretty easy to ICS with the help of chopping in Galleys which is harder to do in the middle of the map on Pangaea.
My 3 to 4 Galleys explored the map with ease and I met all the AIs while I took over the CS's and the other AI near me.
I find it easier to deal with 1 AI compared to 2 or 3 right on top of me.
Of course this is Civ and Map dependent.
This map was more like a 3 Continent Map.
I found it pretty easy to get more cities out and inhabit Islands and the other Continents.

Only one game but as usual it always feels the easier map type to me.
I will have to play more of them in between my Pangaea games.
I suppose it is personal preference and a matter of opinion but I still find Pangaea to be the most problematic.
 
I suppose it is personal preference and a matter of opinion but I still find Pangaea to be the most problem

As I said, its a often a safer start.
Maybe it is your style, try all out agressive on Pangea and you can roll the lot quite qiuckly
 
I agree. Your win time will be faster on Pangaea especially with all out blitzes but I still feel that map type is the most dangerous to actually lose the game.
Basically just an opinion that is meaningless.

IMHO the AI doesn't tech as good on water maps or on Continents compared to Pangaea.
 
I agree. Your win time will be faster on Pangaea especially with all out blitzes but I still feel that map type is the most dangerous to actually lose the game.
Basically just an opinion that is meaningless.

IMHO the AI doesn't tech as good on water maps or on Continents compared to Pangaea.

To me, the main advantage to a human on Pangaea when playing peacefully is the speed at which you encounter more of the other civ leaders. The more leaders you have access to, the higher the average price that you'll sell your resources for, meaning the more gold you get earlier, and that snowballs super fast.

I've always therefore believed that the fastest victories will take place on Pangaea maps, even when you don't capture AI cities. However, I haven't done enough apples-to-apples comparisons to be able to provide any objective support for that belief.
 
I agree.
Faster Win Times.
I just tend to run into more danger on Pangaea Maps.
I've actually lost back to back games by getting rolled on them.
I have never had that problem on a Continents Map.

I played very poorly though.
I tend to believe all games are winnable no matter start location or map type.
 
Last edited:
To me, the main advantage to a human on Pangaea when playing peacefully is the speed at which you encounter more of the other civ leaders. The more leaders you have access to, the higher the average price that you'll sell your resources for, meaning the more gold you get earlier, and that snowballs super fast.

I've always therefore believed that the fastest victories will take place on Pangaea maps, even when you don't capture AI cities. However, I haven't done enough apples-to-apples comparisons to be able to provide any objective support for that belief.
I'm not all too sure on that. If you don't explore until you conquer your own continent (ie. warmonger allot), you won't meet any of the extracontinental civs. This means you won't be able to trade with them, but also means they can't get mad at you for warmongering. In the earlier game I am often short of amenities anyway, and might not have anything to trade with the civs on the other continent. So, all that can happen is they can get mad at me with no upside. If I don't meet them until later, I tend to have multiple copies (often x3, x4 or x6) of all the various amenities and can trade to all the other civs on the other continent on very favorable late game terms.
 
Last edited:
I'm not all too sure on that. If you don't explore until you conquer your own continent (ie. warmonger allot), you won't meet any of the extracontinental civs. This means you won't be able to trade with them, but also means they can't get mad at you for warmongering. In the earlier game I am often short of amenities anyway, and might not have anything to trade with the civs on the other continent. So, all that can happen is they can get mad at me with no upside. If I don't meet them until later, I tend to have multiple copies (often x3, x4 or x6) of all the various amenities and can trade to all the other civs on the other continent on very favorable late game terms.

I did say when playing peacefully, i.e. not capturing any AI cities.
 
I did say when playing peacefully, i.e. not capturing any AI cities.
Point taken. I think I was making a point loosely related to your statement (ie. with warmongering thrown in the equation). That's it's not always good to meet everyone as soon as you can. If you haven't met them yet, then they can't very well hate you.

PS, I think I agree with your statement that Pangea are generally faster though (peaceful or warmongering). I also agree with Fluphen Azine's assertion that continents are safer and will prevent an out and out loss more often than Pangea maps.
 
Really interesting thread! Been watching some of The Game Mechanics videos, and this in particular had me boggled, but didn’t watch the entire thing. (Just so slow with the twitch-chatting and things!)
Spain+religion+early aggression seems impossible to win in a timely matter, but he pulled it off with all those (entertaining) mistakes early on.

On smaller maps, continent/fractal/Island plates and when CS starts With Walls there seems to be less space for AI to sprawl. I believe I’m better than ai to manage/optimize science and culture with similar or less cities and thus can surpass them in critical techs and civics and pull off a victory. It gives a different experience in peaceful games.
But still, all my fastest deity games are on pangea.
Lately I’ve downgraded to immortal in my attempts at fast victories in completely unmodded standard games.
 
I believe you are correct in the observations.
Smaller Map. CS Walls. Tech Detours... etc etc will hinder the AI.
He went Astrology First and didn't find a Wonder so that slowed him down right from the jump.
I am sure that the AI loses many units to crashing into the Walls.
TheGameMechanic is going for entertainment and less abuse.
Of course he is going for donations as well but it is nice to see someone constantly play the game online.
He argues the game is more fun for him with the CS Wall Mod and of course that is subjective.

Not in every game but the best games I see the AI rolling are on Pangaea Maps with no Mods and on Standard Settings.
Usually it is Korea or Poundmaker running away on the other side of the map.
This is why I say Pangaea are the more difficult maps overall.
Of course they are best for faster finishes but they have the most danger in getting rolled or possible runaway AI.

Currently I am playing as Brazil on Deity Stand/Stand Pangaea.
I loaded it up as an all Random game.
After about 10 to 20 turns I realized this map was going to be the most boring map for me.
No AI in sight. A huge Mountain wall in the center. CS's blocking towards the AI.
I managed to meet all the Civs.
I planted 10 cities total on turn 99.
Trade is through the roof and I have plenty of resources to trade.
Golden Age which I bought settlers and builders.
I am so lost in what to do in the game.
I even went for Religion and got it.
I never have done a Religion win and this seems to be the perfect set up for it but the game is too dry for my taste currently.
DoF with every Civ. It is almost like I am on my own Continent in Sandbox Mode.

Here is a picture at turn 101 where I am pretty lost in what to do.
I am building walls with limes and one turning them as I move Magnus around.
I am basically chopping in all Campuses now with perhaps the plan of HS/Com Hubs.
I believe I can do whatever I want in this game.
I could chop in an Army and head toward the Vikings.
Either way the map bores me and I am losing interest pretty fast.

My Religion is Harvest/Choral/Scripture.
I took Scripture thinking I would go for a Religious Victory but now unsure.



101 Brazil.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom