Spring Patch Info

Maybe move the extra two believes you can get away from apostels and instead use extra great prophets for them (and maybe more than two).
 
More historical moments is definitely needed. The dark age mechanic was very poorly designed and is a massive detriment to enjoying long games on high difficulty (i.e. Deity for me). You can be doing awesome for the first 2/3 of a game, knocking out opponents, leading in science and culture, on a path toward victory, and then due to some kind of dumb luck you can't do enough additional things to get era points and you go into a dark age that causes several cities to start revolting all at once. Totally ruins a game.
 
Mapuche are far from the weakest civ.

IMO their UI would've been better if it could be built in woods (and jungle). IRL they're much smaller than say golf courses or sphinxes.

Of the R&F batch, Mongolia and Scotland are my top 2 fav. civs. They're powerful and have a very distinct play-style. Both play well on a variety of maps. (Even Scotland can play desert maps providing there is some green somewhere for golf courses).

But the Mapuche ideally play only on predominantly arboreal maps. IMO they're the weakest of the R&F bunch.

A general observation: most civs in Civ 5 [vanilla] are the ones that've greatly improved in Civ VI: Rome, China, India, Mongolia, The Aztec, Norway (Vikings), Egypt, Greece, Persia, Russia and even England (@Victoria care to comment?).

The exceptions are the ones which were perhaps a little unbalanced or OP: Spain, Germany, America, France & Arabia.

Of the entire batch of civs in Civ VI I rank The Mapuche at the very low end. Even France (now) is better IMO.
 
Last edited:
More historical moments is definitely needed. The dark age mechanic was very poorly designed and is a massive detriment to enjoying long games on high difficulty (i.e. Deity for me). You can be doing awesome for the first 2/3 of a game, knocking out opponents, leading in science and culture, on a path toward victory, and then due to some kind of dumb luck you can't do enough additional things to get era points and you go into a dark age that causes several cities to start revolting all at once. Totally ruins a game.

Oh noes, the game isn't super easy, it actually requires me to take things into account. Better complain.

No, but seriously, I love this game, but it's not the best at offering a challenge. This deity is certainly the easiest deity of the franchise, there's really no valid excuse to complain about a system that's designed to make you feel like you're in a Dark Age. Oh, and if you properly place your cities getting into a Dark Age isn't gonna make them revolt. Just build a blob empire, not snaky. And of course you can move around governers, adopt policies, build Statue of Liberty, run Bread and Circuses, get the Amani promotion, there's a million ways around it. Let's just say there's a reason most people on this forum prefer a Dark Age over a Normal Age - if you manage your empire properly, the Dark Age policies are a bigger benefit than the reduced loyalty pressure is a problem. Plus it makes Golden Ages easier.
 
. (Even Scotland can play desert maps providing there is some green somewhere for golf courses).

Odd you should say that. A friend of mine used (many years ago) to play golf in Yemen. The course was in a desert. The rough was sand, the fairways were watered sand, and the greens were oiled sand. It can be done!

Then there is the golf course at Reykjavik where the rough is lava. You do not want to hit your ball into that stuff.
 
I knew they'd fix Magnus' first ability sooner or later, but I'm still a little bummed about it. It's insanely useful on higher difficulties in overcoming AI bonuses and getting at least one early wonder.

Ah, well.
 
IMO their UI would've been better if it could be built in woods (and jungle). IRL they're much smaller than say golf courses or sphinxes.

Of the R&F batch, Mongolia and Scotland are my top 2 fav. civs. They're powerful and have a very distinct play-style. Both play well on a variety of maps. (Even Scotland can play desert maps providing there is some green somewhere for golf courses).

But the Mapuche ideally play only on predominantly arboreal maps. IMO they're the weakest of the R&F bunch.

A general observation: most civs in Civ 5 [vanilla] are the ones that've greatly improved in Civ VI: Rome, China, India, Mongolia, The Aztec, Norway (Vikings), Egypt, Greece, Persia, Russia and even England (@Victoria care to comment?).

The exceptions are the ones which were perhaps a little unbalanced or OP: Spain, Germany, America, France & Arabia.

