Ok, ca we serioulsy have a new forum rule? (Civ VI)

When people talk about their game experience that HAVE to list the game settings?

Its really dumb when some one complains about the AI or talks about how OP a civ and doesn't mention the fact there playing on an easy levels. Ya, I also get the difficulty levels are really nerfed and people are easily beating deity already.

Just a thought. Can people please be aware of this?

Thanks.

sorry about the title error. I still haven't learned to type.

 

to add, map settings and number of opponents seems to make a big difference. I've had easier Emperor games than Prince games on some occasions...

 

Yeah. The difficulty settings can add a challenge, but not always. It's uneven and always has been. Some Civs will do better against more powerful AI. Some Civs won't do as well. Russia's Grand Embassy in particular is good when you're behind in tech and civics, and you're never supposed to be behind at King, and only modestly so on Emperor at the start. On the other hand, Sumeria' War Carts have a smaller window for efficacy on high diff settings.

 

Think of the difficulty setting when playing chess against a computer. When you raise the difficulty setting the extra challenge doesn't come in the form of the computer getting a few extra queens at the start of the game, it comes in the form of a smarter AI opponent. With Civ6, complaints about the AI and complaints about the difficulty of the game are not necessarily related.

 

A forum rule like that would be impossible to enforce, in my opinion. I agree it is nice information to give, but if you're curious, just ask.

 

Chess is far too basic compared to Civ, to make comparisons with.

 

Game speed also makes different difficulties harder or easier. On harder difficulties where AI gets a lot of units slower game speeds make it harder to stop their or barbarians first push. It just takes a lot longer to get your initial units out so AI has more time to move troops. On the other hand later in game AI has big problems with production while you can have nice network of factories and power plants up yourself.

 

I don't think listing game settings is important enough, in some cases, to merit a forum rule (but I'm new here so what do I know). It should be encouraged in stickies, especially if complaining about AI or the game being too easy/hard.

 

There are quite a lot of non-difficulty-related game settings with surprisingly big impacts for certain civs. Like the Aztecs are stronger on slower game speeds since it gives you more time to fight people with Eagle Warriors and thus create builders, Arabia is stronger with fewer civs in the game since their free last prophet takes effect earlier and you get more beliefs to choose from with it as well, many civs are of course directly impacted by the map archetype, etcetera

 

Even more so when using mods that significantly slow down science/civics.

Starting off with Gilgamesh as your neighbour? 70 turns away from swordsmen? Goddamn. On the other hand, playing Gilgamesh on such a setting would be hilariously easy. You could clear the continent before you hit the classical era.

 

Don't see much point in mentioning difficulty level really considering complaints about the AI are generally universal over all difficulties such as not upgrading units, attacking ranged units when their cities are under attack rather than the melee units, odd trade deals etc and how OP a civ is is relative so if A feels OP compared to B then A will still seem OP compared to B if you play on settler or diety because it will always be easier to play with A than B.

Difficulty setting does often have some bearring on how apparent these appear but easy setting does not always equal easier game or AI appearing more inept.
Higher settings with Aztecs tends to equal an easier game for example as the AI has a lot more units to kill to get free builders to start the steam roll effect.
The AI tends to have more gold at higher levels so can be more easily exploited in trade deals to get yourself large sums of gold which provided more opportunity for the AI to seem more inept.
AI still doesn't seem to do a lot of upgrading at higher levels so you can take advantage of the policy to get gold for killing older era units to get easy gold at higher levels.
AI cities tend to grow faster and have better infrastructure earlier in higher level games so you get a lot more benefit from conquering AI cities early on high levels.

 

There are arguments against it and difficulty in imposing but I like the idea that people do so if they can.

Its just i feel a lot of the negativity is about the 2 highest levels.
Do not get me wrong, its a mess but playable at lower levels IMO

 

It certainly helps when people do this, but making it a rule might be too much work for the moderators. Maybe it could be included as good etiquette in the greeting to new members. We'd have to rely on the honor system but it could work.

 

Please don't comment on things you have no clue about.

 

Herrrm...lemme think about this...16 pieces in six unit categories, none of which change their abilities whatsoever throughout the game (other than the very very rare pawn who then picks up the exact abilities of one of the other five existing unit categories); who can only move within an 8*8 arena, which has no terrain differences; facing off against an identical opposition with only one win condition?

Yeah...the comparison between the complexity of the two games from an AI perspective is...massive. There really is no point making a comparison.

 

But, then I can't hide that I was playing settler with 3 opponents when I won my great victory.

 

That would be a really stupid rule.

Would be a great hint though, "Add as many useful details as you can when creating a new post/thread".

Having a banner for such hints, with one being selected at random when creating a new post would be really useful.