Quick Questions / Quick Answers

Don't be like that, man. A quick google search for the topic highlights that the civ 5 and civ 6 launchers (they use the same backend qt tech to function) have this issue for a lot of users:
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1.....0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.21m6s7PRsgI

You gain nothing from defending a gosh dang game launcher. It sucks, it can leave hanging processes, and it's purely in existence to extract money from consumers. It wasn't for our benefit.

G

 

All the search results were from before it was patched.

In my tests I have never found any examples of processes running in the background after the game is launched.

I'm not defending the launcher (i agree it is anti-consumer) nor am I claiming it doesn't happen (although it has never happened to me)

I am merely trying to establish that it is not designed to work that way. The sensible thing to do is to report it as a bug, which I suspect is caused by software conflict, faulty installation or permissions.

You accused me of spreading nonsense, whereas it is actually you who is being unhelpful by spreading false information.

 

Ah, you don’t have an issue, therefore it isn’t broken. Got it. Well I load and reload civ constantly during testing and development and it is a pain in my side. I disabled it for a long time, only to have a patch bring it back, then I had to disable it again. And the cycle continues. It’s broken, and you’re taking a very strange side here for no particular reason that I can see. Perhaps you’d like to drop it?

G

 

Sorry to hear about your issues with the launcher and, yes, I'm happy to drop it.

 

Gazebo, did you try the alternative method of disabling the launcher posted here:

New Beta Version - April 20th (4-20)

It works for me and I'm hoping it won't be vulnerable to patches, but maybe you know different.

As someone who also has to restart civ several times a day, the other thing I did was remove all the movie files, which got rid of the logo screens, saving 20 or 30 seconds on each start - hey, it all adds up!

 

Hello,

I have a question that I am still grappling with.

Am I correct in assuming that puppeting does not increase culture costs? I ask this question because I believe I have seen culture costs increase after puppeting a foreign city.

Would appreciate any feedback.

 

1st Current Puppet will count, 2nd Current and afterwards will not. This is due to how the DLL was coded.

Current Puppet means cities that are currently puppeted, not if they had been puppeted.

 

Your first puppet will increase costs. You will always have to overpay in costs by one city. Its not that big of a deal if you conquer a lot of cities

 

When do you all pick Progress? The differentiation between Tradition and Progress/Authority is very clear, but I usually find that any Progress start is basically synonymous with an Authority start, so I'm wondering how people choose between the two. I'm sure I'm just missing something somewhere, because based on AI performance both of them work out well. I'm just trying to figure out what I'm not getting about Progress, because unless I'm solo on a continent I find Authority to be more useful.

 

I find Progress really useful for multiple reasons, for example sweet bonuses that you use all the time (extra Building production, bonuses from Cities and City connections and so on).

Progress is kinda strongly but no exclusively about instant yields, it provides a lot and with wide variety (gold, science (if capital) from Pop, food and culture from buildings, culture from techs -> stuffs that always happen, constantly good), it makes it strong for both tall and wide (or mixed, although rather tilted for wide I'd say).

It even provides free worker and increased working speed (and worker creation speed) which makes it really tempting and handy at the early game too, it scales really well.

More often than I'd like to admit I tend to mess around with hybrid builds, for example getting Authority opener first, and then focus on Progress: you can get a lot of extra Culture from killing Barbs before Progress bonuses really start to kicking in.

 

I'm certain this is not worth it. You'll start out behind in (even with Authority Barb Culture, getting your 3rd policy will take much longer than getting your 2nd policy with straight Progress) and the gap will only grow as policy costs are exponential, to be 1000's of points behind in mid game.

 

I agree, because I used to make the same mistake

Only to find out nd out that I was getting behind in culture.

 

I admit it only makes sense if you have barbs to kill, otherwise go straigth through the tree.

Why I think it's actually worth it (if you can farm barbs) because it takes time for Progress bonuses to really kick in: you'll emit Settlers from your capital, so it won't grow -> you won't get the science; you have weak cities in the beginning -> production bonus and the yields start to get really strong until you have at least somewhat decent production; building up infrastructure takes time, so at the beginning you can't really utilize those either; free worker is good... if you have the techs to actually get the improvements.

Not to mention you'll be constantly at war on higher difficulties, so that's also a lot of extra culture, moreover gives you some flexibility to go further down in the tree in case you're stuck in a quagmire of wars.

More often than not it's not optimal as it's quite situational, but can be really useful (and it's also fun )

 

For me, Progress is for games where I want to go wide but don't necessarily plan to do a lot of conquering. Ideally, the start has room for 6+ decent cities that I plan to settle and the civ that I'm playing has natural synergy with wide play but maybe not much synergy with conquering (or at least not as much as the large number of natural warmongers in the game). Morocco, Iroquois, and Polynesia all fit that bill for me along with a bunch of others that I would make the case for.

I choose authority in games where I plan to conquer extensively, usually because I'm playing as a natural warmonger like the Zulu, Sweden, etc along with a bunch of others that also have extra conquer synergy.

 

How exactly does the trade route bonus for Morocco (+1 to all yields in capital) work?

 

From what I remember, each unique trade route partner gives you +1 to all yields (scaling with era). If a civ sends you a trade route then you get those yields without having to send a route to them, and if you send 2 routes to someone you only get extra yields once. You often end up incentivised to send routes to CSs in order to get those bonus yields on every route especially if you're able to attract other civs to send routes to you.

For more see:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/morocco-strategy.635669/

 

It's still just a bad move. To catch up initially, you need to get your 3rd policy with this when a normal Progress player gets their second policy. This requires 100+ from Barb hunting before a Progress player would get their 2nd policy. When you pick Progress you get 45-60 from tech discoveries, and the second policy costs 70, so in this small time frame, getting that much is very difficult.

The gap only grows larger as the game goes on. You'll need to start making hundreds of between each policy pick just to catch up and finish Progress faster. This gap will grow as the game goes on (being one policy behind is being a few thousand points behind by midgame).

 

Before starting the game. It is myself thinking like "Today I feel like trying out a wide Morocco play with progress-statecraft, so lets roll out.". So even if game gives Montezuma, Shaka, Askia as neighbours, I still pick progress. (Alexander may be exception)

 

Whenever I have good terrain yields but I know that there's not going to be enough food for many specialists. With progress you cover the land fast (not necessarily wide, just fast) and all your cities become productive very early. All my citizens are going to work on very nice improved tiles, but city borders are small, so sometimes I have to purchase key tiles. Later, the nice building infrastructure is going to make up for the lack of population.
Progress also gives flexibility. You can stay tall, or go wide. You can expand further or stay still, cause the bonuses did their work.
Tall tradition, in contrast, forces you to stay tall and expand through puppets, and your cities end up working lots of specialists and very few tiles.
Progress is weak in Ancient, though, especially if you want to hold a large territory, so having an aggressive neighbor must be taken into account before committing to progress.

 

Authority generates virtually no / if you are not fighting and taking cities (taking cities being the big deciding factor for me). If you are not going to be aggressive, it's usually better to stay out of others way and be defensive if possible and turtle up. This is what Progress shines at. War takes alot of resources/investment that just is not worth it sometimes, and if you have the space to build up a decent empire with minimal military investment, why not?