Of the entire batch of civs in Civ VI I rank The Mapuche at the very low end. Even France (now) is better IMO.

I wouldn't say Mapuche are that weakest, they are not strong, but they have a lot of strategies to compensate. But what really makes them not good is that their strategies rely on RNG (Chemamull locations, production and other people entering a Golden Age). IMO their bonuses are very fun, and they require the player to do things all the time such as city placement, etc.
I hope they get buffed e.g= Swift Hawk now is -25 loyalty and flipped cities get a culture boost.
 
More historical moments is definitely needed. The dark age mechanic was very poorly designed and is a massive detriment to enjoying long games on high difficulty (i.e. Deity for me). You can be doing awesome for the first 2/3 of a game, knocking out opponents, leading in science and culture, on a path toward victory, and then due to some kind of dumb luck you can't do enough additional things to get era points and you go into a dark age that causes several cities to start revolting all at once. Totally ruins a game.

That actually makes it sound well-designed - i.e. adding some more challenge to deity, which is supposed to be challenging.
 
But the Mapuche ideally play only on predominantly arboreal maps. IMO they're the weakest of the R&F bunch.

What?? The Mapuche aren't weak - they are average at worst and MUCH better than Georgia who has a garbage UU and no useful abilities at all except for the envoys which is still only mediocre because you still have to first establish a majority religion and then spread it to each CS. Georgia is the worst civ in the game by a wide margin IMO. I'd rank Mapuche ahead of the Dutch and Scotland. Mapuche are at least interesting and fun to play. Georgia would be much better if they got faith from building walls instead of that protectorate war nonsense.
 
What?? The Mapuche aren't weak - they are average at worst and MUCH better than Georgia who has a garbage UU and no useful abilities at all except for the envoys which is still only mediocre because you still have to first establish a majority religion and then spread it to each CS. Georgia is the worst civ in the game by a wide margin IMO. I'd rank Mapuche ahead of the Dutch and Scotland. Mapuche are at least interesting and fun to play. Georgia would be much better if they got faith from building walls instead of that protectorate war nonsense.

Dutch are very strong because of the river bonuses and polders and Scotland has absolutely insane Science Victory bonuses, don't see how you could rank them below Mapuche (who aren't that weak either imo).
 
Of the R&F batch, Mongolia and Scotland are my top 2 fav. civs. They're powerful and have a very distinct play-style. Both play well on a variety of maps. (Even Scotland can play desert maps providing there is some green somewher

Cree and Netherlands are my top 2, followed closely by Scotland. My last Cree game I was rolling in money, had over 100k gold after Big Ben. I've never had this much gold in any of my games.
 
A general observation: most civs in Civ 5 [vanilla] are the ones that've greatly improved in Civ VI: .... and even England (@Victoria care to comment?

In Civ V Elizabeth has +1 naval MP out of the starting blocks but in Civ VI Victoria needs an RNDY which to be honest is rubbish. For a start have you ever tried researching to it early? You sacrifice a lot including any possibility of district discounts by doing so. So your key early galleys get no MP bonus. Building this district gives a bit of gold but there are so many gold abuses in the game its one of the worst things to get, it has not CS bonuses and worst you can only build it on the coast... and there really are not a lot of river mouths so you have to build without fresh water often and very little adjacency. You canot have your entire empire on the coast so this crap district you get half price on is only of use in a few cities as is any adjacency card with it. Building the RNDY stops you building theaters and campuses early to a degree as well, it the RNDY just drags your system down.

The fact that water wars are useless in both versions has meant England has been weak in both versions. but at least the manowar was better than the sea dog. I am not going to bore you with the detail but you really do have to play England to comment on such things and the sea dog in reality is of use in 1 in 20 games at best.

In Civ V you had a longbowman which was in fact quite a strong unit, you got it a little earlier than redcoats and that makes a big difference... and please note the nerfing of science has delayed redcoats making England worse. Building RNDY rather than Campus makes England worse in R&F... it was another Nerf to them. Loyalty was another Nerf with a +4 loyalty plaster Just in a slow to build RNDY off continent... oh wow another nerf was definitely loyalty and messed up off continent for England big time.

