Some random obervations from the streams

I do not believe city state quests are competitive. I believe in one livestream there was a quest to build an Acropolis, specifically, which only the player, Greece, could do as it is their unique district.

It's possible others see this quest as "Build a Theater Square". Anyway I don't think I've seen a human player being beaten to any quest if it's totally ignored. So probably either each plauer gets his/her own quests, or quests are fulfilled separately, with each civ getting an envoy on completion.

I believe we also didn't see quest like destroying particular Barbarian camp, which can't be completed by only one player.
 
It's possible others see this quest as "Build a Theater Square". Anyway I don't think I've seen a human player being beaten to any quest if it's totally ignored. So probably either each plauer gets his/her own quests, or quests are fulfilled separately, with each civ getting an envoy on completion.

I believe we also didn't see quest like destroying particular Barbarian camp, which can't be completed by only one player.

As far as I can see City states only give a single quest now. In civ5 you could get multiple quests, 1 of those was a global quest (build a wonder, be most culture etc) and the other was a personal quest (hook a luxury, send a route). Only the global quest was competitive.
I guess now with only 1 quest per, everyone just gets personal quest.

Some of these in civ6 look a bit too easy though like making an archer.
 
I guess now with only 1 quest per, everyone just gets personal quest.

A fair point. Or the older ones are discarded if not fulfilled. I'm not sure I remember whether city-states with unfulfilled quests get new ones when other city-state get new quests.

Some of these in civ6 look a bit too easy though like making an archer.

Yes. But, for example, archers could be completely omitted if you play peaceful early game. Archery is a dead-end tech.
 
Maybe I am just pessimistic but I don't expect many changes until Oct. 21, except bugfixes and stats rebalancing. The AI looks dead, at least in Prince. It doesn't even search for Tribal Villages anymore. You can still find them near other Civ's capitals. :confused:

For Xcom 2 Firaxis made some changes to AI behaviour right before release (I think, might have been right after) based on what they saw from the Streaming community's play.

And thus the Beaglerush maneuver was neutered.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that they will change something to address this perceived issue (although personally I feel it is being blown out of proportion)
 
you can bet there will be no coding related to teaching AI specifically how to take advantage of eureka. half the reason they are so easy to get (things you fall into naturally) IS so the ai can get them too, it'd be impossible to teach them to plan for eurekas and seek them out / tech accordingly. if you want the AI to be competitive on tech, you'll need to raise the difficulty level - where they'll get inherent tech bonuses as usual, making them needing eurekas not even a thing.
 
it doesn't seem like it would be all that hard to make the AI go for eurekas
 
it doesn't seem like it would be all that hard to make the AI go for eurekas

It's additional layer of priorities. It's bad for AI to make decisions.

On the other hand, it's nearly impossible for human player to see whether AI actually gets eurekas or cheating. First rule of game development - not to invest efforts in something player will not see.
 
I do not believe city state quests are competitive. I believe in one livestream there was a quest to build an Acropolis, specifically, which only the player, Greece, could do as it is their unique district.
It has been obvious to me for some time that has been the way it always was in Civ5.
 
It is always amazing to me how thoroughly this community is at raising concerns without playing a single minute themselves. I wonder how many of you actually played the pre - version (please raise your hand).

I suppose we have to assume that's the mark of the true (civ)addict.;) About raising concerns I mean.
 
On nr 1: Yes I think you can have valid opinion on a turn based strategy game if you know the rules. I think we have most pieces of the jigsaw on the current build, and as such can make some qualified judgement on it. I remember before CiV came out, a lot of concerns were voiced on the forums by people who never played the game while "professional journalists" gave it a metacritic score of 90. Of course CiV today is a great game, but it was badly balanced at launch.

I think the problem is one of sample size. These recent LPs have given us an enormously expanded sample of different games to analyse, far beyond what was previously available. We're all therefore in a better position to draw conclusions than we were a week ago (assuming those conclusions are based on observations from the LPs/streams). Yet this sample size still pales in comparison to the combined experience of forum members once the game has been out even one day. I think what that means is that, although we can certainly formulate well informed hypotheses from what we've seen so far, we're definitely going to have to wait for the game to be released before those hypotheses can be confirmed or rejected, and transformed into conventional wisdom. Everything prior to that is theory.

As a concrete example, there's the concern about tech progression being too fast, largely on the basis of quill18 moving through the tree quite quickly. But how much of this is down to the vicissitudes of the particular game he's playing? Eurekas would seem to greatly expand the range of possibilities for tech progression speed, depending highly upon the situation you find yourself in. And is quill18's ability necessarily reflective of the ability of other players? Perhaps he's practiced enough at the game that he's playing at a deity level, in which case progressing through the tech tree quickly would be quite expected. None of this is to say that the observation is wrong, because those considerations I mention might not be at all operative. But until we actually get our hands on the game, en masse, it's a theory awaiting confirmation.

And to be clear, I don't think the views you have presented are presumptuous at all, for the most part, and I certainly think the formulation of hypotheses is a great way to respond to what we've seen so far; I'm just responding more to the theoretical point about what sort of conclusions we can validly draw at this stage, and how much we should reserve judgment.
 
The problem is - there are different kinds of concerns.

1. The concerns which are correct, but pointless. For example, concerns about AI generally being unable to compete with human players, especially in tactics. Those concerns are just can't be fixed on reasonable terms.

2. Some concerns are reasonable. For example, concerns about districts limiting the building options in some cases and eurekas making it difficult to balance tech speed. New mechanics create new problems and they could be quite difficult to build.

3. Some concerns are unreasonable, though. This includes complains about particular unit stats, AI build priorities and other things which are being worked right now and are very easy to change.

Finally, there's a big distortion from LP video. We see player mistakes, but we tend to miss their brilliant play in some areas. The players may look as less than average for viewers, but they are definitely not. So the things may be very different on actual playing the game.
 
Couple nice tidbits from UnstableVoltage's German Empire gameplay:

- England really does colonize, both on same landmass as her capital and on other landmasses too. Other AI seem to build cities too.

- Vicky popped in to trade one of her Cottons to player's Dye. Both had two of the resources, so finally AI offers reasonable deals too.
 
As a concrete example, there's the concern about tech progression being too fast, largely on the basis of quill18 moving through the tree quite quickly. But how much of this is down to the vicissitudes of the particular game he's playing? Eurekas would seem to greatly expand the range of possibilities for tech progression speed, depending highly upon the situation you find yourself in. And is quill18's ability necessarily reflective of the ability of other players? Perhaps he's practiced enough at the game that he's playing at a deity level, in which case progressing through the tech tree quickly would be quite expected. None of this is to say that the observation is wrong, because those considerations I mention might not be at all operative. But until we actually get our hands on the game, en masse, it's a theory awaiting confirmation.

And to be clear, I don't think the views you have presented are presumptuous at all, for the most part, and I certainly think the formulation of hypotheses is a great way to respond to what we've seen so far; I'm just responding more to the theoretical point about what sort of conclusions we can validly draw at this stage, and how much we should reserve judgment.


But that raises the question: how can a player who doesn't understand a lot of the game mechanics operate at a deity level? Does that tell you more about him or the game? Sure he COULD be some sort of Civ prodigy, but his comments when he plays show that he clearly isn't. That is my main problem here, that a lot of what he does right (especially regarding eurekas) is by pure coincidence.
 
But that raises the question: how can a player who doesn't understand a lot of the game mechanics operate at a deity level? Does that tell you more about him or the game? Sure he COULD be some sort of Civ prodigy, but his comments when he plays show that he clearly isn't. That is my main problem here, that a lot of what he does right (especially regarding eurekas) is by pure coincidence.
No. Let's players do a lot of planning under the hood. They are really strong players.
 
Does the exchange of Civ Vs global happiness for Civ VIs local happiness, allow the player to build large wide sprawling empires again, without risking massive penalties/revolt etc?
 
Does the exchange of Civ Vs global happiness for Civ VIs local happiness, allow the player to build large wide sprawling empires again, without risking massive penalties/revolt etc?
Yes, it allows building wide empires, but there are other stopping factors, like increasing cost of settlers, builders and districts; limited amenities from luxury resources and so on. Later cities are generally just land grabs, unless you do a lot of planning and restrict core city development.
 
I guess this is as good of a place as any to list my own concerns.

UI:
-We need a "improved/unimproved" resources lens. Some of them (I'm looking at you camps) remain more or less the same when improved.
-Extra tooltips are needed in many, many places. I get math is boring, but I feel streamers are "guessing" the outcome of changing a policy rather than "choosing" between different ones.
-Trade Routes are still a chore: Scroll through a long list without filters. Just give an option to sort them on different yields, and the total amount of yields
-I hope there is a way to cicle between cities, and a list somewhere that compares them, just like in Civ V.

Gameplay:
-Ranged attack from Cities is just laughable.
-Even in Prince, AI needs to at least try to defend himslef. Some Civs don't build military units even when invaded.
-Border growth is slower than I expected. Plenty of "no mans land" between cities, even in latter stages of the game.
-Not being able to pass trough City states (except suzerains) without declaring war has a gigant impact on exploration. Not sure that makes sense.
 
Maybe military units should not be able to enter City State territory without consequence, but scouts? Scouts should be able pass through it.
 
-I hope there is a way to cicle between cities

Marbozir cycled through the cities.

Overall UI is likely to see some fixes/additions before and after release. Also, a good place for mods.

-Ranged attack from Cities is just laughable.

It equals to the strongest ranged unit available for you, if I understand correctly. This looks ok for me, no more city slaughter.
 
Anyone noticed how the traders make new roads? It seems like instead of using parts of the old roads to travel from one city to another they seem to build a completely new road literally next to the old one which looks a bit odd on the map. I suppose it happens because of the new movement system (2 movement points are not enough to make a "start -> flat tile -> rough terrain tile" move) so that the route length calculations do not see the benefits of using old roads maybe?
 
Back
Top Bottom