Leyrann
Deity
Recently I've been considering playing hot seat with myself (with 2 players and 6 AIs) so I can give myself more of a challenge than the AI can. Has anyone tried this, and is it fun or just tedious?
Single player Hot Seat for better challenge
- Thread starter Leyrann
- Start date
Vandlys
King
As in, you are playing against yourself? I've tried it, but more for the sake of experiment. I found it very hard to devorce myself from a "favourite" and also to think optimally without sharing thoughts between the two. For example, you're building an army to attack your other self with, but intend it as a surprise. The other self will know about this, but you have to think like they don't. It's hard, and there will always be an overlap influencing both civs you play.
Leyrann
Deity
Yeah, that's the idea.
I remember doing it as a kid for card games and chess and the like, but it's so long ago that I don't remember how effectively I managed to separate my thoughts. I do think I managed reasonably well with the card games.
I do tend to play pretty peaceful most games so that would probably limit interaction with myself.
Vandlys
King
I'm also not very combat oriented, so that helps indeed. So how do you intend to structure it? See what you roll on a map, go for it regardless of starting position, and decide an optimal play for each Civ individually?
aieeegrunt
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,353
Pretty much. You have to really get into role playing as each Civ. I’ve been considering trying this myself
vorlon_mi
Emperor
I did a similar exercise in BERT to get the "Multi player" achievement, since hotseat counts as MP. I did play each one optimally for its starting location, but never attacked my "alter ego." Indeed, I used one tribe to help the other when it was DOWed. I looked at each civ's strength and the starting location, and picked how each one would try to win. Eventually, I had to choose one of the two to win.
The hardest part for me mentally was the exploration. Wait, haven't I seen this before? Yes, while playing the other side. It's also a little harder doing diplomacy with yourself; you must wait for the hot seat to switch to know if the other "you" is going to accept the offer. Not harder I guess, but taking more time.
The hardest part for me mentally was the exploration. Wait, haven't I seen this before? Yes, while playing the other side. It's also a little harder doing diplomacy with yourself; you must wait for the hot seat to switch to know if the other "you" is going to accept the offer. Not harder I guess, but taking more time.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
Oh boy! It's my calling!
I do this with 18 players (all playing as myself),
And it can be fun, though it can get bit repetitive at times, but I find that depends on how the game is formatted, for example, in Civ 5 I find that around Medieval Era everything becomes bit tedious.
Recently I've implemented a rule that each nation I play has to have an Ambition, apart from the standard Victory settings (which in Civ 6 is just Score), for example, Victoria needs to Colonize every Continent, Trajan conquers all of his Home Continent, Basil may want to conquer every Holy City, etc. It adds bit of flavor, I find that Civ 6 has more engagement moments (emergencies are great for this to be honest, I also think the District gameplay helps with this)
I also recommend Scenarios (though I've yet to do this for Civ 6). I would've loved to do that for Civ 5 but it wasn't until EUI managed to hack the UI to allow this to happen.
I suggest tapping into Roleplaying, don't play to win, play to make sense "historically", make Dido more traitorous, Gilgamesh loyal as hell, Victoria expansive, etc.
I do this with 18 players (all playing as myself),
And it can be fun, though it can get bit repetitive at times, but I find that depends on how the game is formatted, for example, in Civ 5 I find that around Medieval Era everything becomes bit tedious.
Recently I've implemented a rule that each nation I play has to have an Ambition, apart from the standard Victory settings (which in Civ 6 is just Score), for example, Victoria needs to Colonize every Continent, Trajan conquers all of his Home Continent, Basil may want to conquer every Holy City, etc. It adds bit of flavor, I find that Civ 6 has more engagement moments (emergencies are great for this to be honest, I also think the District gameplay helps with this)
I also recommend Scenarios (though I've yet to do this for Civ 6). I would've loved to do that for Civ 5 but it wasn't until EUI managed to hack the UI to allow this to happen.
I suggest tapping into Roleplaying, don't play to win, play to make sense "historically", make Dido more traitorous, Gilgamesh loyal as hell, Victoria expansive, etc.
Leyrann
Deity
I don't usually reroll anyway, so that's not an issue. Only if I get a supremely bad start.
Oooh, those are some great ideas. Definitely something I'll be keeping in mind, at the very least.
WiserFanatic
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2019
- Messages
- 10
Hotseat is traditionally a way that people on the same machine can play games against each other, with play formally shifting from person to person – since the advent of the internet, it's not a mode of high importance.
Leyrann
Deity
What makes diplomacy worthless in hotseat?
I am aware of that, but it's not very relevant for the topic I made this thread for.
