Boris Gudenof knows his history too AND can use real artillery, he also couldhave the job
September Update Thread
- Thread starter bite
- Start date
- Status
Boris Gudenof knows his history too AND can use real artillery, he also couldhave the job
Why should anyone bother? The AI cannot win a religious victory. It's not even designed to try. It just spams apostles to convert cities and attacks other apostles when it encounters during these attempts. It has no offensive or defensive strategy, insomuch as there's not much of one.
The thing is, everyone will just vote with their gut. We have right here articulated problems with the religious victory condition, and sure enough we still get responses s that dismisses those well-articulated issues out-of-hand, like Scaramanga.
You don't need a religious victory to have a religion focus, any more than you need an economic victory to justify a civ's gold focus, or a production victory to justify a production focus (and to anyone who feels the urge to point out that a science victory is a production victory, you're rather making my point). Same goes for Theocracy.
It's fine to argue about a premise, but the execution falls way short of being meaningful as a victory condition.
There's that, but there's way more than that to send back to the drawing board. We can talk about all kinds of things that add depth to military combat that is positive before we start getting to the AI not building planes or marching forward with lone catapults. There's surrounding to siege it, pillaging, modifiers like terrain and flanking, encampments, using spies to create unrest, etc. You have some management to do with strategic resources and creating choke points and manufacturing a casus beli. You know about all waging war (lots more than I do). There's at least the veneer of a a series on integrated systems.
With RV, there's just not much to excel at that would distinguish a good strategy from a bad one. There's not much reason why religious victory between civ's with equal faith infrastructure shouldn't be a stalemate. We don't need to bother with Scaramanga's delicate balancing act. I can't fault the AI for spamming units if that's all they can really do. If someone's hassling my civ, I just park inquisitors and damaged apostles in the city until they leave or I am ready to make another surge. I can flip my cities back tout de suite.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
I've watched the whole series, but to be complete, you don't go to most of Egypt, Mesopotamia, ancient Harappa (modern Indus Valley) or the Hwang-Ho valley for the scenery either, or the water unless you want it along with the occasional massive and destructive flooding ('Flood Myths' apparently common to all areas) - yet that's where us humans appear to have set up shop first.
Personally, I think it's because of a built-in Disaster-Seeking mechanism in the human psyche - that would also explain our election choices in Too Many countries and instances . . .
But, seriously, it actually points up two things:
1. There are a lot more variables than just Water and Food Supply for permanent large-scale settlement, and some of them are not at all obvious (my sister has her PhD in Population Geography, and can go on for hours on this subject: I'm trying to figure out how to simplify it all down to Game Terms for me and thee, but obviously, have not succeeded!)
2. When the areas were settled they were not necessarily the same as they are now in terrain, weather, flora or fauna. Anatolia specifically, has gone through some long-term changes ('drought cycles') over the centuries, and the entire Middle East has been extensively deforested by human activity over the past 4 - 5 millennia, which in turn has had major effects on other aspects of the geography (just two simple ones: Water Retention in the soil and Wind Breaks to keep the top soil in place)
Botom line: Hattusa had access to water, but the Hittites were also under constant pressure from 'Barbarian' raiders (the Cimmerians, the Pre-Scythian horse nomads/pastoralists of the Eurasian Steppes) and political/economic/military pressure from neighbors in other directions - Luvians or 'Lukka Lands' to the southwest, Mitanni to the southeast, some powerful city states in what is now Syria, and, their ultimate historical foe, Egypt whenever it had Expansionist Tendencies. I suspect the early metal-working in Anatolia (some of the earliest copper tools, early iron-working) also had an influence, but it's all peripheral to our original discussion . . .
There are lots of candidates on these forums who have both the historical/research background and pretty competent writing skills. I'm just a little more Monomaniacal on the history part.
Being able to use real artillery is an Important and Necessary Skill, of course,
but probably doesn't count in this case, since as far as I know Firaxis is out of range from where I am . . .
I'm beginning to see the problem.
I play on small maps, fully (over) loaded with civs, and I like religious victory. Apparently, I do fun wrong.
Small (or tiny) maps with piles of civs means I lost lots of tiles to coastal sinking because the limits for global warming were lower and more civs were around to make ironclads. And apparently I'm the one person that enjoys religious victories (it's my most common victory type).
I play on small maps, fully (over) loaded with civs, and I like religious victory. Apparently, I do fun wrong.
Small (or tiny) maps with piles of civs means I lost lots of tiles to coastal sinking because the limits for global warming were lower and more civs were around to make ironclads. And apparently I'm the one person that enjoys religious victories (it's my most common victory type).
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Interresting.
Do you have any (futher) thoughts about nomadic tribes and how they could fit in (game)?
Lots. But right now I'm waiting to see what the Firaxiods will do with the Maori Start mechanism, which appears to me to beg for a land-based version to cover early nomadic/pastoral starts. Since the new Humankind 4x game announced for next year apparently starts with all factions as nomad groups (which is more historically accurate than the traditional Civ start) for much of the early Era, that may 'push' that kind of start mechanism in the Civ franchise as well. We'll see how it all works out.
So far, at least, there is not a hint of anything like this in the September Update, but I wouldn't expect such a comprehensive change in a Civ to be in anything less than a DLC.
Thanks Victoria! So it looks like that part of your loyalty guide concerning city occupation needs to be updated. It also confirms that the unit garrisoned during an occupation does correctly grant +8 loyalty and that -10 loyalty appears to be the max malus from occupations, based on the database entries I posted earlier. Now it's got me wondering what the formula is for that malus and how the loyalty multiplier and grievances are used to calculate it.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,902
Impossible, you can listen to other people too much, but you cannot do fun wrong when it is SP.
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,748
Well I certainly wouldn't take RV out since it's there now, but I think integrating it more with the rest of the systems instead might have made it a little better. My last victory was religious with Egypt was fun (though I don't know that I'd say the same if I were using a larger map)
They really should remake RV, not get rid of it.... I would remove religious combat altogether and instead do a system similar to loyalty (change apostles to great people rather than just generic units you can buy, who can give their religion an advantage in passive spread). Buff passive spread by at least 5x and nerf missionary spread. Make it such that things like tourism, trade routes, diplo modifiers/grievances play a role in how strong the pressure is... make it more strategic.
As of now RV just feels like domination, except the units move on a different layer.
SephiBBZ
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2018
- Messages
- 66
Well civ 6 is a game which is done for 4 players maps.
On this type of maps, all the victories are important to control.
Of course if you play on 12 players maps all of this is useless, only science victory makes sense since it's a race which does not depend on the number of players.
Hmmm...HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...that sounds like a wonderful job tbh
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,949
I mean, if I were still young, unattached, and capable of relocating halfway across the continent, I would give it some thought.
Link? I'd put my wotnot through an E-coli infected bacon slicer for that job.
So tempted to apply. It would be a dream of mine to work with Firaxis.
Says who?
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,748
It'll probably be easier to just apply instead.
But, I mean, let's not discourage the bacon slicer option.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,902
That guide was last updated just before GS, will look at renewing next week ish.
I have that somewhere, @ggmoyang found it, it’s in a thread on the tips and tricks forum somwhere. Will also guide it into place.
Scaramanga
Brickhead
I think it's important for religion to spread using units so then it's more non-linear than passive spread from city to city. You should be able to bypass a non-compliant civ and I don't think traders are enough.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,949
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
