Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by kryat, Jul 28, 2020.
Completely disagree. I have to go out of my way NOT to win a diplomatic victory most of the time.
I don't understand this. I know the AI's voting weights well enough now to win about 66%-75% of votes without even using favours early on, and Diplo Victory would still usually be a long way off whatever my primary Victory Condition is. The AI, at least in Deity, is also almost always going to reach a Science Victory before anyone reaches a Diplo Victory. To get a Diplo Victory, I'd have to be playing really slowly and have a weaker than average set of AI opponents. The only way I can see Diplomatic Victory being common is if you play with higher Disaster settings.
I play exclusively on deity with all default settings outside of map size (I rotate between small, standard, and large depending on what I'm in the mood for). I've seen my fair share of Korea and Scotland AIs. I've never claimed to be a fast player, but you mentioned having to outrun the AI's science victory... the AI usually launches a spaceship between what, turns 250 and 300? I have never had any issue getting the DV points to win before their exoplanet expedition arrives. (Maybe that's why I tend not to be in any real rush when it comes to going after other victory conditions?)
I don't save scum. I never conquer my neighbors. I rarely found a religion (no pagodas for me). I don't win every single emergency or competition that comes along. I never build Potala or Mahabodhi. Sometimes I don't even bother with Statue of Liberty and I *still* fall into a diplomatic victory.
I bet I win 4 out of 5 games with a diplomatic victory unless I go out of my to avoid them. If I actively went all in on getting them I'd probably get them every time.
Sorry, word choice. I more meant “longest” rather than “hard” / difficult. Later in that post, when I proposed my suggested weighings, I used “longest”. By longest, I specifically mean could I (or others) as a human player get a victory faster than the path I am going for. I know that a lot of us that regularly play Deity, once we know the strategies / meta, can beat the AI on Deity before they win (most of the time). That is why I more use the metric of comparing victory paths to my previous results as well as what I see from playing MP with my friends and occasionally online when I make commentary on elimination threads / tier lists / etc.
Also, I did preface this by saying “arguably”, haha.
Like I said, I don’t play Diplomacy often, so I am probably biased. The last one was a few months ago. I know that things have changed, with more ways to get DV points that aren’t dependent on the AI. However, the way I play, I normally can’t get some of them. For example, unless specifically playing Russia or Japan for a fast CV, I often don’t build Holy Sites at the right timing to have a Temple with a Wood for the Mahabodhi before the AI gets it (they love that Wonder). Even when I specifically go for DV like my last game with Georgia, it took 240+Turns. Maybe because I don’t play it often, I don’t know all the optimization strategies like I do with fast CV, Domination, or SV.
I also don’t play at super high disaster levels, I keep it at standard, so that’s probably factoring in (when going for fast CV or SV, I don’t want to have spend time rebuilding TS, Campuses, etc.).
Though DV is a completely valid victory condition in single player, unless I’m completely off base, I believe it would be next to impossible to win it in MP because no one would allow you to win. This is why, in my opinion, it should have a relatively low weighing, because you can be prevented from winning, much more than CV (via high Culture yields), Domination (via an opponent having a better army than you that is impossible to defeat), and SV (spies ruining your SP District, which is the easiest to prevent via counter-spying). Only RV can be potentially shut out like DV, which is why I weigh them the same, even though RV can be super fast under the right conditions (Exodus of the Evangelists for the win).
I always try to couch my comments “this is my opinion”, “in general”, etc. Though I believe I have a pretty decent grasp of the meta from playing a lot of hours (3K+) and reading strategies here and on Reddit, I don’t know everything about this game. That’s why I still read what others post.
In fact, thanks to this, I might try a DV game next to see if I can speed it up. I appreciate your counter arguments and commentary, as it made me reevaluate DV.
As I stated before, I think being very strong at one or two victory types is much better than being mediocre at all of them, because a game only requires winning one of them. Being weak at 1-2 victory conditions doesn't mean anything.You're going to get weird memes like Georgia being better than Persia.
So maybe something like for each victory type, depending on ranking
1st-3rd place: 6 pts
4-6: 5 pts
7-12: 4 pts
13-18: 2 pts
19-24: 1 pt
25+: 0 pts
And weigh the victory types as needed. Also it would be more fun to knock someone out of 3rd place into 4th, for example.
Do you use the standard disaster setting as well? I've heard that's actually the biggest thing to affect diplo victory speed, as more disasters = more emergencies. I'm not a big fan of the disasters so I often play on low.
It's not just the disaster settings. If you play with fewer civs, or play epic/marathon, someone will be close to DV before the modern era has even started. They don't scale regular WC's to speed, so you have twice as many per era on longer playthrough, and fewer civs mean more chances to to bully a vote into what you want. Since you're collecting diplo points for your governments, CS suzerains (which you will, and should, have more than any other AI civ, since they don't really fight for them), and alliances that the AI doesn't use as much, it gets easy. I turned off DV when all my games started being finished by the Industrial Age.