AntSou
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2019
- Messages
- 2,831
eheh, I do.
I never roleplay. I just try to beat myself and play as rationally as I possibly can to achieve victory with each Civ. I do ropleplay when playing against the AI though (which hasn't been in a while).
Grievances, Favors, etc. It's all mostly pointless (grievances does affect diplomatic favor) And the world congress is tricky.
---
I can't tell you what you'll enjoy, but this is what I recommend based on my experience:
1. I've tried your idea of incorporating AI Civs. I found it boring. It's basically still a game against the AI, with all its usual flaws;
2. Anything below 4 Civs is boring. 1v1 doesn't work, 1v1v1 always ends up with one Civ getting ganged up on and just turning into a delayed 1v1. So the minimum is 4 Civs. 5 Civs is less balanced than 4. 6 Civs is the maximum I would ever recommend in a normal game. I never finished a 6-Civ game;
3. Anything above Quick speed is masochism. I recommend online speed, assuming these are games you intend on actually completing (lately I've been playing online speed with pokiehl's extend eras. So far I think it's better);
4. Stick to duel or tiny maps. Too much space = little interaction. If using a duel map, use either p0kiehl's Resource Variety or my own "better duel maps" which I created literally for this (all it does is increase continents from 1 to 2 on duel maps);
5. Continents is not a very good map script. It causes the issues I already mentioned of "1v1" and "1v1v1" when playing with 4 or 6 Civs, the only difference is they occur in the same game but on separate continents. Script I recommend: Seven Seas. I find it to have the best balance between water and land, therefore no Civ is at a disadvantage. I like Inland Sea and as well, but it doesn't fit some Civs (Indonesia, Maori), and it lacks rivers. Pangea is fine too.
6. I'll argue against Marshmallow Bear's idea of 18 Civs. That's a game you'll probably never finish. Civ 6 has fairly complex abilities and a district system. Playing with those many Civs, not only you'll need to constantly check what they do "hold on, what is your thing again?", you'll constantly forget what you're up to with any given Civ by the time it gets back to them, AND planning cities will become excruciating at some point.
However, I do plan on doing something like this some time, but with Fuzzletop's One City mode. That might be fun.
7. Always take a decision based on "what would be the best path if I knew only the information that is available to this Civ?". That alone covers most decisions when it comes to placing Spies or making decisions in the world congress. It's not perfect, since you always have access to all information, but it works.
Warning: I used to apply this logic when building wonders as well. It sucks. Knowing a Civ is much further ahead in a wonder and pretending you don't know with some other civ might be more realistic, but it's not fun at all. So when it comes to wonders, all information is fully available at all times.
8. I find too much randomness in hotseat to be off putting. I set Disaster to 3 or 2 (rather than 4), set difficulty at Prince or King for each Civ (to avoid some Civs getting unlucky with Barbarians), remove the three fantastical wonders because they're too strong, and use Configurable Goody Huts to remove all the lame bonuses from tribal villages;
9. Use Strategic Forts mod! Seriously, it's so much fun and it adds so much to the game. The AI can't use it in normal games, but it really shines in multiplayer (or hotseat). I also recommend Zegangani's mod which improves start locations. (There are other mods which become much better in multiplayer).
10. Keep a save for each Civ and save at the beginning of every turn (there's a prompt in Hotseat), because the autosave saves at the beginning of each ROUND, not each individual turn. It will eventually happen that you'll make a silly mistake or forget something during the 4th Civ's turn. If you rely on the autosave, that means doing turns for Civ 1, 2 and 3 all over again.
This is not necessary in the beginning, when turns are very quick and there's not a lot of decisions, but you don't want to make this mistake later on.
I never roleplay. I just try to beat myself and play as rationally as I possibly can to achieve victory with each Civ. I do ropleplay when playing against the AI though (which hasn't been in a while).
Grievances, Favors, etc. It's all mostly pointless (grievances does affect diplomatic favor) And the world congress is tricky.
---
I can't tell you what you'll enjoy, but this is what I recommend based on my experience:
1. I've tried your idea of incorporating AI Civs. I found it boring. It's basically still a game against the AI, with all its usual flaws;
2. Anything below 4 Civs is boring. 1v1 doesn't work, 1v1v1 always ends up with one Civ getting ganged up on and just turning into a delayed 1v1. So the minimum is 4 Civs. 5 Civs is less balanced than 4. 6 Civs is the maximum I would ever recommend in a normal game. I never finished a 6-Civ game;
3. Anything above Quick speed is masochism. I recommend online speed, assuming these are games you intend on actually completing (lately I've been playing online speed with pokiehl's extend eras. So far I think it's better);
4. Stick to duel or tiny maps. Too much space = little interaction. If using a duel map, use either p0kiehl's Resource Variety or my own "better duel maps" which I created literally for this (all it does is increase continents from 1 to 2 on duel maps);
5. Continents is not a very good map script. It causes the issues I already mentioned of "1v1" and "1v1v1" when playing with 4 or 6 Civs, the only difference is they occur in the same game but on separate continents. Script I recommend: Seven Seas. I find it to have the best balance between water and land, therefore no Civ is at a disadvantage. I like Inland Sea and as well, but it doesn't fit some Civs (Indonesia, Maori), and it lacks rivers. Pangea is fine too.
