Screenshot analysis!

[stealth_nsk]

It also means you have to eventually attack your allies, which is silly. Even the nastiest conquerors in history had friends.

It wasn't a huge deal in Civ V (because it's virtually impossible to keep friends), but I was hoping for more diplomatic possibilities in Civ V.

I hope there's some form of diplomatic domination (some late-game form of vassals) where you could be counted as "controlling" your ally without having to actually conquer it.

 

[m15a]

I really hope the AI doesn't end up using those suggestions. Or that they at least fix them.

The 'prime' locations are 'river here, don't mind the fact that you'll be 4-5 hexes away from both your capital and another civs city... jammed right in there!'

meanwhile that nice lake to the west isn't considered despite all of the resources around it.

Some (not all) of those river tiles look pretty good with the access to the mountains and river tiles for districts, plus 2 cottons and a bunch of stone (though I don't know if that's very valuable in Civ VI).

I would say the recommendation is not factoring current cities as much as it should (same as Civ V I think?), but that still doesn't explain not recommending those lakeside tiles.

 

[skyclad]

Why not have both conquest and domination as possible victories? First requires all Capitals/every enemy as a vassal, and second a massive lead in land and population.

 

[Magil]

I really hope the AI doesn't end up using those suggestions. Or that they at least fix them.

The 'prime' locations are 'river here, don't mind the fact that you'll be 4-5 hexes away from both your capital and another civs city... jammed right in there!'

meanwhile that nice lake to the west isn't considered despite all of the resources around it.

Is there something wrong with settling a city within 4-5 hexes of another city? I'd prefer if the AI settles cities close to its capital rather than walking a city 10-15 hexes away and forward-settling smack-dab in the middle of nowhere, in a position that can't be reinforced or defended and requires several turns to send units between.

Not that that example applies here--the lake location is nice too, but generally it seems perfectly reasonable to settle close before settling far. It may not be 100% optimal all of the time, but I don't see anything wrong with nabbing a spot along the river and near those mountains, along with some resources (though not as nice resource-wise as the lake location). I don't think it's an egregious enough thing that needs to be "fixed".

 

[kaspergm]

I found that settling advice pretty sound as well. Sure, it would have been nice if America was a couple of hexes further away, but it still seemed better to settle it than to leave it for him to grab? Also, it had plenty of river, good mountain locations for districts (I really dislike how mountains have suddenly become the make it or break it of the game, but that's another story), it had marble and wheat and bananas. So I don't see much wrong with that spot.

 

[qadams]

Why not have both conquest and domination as possible victories? First requires all Capitals/every enemy as a vassal, and second a massive lead in land and population.

Good idea! More variety/options is a good thing, IMO. Assuming, of course, that the AI is smart enough to figure things out.

 

[Atlas627]

I really hope the AI doesn't end up using those suggestions. Or that they at least fix them.

The 'prime' locations are 'river here, don't mind the fact that you'll be 4-5 hexes away from both your capital and another civs city... jammed right in there!'

meanwhile that nice lake to the west isn't considered despite all of the resources around it.

What's wrong with those spots? Germany especially will appreciate cramming all of its cities together so it can get adjacency bonuses on its districts, which it already plans to have more of.

 

[Siptah]

Why not have both conquest and domination as possible victories? First requires all Capitals/every enemy as a vassal, and second a massive lead in land and population.

But in this case the 'all capital cities' seems redundant to me. The proper militaristic victory when you have both available (as in Civ IV) would always be the domination one for me. I'd only use conquest if I fear someone else would win if I don't do that now.

 

[BornInTheLoo]

Did we have the complete list of religion icons in here yet?
The last on is a turtle, from there it's just turtles all the way down.

Spoiler :

 

[MadDjinn]

I hope there's some form of diplomatic domination (some late-game form of vassals) where you could be counted as "controlling" your ally without having to actually conquer it.

this would be a better solution.

For longer term big allies, allow permanent alliances.
for the smaller ones, allow diplo option to 'soak' them into a federation style (ala SU/etc) where they can be independent locally, but are entirely yours to control foreign policy wise/militarily.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

This is where vassalage system would come in handy actually.

I hope they expand the way doplomacy works. I still want a formal system of Occupied Cities that just simply disable the functionality of a city, but it is retained by the former owner and cheaper to take during a peace treaty.

 

[MadDjinn]

Some (not all) of those river tiles look pretty good with the access to the mountains and river tiles for districts, plus 2 cottons and a bunch of stone (though I don't know if that's very valuable in Civ VI).

I would say the recommendation is not factoring current cities as much as it should (same as Civ V I think?), but that still doesn't explain not recommending those lakeside tiles.

yeah, current cities are looking like they aren't 100% taken into consideration. CivV had that issue I think, where resources were counted for a location despite already being in someone else's territory. Can't quite remember.

Is there something wrong with settling a city within 4-5 hexes of another city? I'd prefer if the AI settles cities close to its capital rather than walking a city 10-15 hexes away and forward-settling smack-dab in the middle of nowhere, in a position that can't be reinforced or defended and requires several turns to send units between.

Not that that example applies here--the lake location is nice too, but generally it seems perfectly reasonable to settle close before settling far. It may not be 100% optimal all of the time, but I don't see anything wrong with nabbing a spot along the river and near those mountains, along with some resources (though not as nice resource-wise as the lake location). I don't think it's an egregious enough thing that needs to be "fixed".

yeah, dropping a city right in the middle of two already established cities is not a good idea. Yeah, there could be 1-2 district locations there, but not enough space to fully realize the locations value. Ie, by the time the city can get more hexes cultured, the other two cities will possibly already take them and you'd have an even worse city.

