Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Wingednosering, Feb 12, 2018.
So true ! When I saw that pop I almost laughed
Air units are very good - they just aren't used effectively by the AI, and there's little to no need for fighters as a result. Making them completely immune to ground attack makes them very problematic for the AI - the patched tendency for the AI to deploy fighters in its cities is at best a stopgap fix.
Something I found only Civ V, of any entry in the series, really captured well was the drastic change in the way warfare plays out over time - first artillery, thanks to indirect fire and outranging counterattacks, and then air power made combat play out very differently at different game stages. I'd agree that Civ VI, despite using similar mechanics, is missing that sense of historical progression.
My current game situation:
In a brutal World War I have lost my key cities including capital to enemy empires. My Ally Scotland still holds on but's it's basically game over for me, gonna hang out for some more turns to see it end.
And I'm loving it! AI seems better and the new features make the world more alive and dynamic.
Rise and Fall is even better than I thought it would be. My only gripe is for Governors, I'm not excited for them, at least yet. Maybe I need to make a game where I focus more on them.
Because the sources of era points aren't subject to a great amount of variance, it can be hard to find ways to push ahead. I think many people are finding some eras easier to score in than others, and there are counter-intuitive stratagems emerging that reward underperforming in a given era. For example, you can get tons of boosts in the ancient era, but it's not until the classical era that you can get any era points for them.
The AI's better at managing it than I expected, but there's no way it's going to avoid a civilizational collapse in a Dark Age if pressured by a human player or simply losing lots of cities (which is also probably only the case when a human player is the attacker).
I like the option opened up by cultural alliances for forward settling (and the GP points at higher alliance levels), but overall I feel the alliance system is the most 'take it-or-leave-it' part of the expansion. It's a pretty heavy-handed way to bootstrap the AIs into making defensive pacts that make war declarations a bit more dynamic, essentially. Alliances are made and maintained too easily (which in turn just makes the level 2 and 3 alliances free stuff that take no extra effort), and 'gain more free stuff after clicking a button' - while it may work as a game mechanic - doesn't add any sense of immersion to the diplomacy system. The diplomacy system was already "gain free stuff after clicking a button", though at least previously you had to trade something of nominal value rather than "I get a reward for doing something already rewarding - i.e. making friends".
The major bonus of the alliance system is that it's removed multiple rather clunky parts of the old system, like research agreements, but the result is a diplomacy system that's slightly less terrible rather than anything I actively care about.
I don't much care for the execution, but this was such a downplayed feature of the expansion and the 'deep dive' made it look so uninteresting that I can't call it a disappointment - I wasn't expecting anything.
This is an area where I've seen definite improvement. It ignores a lot of wonders (though still always goes for Jebel Barkal whether or not it cares about faith), from what I've seen it generally goes for specific ones that suit its strategy, and goes for them more slowly. The production reimbursement also helps it a bit when it misses.
It's been doing that for a while, but I agree it's got worse with the expansion.
I've had no barbarian issues in any R&F game so far - didn't even get a camp on my starting island this time (judging from the fact that Toronto had a damaged unit when I met them, there was one camp that was cleared by the CS before I got there).
I built one near the end of the game because the city didn't really impact my victory progress. I decided to see if I could just make it bigger.
This is great to see. Seems like everything aside from Emergencies has been really well implemented. Given how long it took for them to showcase them and how underwhelming the deep dive was, I don't think anybody was expecting much on that front anyway.
I think what's most telling is that a lot of the familiar civfanatics haven't posted because they're too busy playing. If that isn't an endorsement, I don't know what is.
I voted as good as expected earlier, but now in my 3rd game, I'm ready to vote better than expected. I really didn't expect the strategy aspect of the game to become so much more involved, and fun. I could have done with a simplified or eliminated religion or spy feature in the base game in place of some of these features. Just feels like a far more dynamic game than we've seen from the Civ series in a long time.
Korea and the Cree both played a lot differently from any of the other civs, and were both pretty fun even without added general gameplay mechanics.
I haven't had a bad experience with emergencies yet. The feature could definitely be expanded in a later xpack, hopefully alongside a complex late-game international politics setup.
Not sure what's going on in the games where people are having trouble with barbarians. In all the games I've ever started, I've only ever had real trouble with barbs (like, more than just getting a couple things pillaged) in maybe one or two games, and those were just generally bad starts. When the barb scout sees your cities (or an opponent's cities) and gets the exclamation point over its head, you know to either kill that scout before it can report back to the camp (which is when the horsemen etc start spawning for invasion) or to prepare for the incoming invasion with slingers, warriors and/or spearmen. If you can build walls already, add that into the mix. Just stop whatever else you're doing and devote a few turns to that. If you've got a city state between you and the camp you generally don't even have to worry about it; only once in a game of mine has a city state been completely overrun with barbarians to the point they start spilling over into my territory.
Due to the new mechanics, R&F is slightly harder, especially on deity. Early domination is not as much of an option for stopping the AI from snowballing, unless you are ready to raze some cities. The "Ages" mechanic makes the game more punishing for the player if you are not staying on top of your era points at all times. Yet, getting Golden Ages and Heroic Ages seems like it is barely a benefit. I have had multiple Heroic Ages now and they don't really seem to impact the game all that much, but a Dark Age could really mess you up as far as loyalty.