6. I'll argue against Marshmallow Bear's idea of 18 Civs. That's a game you'll probably never finish. Civ 6 has fairly complex abilities and a district system. Playing with those many Civs, not only you'll need to constantly check what they do "hold on, what is your thing again?", you'll constantly forget what you're up to with any given Civ by the time it gets back to them, AND planning cities will become excruciating at some point.
However, I do plan on doing something like this some time, but with Fuzzletop's One City mode. That might be fun.
7. Always take a decision based on "what would be the best path if I knew only the information that is available to this Civ?". That alone covers most decisions when it comes to placing Spies or making decisions in the world congress. It's not perfect, since you always have access to all information, but it works.
Warning: I used to apply this logic when building wonders as well. It sucks. Knowing a Civ is much further ahead in a wonder and pretending you don't know with some other civ might be more realistic, but it's not fun at all. So when it comes to wonders, all information is fully available at all times.
8. I find too much randomness in hotseat to be off putting. I set Disaster to 3 or 2 (rather than 4), set difficulty at Prince or King for each Civ (to avoid some Civs getting unlucky with Barbarians), remove the three fantastical wonders because they're too strong, and use Configurable Goody Huts to remove all the lame bonuses from tribal villages;
9. Use Strategic Forts mod! Seriously, it's so much fun and it adds so much to the game. The AI can't use it in normal games, but it really shines in multiplayer (or hotseat). I also recommend Zegangani's mod which improves start locations. (There are other mods which become much better in multiplayer).
10. Keep a save for each Civ and save at the beginning of every turn (there's a prompt in Hotseat), because the autosave saves at the beginning of each ROUND, not each individual turn. It will eventually happen that you'll make a silly mistake or forget something during the 4th Civ's turn. If you rely on the autosave, that means doing turns for Civ 1, 2 and 3 all over again.
This is not necessary in the beginning, when turns are very quick and there's not a lot of decisions, but you don't want to make this mistake later on.
pokiehl
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 2,696
They ruined Civ 6 hotseat for me with those pop-up screens between turns. The pop-ups totally block all of the AI action so you have no idea what units moved or did something. It’s a big disappointment.
Civ 5 hotseat didn’t have this issue, so I hope Civ 7 hotseat doesn’t either.
Civ 5 hotseat didn’t have this issue, so I hope Civ 7 hotseat doesn’t either.
Ordnael
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2021
- Messages
- 380
Wow
! And I though I hated waiting in between turns of the AI Civs and my Civ!
Seriously though I find it impressive that you can divide yourself among many self to play against thyself.
@TheMarshmallowBear 18 civs...all you!? That it's absolute bonkers
...and absolutely mindblowing
! And I though I hated waiting in between turns of the AI Civs and my Civ!Seriously though I find it impressive that you can divide yourself among many self to play against thyself.
@TheMarshmallowBear 18 civs...all you!? That it's absolute bonkers
...and absolutely mindblowing
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
Wow
Seriously though I find it impressive that you can divide yourself among many self to play against thyself.
@TheMarshmallowBear 18 civs...all you!? That it's absolute bonkers
In fairness - I almost never actually get far, usually get around Renaissance before I get "bored", though this is largelyb ecause it's rather hard to stay motivated, the same issues that plague the game occur earlier on when you basically get 18x times turns than usual, but yeah, 18 is fun, no stress over the AI beating you to wonders or declaring war, and you learn a lot about how much luck plays into a game.
Poor Production nations usually struggle early on while I play them because they can never get their infrasturcture up as fast.
Leyrann
Deity
No.
I rage war and burn the city to the ground.
Unless it's settled in the spot where I wanted to settle, then I just take it.
If it's truly inconvenient, I'll destroy the rest of the civ as well.
No one messes with my (future) empire.
Edit: Wait, I thought this was the thread where we were talking about the AI giving too much or too little of a challenge. While my reply was a little on the less serious side anyway, now I'm not sure what or who the question was meant for in the first place.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,785
For people who make hotseat with themselves.
Similar threads
