I am playing Scotland on The United Nations Earth ("Bottom") map which is the largest map size I can play RN but it is CTD every 15-30 mins. I think I'll be done by Thur for sure, maybe tomorrow.
Almost every single game I've played since the Mar '18 patch has had some sort of error or bug. I really hope the Spring patch fixes some of these issues...for my sanity
I consider diplomacy to be pretty bad right now. Too often the AI will declare war soon after being friendly and the player doesn't really know why. It could just be a lack of transparency but it could also be that the AI is just inconsistent. The player also needs more options like being able to ask the AI not to settle near them. And some of the agendas don't make sense. Honestly, I think diplomacy needs a total make-over.
Civ VI just seems to be missing some content and lacking some polish. What has been introduced is pretty solid.
I think I can agree with that. I do think that civ6 has the potential to be absolutely fantastic with more content, new diplomacy, more features and more polish.
@SupremacyKing2 I think we're probably patting the same dog. I'm not really defending the diplomacy system. Really, I'm just saying that, regardless of whether it works or not, there's nothing wrong with having a 'diplomacy' system based around agendas, diplomatic visibility, bilateral trade deals and casus belli...
Actually, writing it out like that, it's really not that much to the system...
@SupremacyKing2 I think we're probably patting the same dog. I'm not really defending the diplomacy system. Really, I'm just saying that, regardless of whether it works or not, there's nothing wrong with having a 'diplomacy' system based around agendas, diplomatic visibility, bilateral trade deals and casus belli...
Actually, writing it out like that, it's really not that much to the system...
Yeah, I think we are both coming from roughly the same place. No, I don't think there is anything wrong with a "'diplomacy' system based around agendas, diplomatic visibility, bilateral trade deals and casus belli... ". Those are all great concepts that deserve to be represented in a civ game. I just feel like the implementation is off. I also feel like diplomacy could be so much more.
I feel the way diplomacy currently works is very unrealistic. The way Civs act seems to have no resemblance to their current state or the state of their military.
Civs declaring wars when their military strength is a tiny fraction of yours. It makes no sense.
No, I don't think civ6 has introduced anything fundamentally bad.
I consider diplomacy to be pretty bad right now. Too often the AI will declare war soon after being friendly and the player doesn't really know why. It could just be a lack of transparency but it could also be that the AI is just inconsistent. The player also needs more options like being able to ask the AI not to settle near them. And some of the agendas don't make sense. Honestly, I think diplomacy needs a total make-over.
I think I can agree with that. I do think that civ6 has the potential to be absolutely fantastic with more content, new diplomacy, more features and more polish.
Well firstly, for that to work, a lot of fundamental concepts have to be changed.
1) The AI cannot declare war simply because it wants to, and should declare war when the relationship is bad (similar to BNW system) of course, we can separate the AI into "good" and "evil" AI personalities as in BNW too... (Theodora VS Attilla for example) with evil AI being harder to befriend to begin with. AI should follow their personalities rather than just be total jerks whenever they feel like it so you can at least predict what they are going to do (for people who want that, there's then random personalities option in civ V... I don't mind having a few backstabbing villains in the cast, but let it at least be obvious who's who). I've been betrayed by Tomyris, of all people, too many times more than I can count for example, had high level alliance, then suddenly won't accept friendship despite being at +50 or so... dozens of turns later, she declares surprise war. Same with Gandhi who simply accepts a joint war and refuses friendship after eras of alliance.
2) War must be VERY punishing, especially to the offender (give defender more advantages) and at best it should be a lose-lose situation for the aggressor (when he declares war he achieves his goal of slowing down/destroying his target--this should come at a cost of giving other, uninvolved AI chances to overtake him); the happiness penalty system and courthouses, as well as buildings breaking in BNW does this fine... war should not have a separate side reward to it aside from inflicting a minus to the target civ who you feel is winning. Encourage overtaking your opponent by outrunning them rather than just kicking them in the shins.
3) Warmonger penalty must be like in BNW. You are to become public enemy number 1. Let every surprise war after ancient era trigger an emergency. Make AI offer HORRIBLE trades when they hate you (makes no sense that having -100 from warmonger penalty, they still want one of my luxes for 20 gpt... while being allied with them they offer only 5 gpt)
4) Bring back non-war ways of retaliating (world congress and UN in BNW).
In terms of diplomacy, BNW does it way better. Civ VI has always been a joke with this regard that I do not bother with diplomacy other than the super early game as an option not to get instantly killed.
The return of World Congress resolutions will really help the diplo game. I miss sanctions, global policy resos, and the like, which added a sense of purpose to CS and AI courtship. Plus, I liked playing Captain Planet and banning luxury resources like ivory and whales, because killing animals is not cool (gotta save all of those turtles they are adding now)!
It would be great to see an expansion of Spies offensive abilities for retaliation. The current offensive stuff is a bit weak. Disrupting rocketry is only useful if they are actually in a position to go for a science victory, and the governor / loyalty ones only useful if you, or another civ is in a position to take advantage of it.
Well firstly, for that to work, a lot of fundamental concepts have to be changed.