I just ended up spamming them late in one game because I didn't need to build anything and I had the infinite housing democracy legacy card.
Everything? The expansion's great, but:
- Alliances feel like a stopgap patch over a broken system, and while it's an improvement that you now get denunciations for 'allied with an enemy' quite frequently, the moronic 'you don't have enough population/culture' etc. denunciations are still there, now with added "you don't have enough walls" and "you're the wrong sex". If they don't ditch the disastrous agenda system they could at least hide the reasons again so that it isn't quite so immersion-breaking.
- None of the new buildings serve any purpose, other than the government plaza ones which - along with their associated cards - are badly-balanced. The Water Park is completely redundant and misconceived. The game wasn't crying out for upgrades to random support units or Rangers either.
- The governors need serious balancing work in places and the Cardinal probably needs to be reworked entirely or removed/replaced.
- Some of the new Wonders are welcome, but the Taj Mahal seems to be a waste of time - hardly anything you're likely to get a historic moment for by the time it becomes available gives as much as +2 era score. On the plus side the new quotes are an upgrade on the quality of quotes in the base game - it's a real shame they didn't take the opportunity of having Sean Bean to hand to replace some of the worse existing quotes. The most egregious offenders being Kilamanjaro and Great Zimbabwe - the latter a quote that has nothing at all to do with the monument and can be construed as actively offensive, as it's a reference to a colonial-era myth about the origin of the site.
I always find the Ruhr Valley quote really puzzling:
I guess that means the valley was *so* productive there was nothing left for anyone else to do? But it really makes it sound like the creation of the wonder was bad for Germany...
The larger quote:
In January 1923, French and Belgian troops marched into and occupied Germany’s industrial Ruhr region. The Ruhr occupation would last more than two and a half years. There is considerable debate about why the Ruhr occupation occurred, whether it was justified or pre-meditated. The conventional view is that Paris ordered troops into the Ruhr reluctantly, because the Weimar government had deliberately failed to honour the terms of the Versailles treaty and the Reparations Commission. But some evidence also suggests the Poincare government had been plotting to occupy the Ruhr since 1919. France had its own sizeable war debts to meet and were beginning to feel short-changed by the terms of Versailles. And there was much to be gained by occupying the Ruhr, which housed three quarters of Germany’s steel and coal production.
Whatever the French motives, the Ruhr occupation was achieved swiftly and methodically. Once French and Belgian troops had crossed the border, they sealed off the Ruhr from the rest of Germany and began frog-marching 150,000 civilians and non-essential workers out of the area. German industrial workers remained in the Ruhr and in some cases were prevented from leaving. By July, the French had set up an exclusion zone, restricting traffic in and out of the Ruhr. Across Germany there were press reports, most of them exaggerated if not entirely fictional, of French soldiers executing or beating German workers and civilians in the Ruhr. The occupiers also began confiscating raw materials and manufactured goods, which were loaded onto railway carts to be shipped back to France and Belgium – payment in kind for the missed reparations instalments.
The Weimar regime’s official position was one of ‘passive resistance’. Behind the scenes, government agents encouraged trade unions to organise a general strike in the Ruhr, to freeze industrial production and hinder French confiscation of resources. But this policy not only sabotaged the French occupation, it also sabotaged the national economy (see quote, right). On top of this, the Weimar government told striking unions that it would continue to pay the salaries of Ruhr workers and civil servants. It was a generous promise but an unfulfillable one. The German national treasury was very nearly empty; the government had no cash reserves to pay two million striking industrial workers for a period of months, perhaps more than a year. The government’s last resort was to pay these salaries by ordering the printing of extra banknotes, a policy that fuelled the rampant hyperinflation of 1923.
1. The Ruhr region was Germany’s industrial heartland, home of most of its coal and steel production.
2. After the government failed to meet reparations payments, French troops occupied the Ruhr in 1923.
3. Once there they seized goods and raw materials, as well as expelling non-essential German citizens from the area.
4. The German response was one of ‘passive resistance’, mainly strikes, along with some sabotage and disruption.
5. The Weimar government promised to stand by the Ruhr by continuing to pay the salaries of striking workers.
Wow! That's really interesting, and definitely not what I would have thought that line meant (obviously, based on my egregiously wrong interpretation). So: good story, lousy pull quote.
Funny how the rating on steam over the past week is around 50% and on this site it's closed to 90% favorable.
Aren't most people on Steam whining because they have to buy it and it hasn't been graciously gifted to them?
If only majority of fans here will post their own review in Steam as well.
Because Steam is full of whining babies who think they won't look cool if they don't complain, even if it is really good.
I don't know. I got a Heroic Modern Era in my current game, went for Reform the Coinage as one of my dedications and saw my gpt go from about 200-250 to 500 at once. That alone makes it quite impactful in my opinion.
Anyone would think this site was called CivFanatics or something
Separate names with a comma.