Especially if you want the capital to have all hexes within it's range to make it big. You could easily have a situation where that new city is stuck on 1 hex ring + a bit in left-right directions because the AI/player down there would mass buy hexes on the border. Keeping in mind that hexes around a city are more important now if you want that city to expand and grow.

as per the 10-15 hexes bit, I'm not sure we've see that yet in a live stream. so hopefully that stays a civV thing.

and the 'fixed' part is definitely more that real settling positions were not being 'marked' as good -- and if the AI uses this as their choice, then they'll be missing out on much better locations.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I think the Settler Lense is bit misleading. It does not display locations for good cities, it displays locations with the best access to water. Green being adjacent to rivers and I think Oases and Lakes, and Fainter Green displaying access at coasts.

I think it is bit misleading since it does not actually display good settler areas, but simply, which areas have the best water access.

 

[shyPiano]

I hope they expand the way doplomacy works. I still want a formal system of Occupied Cities that just simply disable the functionality of a city, but it is retained by the former owner and cheaper to take during a peace treaty.

From my own understanding, Civ VI will have something along those lines. When at war, if you take a city, it becomes Occupied, so it's not entirely yours. You gain Warmonger Penalty for each city you occupy.
During peace negotiations, you can choose to keep the occupied city (doubling the amount of warmonger penalty you get for each city you keep), or return the city (clearing away the Warmonger Penalty you received from occupying it in the first place).

It's not exactly as you described, but certainly a step in the right direction.

I think the Settler Lense is bit misleading. It does not display locations for good cities, it displays locations with the best access to water. Green being adjacent to rivers and I think Oases and Lakes, and Fainter Green displaying access at coasts.

I think it is bit misleading since it does not actually display good settler areas, but simply, which areas have the best water access.

Later builds also show suggestions on where to settle a city, beyond just telling you access to fresh water.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

From my own understanding, Civ VI will have something along those lines. When at war, if you take a city, it becomes Occupied, so it's not entirely yours. You gain Warmonger Penalty for each city you occupy.
During peace negotiations, you can choose to keep the occupied city (doubling the amount of warmonger penalty you get for each city you keep), or return the city (clearing away the Warmonger Penalty you received from occupying it in the first place).

It's not exactly as you described, but certainly a step in the right direction.



Later builds also show suggestions on where to settle a city, beyond just telling you access to fresh water.

Oh does it? I haven't noticed, My bad. And yes. I like what they are doing to Diplomacy already, but there's always room for more .

 

[Silverdawn]

I think the Settler Lense is bit misleading. It does not display locations for good cities, it displays locations with the best access to water. Green being adjacent to rivers and I think Oases and Lakes, and Fainter Green displaying access at coasts.

I think it is bit misleading since it does not actually display good settler areas, but simply, which areas have the best water access.

That is probably why they added the legend to the settler card. I expect they'll adjust this display/UI some more before launch.

 

[Magil]

yeah, dropping a city right in the middle of two already established cities is not a good idea. Yeah, there could be 1-2 district locations there, but not enough space to fully realize the locations value. Ie, by the time the city can get more hexes cultured, the other two cities will possibly already take them and you'd have an even worse city.

Especially if you want the capital to have all hexes within it's range to make it big. You could easily have a situation where that new city is stuck on 1 hex ring + a bit in left-right directions because the AI/player down there would mass buy hexes on the border. Keeping in mind that hexes around a city are more important now if you want that city to expand and grow.

as per the 10-15 hexes bit, I'm not sure we've see that yet in a live stream. so hopefully that stays a civV thing.

and the 'fixed' part is definitely more that real settling positions were not being 'marked' as good -- and if the AI uses this as their choice, then they'll be missing out on much better locations.

This sounds like the Civ V: BNW (exclusive) mindset to me. Growth was super important in BNW and especially in the capital, but we don't know if that's actually going to be the case in VI. In older games cities that were huddled close together with some amount of work-radius-overlap was quite common. I for one would not at all be surprised to see a return to it, particularly if housing does a good job keeping out-of-control growth in check.

It's a play style that seeks to maximize the value of your available land rather than seeking to grow every city to its maximum potential. It was a very common mindset in IV (to put aside the ICS of III/pre-BNW V). I think I fundamentally disagree with your assertion. It may have been true in V: BNW because of the harsh penalties for additional cities, but I don't know if it will be true in VI.

 

[AriochIV]

I hope there's some form of diplomatic domination (some late-game form of vassals) where you could be counted as "controlling" your ally without having to actually conquer it.

That would be nice.

Why not have both conquest and domination as possible victories? First requires all Capitals/every enemy as a vassal, and second a massive lead in land and population.

That would make too much sense.

The other problem with a conquest (eliminate all rivals) victory is that it's almost always anti-climactic; you reach a point at which you've got like two-thirds of the cities and the game is already won, but you've still got 3 capitals to capture. It's just boring.

 

[Magil]

I could also go for the return of Civ III/IV's separating Conquest and Domination as separate victory conditions with separate requirements. Doesn't seem VI will do so, however. Which is unfortunate.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think the Settler Lense is bit misleading. It does not display locations for good cities, it displays locations with the best access to water. Green being adjacent to rivers and I think Oases and Lakes, and Fainter Green displaying access at coasts.

I think it is bit misleading since it does not actually display good settler areas, but simply, which areas have the best water access.

Correct me if I am wrong but don't tiles that have good access to water also have a higher appeal rating which is important to city growth? With the new housing, amenities and appeal systems, as well as the terrain dependence of wonders and districts, it seems that city placement is much more involved than it was in civ5. So that could explain why the settler lens works the way that it does.