1) The AI cannot declare war simply because it wants to, and should declare war when the relationship is bad (similar to BNW system) of course, we can separate the AI into "good" and "evil" AI personalities as in BNW too... (Theodora VS Attilla for example) with evil AI being harder to befriend to begin with. AI should follow their personalities rather than just be total jerks whenever they feel like it so you can at least predict what they are going to do (for people who want that, there's then random personalities option in civ V... I don't mind having a few backstabbing villains in the cast, but let it at least be obvious who's who). I've been betrayed by Tomyris, of all people, too many times more than I can count for example, had high level alliance, then suddenly won't accept friendship despite being at +50 or so... dozens of turns later, she declares surprise war. Same with Gandhi who simply accepts a joint war and refuses friendship after eras of alliance.
2) War must be VERY punishing, especially to the offender (give defender more advantages) and at best it should be a lose-lose situation for the aggressor (when he declares war he achieves his goal of slowing down/destroying his target--this should come at a cost of giving other, uninvolved AI chances to overtake him); the happiness penalty system and courthouses, as well as buildings breaking in BNW does this fine... war should not have a separate side reward to it aside from inflicting a minus to the target civ who you feel is winning. Encourage overtaking your opponent by outrunning them rather than just kicking them in the shins.
3) Warmonger penalty must be like in BNW. You are to become public enemy number 1. Let every surprise war after ancient era trigger an emergency. Make AI offer HORRIBLE trades when they hate you (makes no sense that having -100 from warmonger penalty, they still want one of my luxes for 20 gpt... while being allied with them they offer only 5 gpt)
4) Bring back non-war ways of retaliating (world congress and UN in BNW).
In terms of diplomacy, BNW does it way better. Civ VI has always been a joke with this regard that I do not bother with diplomacy other than the super early game as an option not to get instantly killed.
You are describing war as it is seen by western societies after experiencing WW2, late 20th century, a globalized world with the possibility to transmit messages around the world in seconds but also to kill mankind in one hour by unleashing a nuclear apocalypse.
In Civ there are about 6.000 years to play before reaching this point. And these years were full of wars and rising and falling empires.
It would be great to see an expansion of Spies offensive abilities for retaliation. The current offensive stuff is a bit weak. Disrupting rocketry is only useful if they are actually in a position to go for a science victory, and the governor / loyalty ones only useful if you, or another civ is in a position to take advantage of it.
Well firstly, for that to work, a lot of fundamental concepts have to be changed.
1) The AI cannot declare war simply because it wants to, and should declare war when the relationship is bad (similar to BNW system) of course, we can separate the AI into "good" and "evil" AI personalities as in BNW too... (Theodora VS Attilla for example) with evil AI being harder to befriend to begin with. AI should follow their personalities rather than just be total jerks whenever they feel like it so you can at least predict what they are going to do (for people who want that, there's then random personalities option in civ V... I don't mind having a few backstabbing villains in the cast, but let it at least be obvious who's who). I've been betrayed by Tomyris, of all people, too many times more than I can count for example, had high level alliance, then suddenly won't accept friendship despite being at +50 or so... dozens of turns later, she declares surprise war. Same with Gandhi who simply accepts a joint war and refuses friendship after eras of alliance.
2) War must be VERY punishing, especially to the offender (give defender more advantages) and at best it should be a lose-lose situation for the aggressor (when he declares war he achieves his goal of slowing down/destroying his target--this should come at a cost of giving other, uninvolved AI chances to overtake him); the happiness penalty system and courthouses, as well as buildings breaking in BNW does this fine... war should not have a separate side reward to it aside from inflicting a minus to the target civ who you feel is winning. Encourage overtaking your opponent by outrunning them rather than just kicking them in the shins.
3) Warmonger penalty must be like in BNW. You are to become public enemy number 1. Let every surprise war after ancient era trigger an emergency. Make AI offer HORRIBLE trades when they hate you (makes no sense that having -100 from warmonger penalty, they still want one of my luxes for 20 gpt... while being allied with them they offer only 5 gpt)
4) Bring back non-war ways of retaliating (world congress and UN in BNW).
In terms of diplomacy, BNW does it way better. Civ VI has always been a joke with this regard that I do not bother with diplomacy other than the super early game as an option not to get instantly killed.
The last thing this game needs is for diplomacy to be reduced to The Sims-style input-output. Wars are overwhelmingly about opportunity, not diplomatic penalties. I am not a fan of the AI being forced to play in a way entirely at odds with the human player. The AI shouldn't declare war arbitrarily, of course not, but if it sees a weaker enemy and some land/resources it wants to acquire, it should plan an invasion and follow through accordingly. They also shouldn't declare war just because someone was mean to them, with no tangible war gains.
Warmonger penalties are already high enough. The problem is that the bonuses of diplomatic relations are almost always insufficient to dissuade you from accruing the penalties. That is not solved by nerfing war into oblivion. Making anyone who dabbles in war into a pariah just forces them to remain a warmonger for the rest of the game.
I still wonder if the delay is related to compatibility with Aspyr / xplatform. The Saturday upload may have been for that sort of testing. [/baseless_speculation]
I still wonder if the delay is related to compatibility with Aspyr / xplatform. The Saturday upload may have been for that sort of testing. [/baseless_speculation]
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