When ranking civs overall, the type of win they are good at shouldn’t matter. What matters is how effective they are at A win, regardless of type, on a standard map with a random starting location.
I think it gets tricky when you start considering speed. So, say, Korea wins 80% of the time (across the entire player base) with average turns to win being 125, while Khmer wins 98% at 250 turns... which civ should be rated higher?
And that doesn’t include player skill, most likely to survive challenging starts, and all sorts of crap.
But it gives a pretty good idea (op’s rankings) of how players feel about a civ, which I translate to ‘how comfortable would a noob be playing this civ’, so its pretty useful.
Yes, the only thing I ever change is map size. Emergencies help but I can still win a DV easily without them, it just takes a little longer.
The nice thing about the elimination threads is that (for the most part) you get votes from people with a wide range of experiences. There are those of us who play on Deity, and there are other voters who play a couple of levels lower. There are several voters who stress the importance of speed, and then there are voters like me who don't really care how long it takes as long as I get there. There are voters who play aggressively and those who don't. There are those who chop and those who don't. It's generally a nice mix of opinions (with the occasional poster who pops in to tell us all how stupid we all are).
Speaking of, a fun way to "settle" this would be to have the next elimination thread be "best/strongest overall civ".
16th 14th in the list, 1st in my heart.
I find something very relateable about holing up in a fort, occasionally popping out to try to make a few friends, while the rest of the world generally ignores my mediocre existence.
lol I dare say this only proves that most of the voters in these elimination threads have no idea what they are talking about... (which is hardly surprising). Georgia is above so many civs that are clearly better for one thing.
And Mali should really not be that high.
I think people should factor into consideration the early game sudden death by AI factor (well, this is not an issue outside deity but...)
My feeling is that people have not played a civ much, or if at all, to realize how synergies work and only work off the description and stats. The other effect is that some civs like Georgia simply get forgotten about and thus get away with it. That's why I suggested not crediting a civ at all if the rank is in the lower half.
Although to be fair, it'd be pretty hard to be proficient with 48 civs.
And of course, settings differ, speed differs, and maps differ.
Mali should be top 5 post Work Ethic buff.
Russia/Mali/Brazil for top 3 contenders in my mind... Anyone with high adjacency Holy Sites from a pantheon can instantly chop in 6+ (12+ with card) production and is off to the races. It's wild. Faith econ is killer for early era Monumentalities and for late game tourism producers, as well as midgame+ ability for Chapel to faith buy land units, and extra like Mali faith buying commercial hub buildings. Mali's malus only applies to units and buildings anyways (ie not districts). Somehow or another you can build, chop, and buy everything you need, and with Work Ethic you overcome the malus quickly and then never feel it later when the malus surpasses your initial adjacency production conversion becuase at that point you're buying everything and just spamming projects that aren't affected by the malus.
One of the things people need to realize when it comes to these elimination threads (and the rankings that come from them) is with the rules the way they are it's far easier to drag a civilization down then it is to build them up. It takes three people upvoting a civ to cancel out one person's downvote, which means civs tend to fall far faster than they get built up in the point totals. Sometimes you'll even see one person more or less sink a civ out of the game on their own far earlier than it might otherwise go out. That alone means you need to take any results with a grain of salt before you get too critical.
Heck, if we were truly dedicated to the cause we'd spend the first 5-6 pages of the thread all upvoting the same 2 or 3 civs. Where's the fun in having 6 pages of "Yup, Russia's the best" coming from multiple voters at the start of a religious victory thread?
Well gee your highness, maybe next time you can grace us with your expert opinion from time to time? Enlighten us, oh great one!
As a fan of Post-GS Tamar/Georgia in general, I'm finding this particular thread to be quite humorous.
My top 3:
Well good, sir, I did say "most", not "all".
But, safe to say that if one simply asks the average poster on this forum on the strongest civ (period) then among the generalist civs, I dare say Aztecs and Nubia (whose district-oriented bonuses and UUs are good at all victory conditions) come to mind. These are the civs which people seem to complain that they are broken and banned in MP.
The fact that a niche generalist civ like Hungary (who isn't even that good since CS die so easily on higher difficulties and the AI gets tons of envoys) gets the top position simply means that the elimination thread results are somehow out of sync with reality.
I think you have to remember that some of us exclusively game on SP, so most of us dont have much experience on MP. Secondly, you can reroll as many times as you want on SP. People have biases and only remember the time they won more than the time they lose, so the downvotes maybe skewed.
I think higher difficulty SP and vs MP are really different. Human players don't really have advantage early game so Aztec and Nubia are weaker in SP than in MP. Going ancient era dom is like a gambit on deity (at least, based on my experience). Your pitati archer rush can be thwarted by early ancient walls or early classical era crossbowmans, which isn't really a thing that can happen in MP, unless you are playing as Rome or something then you probably have a good early foothold and can do domination rather effectively.
I also think that everyone should remember that some of those eliminitaions threads date from awhile back, and some changes in the game since then would have greatly influenced the voting !
Separate names with a comma.