If you look at practically every civ they get a starting bonus in the game but it a spare slot or a +3 combat bonus or a trade route... in V it was +1 naval movement. England gets a crappy RNDY that limits your other districts, you cannot build many places of use and you have a horrible tech path to that nerfs your growth.

If England greatly improved from V?.... Only someone who does not play her enough to understand and so has no real right to comment would say that.
To clarify, Victoria is one of the bottom 3 if not the bottom so how can you consider that greatly improved?

I was just on to reply to a PM and saw this in my inbox and was appalled.
 
Is England really worse than America though? Granted, I haven't played post rnf, but that wild card slot would most often be used for diplomatic policies regardless. Their uu is useless in sp. They are well suited for cultural victory, that's about it.
 
Is England really worse than America though? Granted, I haven't played post rnf, but that wild card slot would most often be used for diplomatic policies regardless. Their uu is useless in sp. They are well suited for cultural victory, that's about it.
Well at least they are well suited to a victory condition. The British museum is rubbish in comparison. The Mustang is quite the opposite of useless it is far more OP than a redcoat just comes way too late in the game but at least is the right side of the tech tree, the redcoat is not. You have to play them to get these subtleties but they are everywhere, everything ius just wrong to make them a civ that works well now. I agree rough riders have it rough like sea dogs and is it not weird to have your cavalry good on hills?

Would you rather have your troops have +5 at the beginning of the game or have an RNDY? Would you rather have a few more troops or +5 troops? That +5 is awesome when defending against barbs/civs at the beginning when you only have a few of units.
The beginning of the game is key and neither civ is the best. green to Wild IS a benefit. You can still use green but +2 envoy points per turn is just useless @Disgustipated ... 50 turns of slotting for 1 envoy? I agree a free envoy with the first is powerful but +2 envoy points is one of the weakest cards, especially as you are forced to slot it for quite a while if you take a green slot, no I think you have this one wrong, sorry.

I in no way compared England to the US which is also a rubbish civ (I do not play America enough to truly comment). What I really do not understand is why these civs have to be so bad when the large majority have such strong starting abilities. Why? you just piss off your user base. If you made them stronger you would very likely get more people playing the game from 2 of your large player bases. I have certainly stopped now. Just sick of it.

What I find ironic is nerfing Pax made the game easier.... people used to remember England coming at them with a few redcoats or at least a larger army, it could be a little scary... now its gone. England is an easy opponent, a good one to slot in to win on deity if you are so inclined. Would you rather face Teddy early with that +5?

I was just replying to an appalling comment saying they had been "greatly improved" since civ V. Greatly?.... how on earth did they get there, another armchair England player that guesses by what they see on paper. I can really only comment on the civs I played a lot on England, Egypt, France and Gorgo. Not exactly an OP lineup.

+1 naval Movement, long bowmen and Man o War was IMO better than they have now. It felt in the middle game of V that it was your golden era.
 
Last edited:
As far as I know :
In ancient and classic times, England was not known as a naval super power. It was invaded and colonized by Rome, later came Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Christians (Rome), Danes and Norwegians (Wikings), finally the Norman Conquest (1066). In medieval times it was ruled by leaders (like Lionheart) being both engaged in England as in France (100 years war). After the french kicked the english leaders out of France, England had the free capacity to concentrate on naval strength rather than strength in land units. -> 16th century Elizabeth I. and victory over Spanish Armada was the advent of British Seapower.
-> So RNDY starting advent of Englands naval power seems not wrong.
 
I haven’t played Teddy, but he seems strong. Strong - but so boring. A flat combat bonus for all units is really dull. And I can’t get excited about the wild card thing - I’d rather just have a flat +1 card. It’s one of the things that make Germany fun, even though it’s just a military card. Teddy is not bad as an AI opponent - a +5 on top of the AI’s other boosts can be nasty.

I agree with Victoria about RND and England’s tech path. I liked the RND a lot, but it’s not efficient to build lots. The best thing about them are the Great Admirals, which is obviously not the strongest of the great people... And frankly, I have a bugger of a time not having my Dockyards pillaged by barbs...

I don’t get why England is now such a mess in R&F. The original changes for R&F were just lazy and daft. The further changes now to Pax... well, I get that Pax B in Vanilla didn’t transfer well to R&F. But if they couldn’t get it to work, why not ditch it and start again, instead of nerfing, half un-nerfing, and making it such a mess. I mean, as someone else has pointed out, England was famous for its colonial governors... guys, the game has governors? Why not do something with that?

The only thing left that’s any good is the British Museum. And the best thing about it to me is just you don’t have the admin hassle of theming.

I thought England was a popular Civ? And it has so much history you can draw on for ideas? There are just so many directions to take this Civ, and instead they’ve just stuffed it.

At least the expansion and patches have made Spain and France more interesting. And if they ever fix Military Tactics, Pikes and Unique Medieval Melee, Norway and Japan will be awesome.

As far as I know :
In ancient and classic times, England was not known as a naval super power. It was invaded and colonized by Rome, later came Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Christians (Rome), Danes and Norwegians (Wikings), finally the Norman Conquest (1066). In medieval times it was ruled by leaders (like Lionheart) being both engaged in England as in France (100 years war). After the french kicked the english leaders out of France, England had the free capacity to concentrate on naval strength rather than strength in land units. -> 16th century Elizabeth I. and victory over Spanish Armada was the advent of British Seapower.
-> So RNDY starting advent of Englands naval power seems not wrong.

Fair, and I agree. But. And it’s a big But. Civ sometimes does this thing were it sort of reflects the Civ version of a Civ, not the actual country / people. In Civ, England is a Naval Civ. That’s what it is. It can have other things, but it has to have Navy.

I mean, Ghandi never had nukes did he? (Wait. Maybe he did!?! OMG - Mind Blown).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
16th century Elizabeth I. and victory over Spanish Armada was the advent of British Seapower.
Just for clarity, it was Njord who beat the Spanish Armada and if you say it was then that England became gods of the sea you may anger the odd dutch person. England only really came to power with the battles of Nile and Trafalgar although of course the whole sea dogs strategy did help. England really became a sea power through the money to keep investing through their land exploits and politics, not the damn sea. They became the default kings because not many people had enough ships left and England could outproduce them. Who do you think built those Brazilian Battleships in this game?

Is that how people see England?... a sea power and nothing else?... So Waterloo did not happen? The 1st Crusade was a fallacy? Agincort a Myth? King Arthur is as much a fact as some of the presumptions made about ancient races. Did the English Chariot stopped Caesars legions?
Rifling was a powerful discovery, the Magna Carta... Awesome... nah, lets give the English some ships... in fact now lets not, lets give their ships +1 movement once you have got to RNDY.

I get what you are probably implying @historix69 that for the leader Victoria her strength should be in industrial times... but could it not be industry? Early factories something more novel than just more damn sea units which are boring/useless in this game.
Also any civ like England or America with late starts are just useless in this game, they need some early strength.... +5 for teddy seems wrong if you want to start talking RNDY being right. Its a game, and if you want to nerf the likes of England and America so they are just no fun to play then you get what you designed, less people playing. That's just what I am now doing.

""In chariot fighting the Britons begin by driving all over the field hurling javelins, and generally the terror inspired by the horses and the noise of the wheels are sufficient to throw their opponents' ranks into disorder. Then, after making their way between the squadrons of their own cavalry, they jump down from the chariot and engage on foot. In the meantime their charioteers retire a short distance from the battle and place the chariots in such a position that their masters, if hard pressed by numbers, have an easy means of retreat to their own lines. Thus they combine the mobility of cavalry with the staying power of infantry; and by daily training and practice they attain such proficiency that even on a steep incline they are able to control the horses at full gallop, and to check and turn them in a moment. They can run along the chariot pole, stand on the yoke, and get back into the chariot as quick as lightning" (Gallic War, IV.33)."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom