[GS] Victory type elimination threads, Warmongering and the Diplo Victory

Make it so you can't vote against civs who you have a alliance or religious majority or culture.
This makes a lot of sense. Allies can't vote against, but don't necessarily have to vote for you. Seems similar to the real world as well. Or make it that voting against an ally results in heavy grievances and an annulment of the alliance
 
What is the necessity of Future Civic? It just gives favor and there's no way to overcome the last vote. (might as well just vote against yourself for +1 and get the others) . I sorta just started clicking stuff since I lost the first votes in the early eras (everyone ban prophet points wat)

Also I wasted all my time on Carbon Recapture but there was no climate accords. Oops. I guess you have to pollute first?

Not that I care anymore. I got my achievement with a terrible time (guess stuff is slower on Emperor) but I will never do this crap again. 30 turns between each Congress is too much.

Side note: Eliminating a civ to remove grievances is broken.
 
Last edited:
If you've got an entire thread of posters who play enough Civ6 to spend their free time on these forums telling you they're not typical numbers, they're not typical numbers.
Like most things in life there is a middle ground.
The large majority of people that are vocal here are more immersive.
@leandrombraz is a good example betting his Petra city. Petra is great and I build it lots when I am having fun but incredibly rarely when I am being fast. It is just not relevant to victory in the large majority of situations.
GOTM shows that lily is not the exception.
Take @DanQuayle for example rarely posts but consistently sub 200 with the exception of Diplo or points victory.
They are not the exception due to skill. I remember a keen and eager CV player in the early days, not the brightest but keen to do well with CV. We discussed things many times privately on how to improve and he shaved his CV victories down to around T100-120.
The key is to concentrate on the victory and nothing else.
 
@Victoria: But surely, these are all exceptional players. I think it's safe to say that most players finish well past turn 250 for any victory type. Most players don't play on Immortal or Deity. Most players don't post here and learn all of the little tricks that we use to play more efficiently.
 
But surely, these are all exceptional players.
Are they exceptional ,or the ones that play most efficiently? I am saying the latter. Because when you start to play efficiently and want to do better these players will say “play the same map 5 times and try to get faster”. It is only then you start realising how much play we do is not directed at the victory but instead about how we think a city should grow or because a wonder seems OP. And what is the point of doing all that unless you want to get faster.

I will 100% agree that the average player on these forums will go over T200 but I refute that all the players that get below are exceptional. I mean I can get below and know I am not an exceptional player. I get below only because I get bored of the game if I play too long. But sometimes longer targets do interest me and I have played a game to T400 before.
So for example, we could open a thread, put a save in it and some rules like you can only build theaters and are not allowed to build aqueducts and suddenly you can find a CV below T200. And no, deity is not the place to do it, emperor is because most people play that level.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps we aren't agreeing on the meaning of the word "exceptional". Let's just agree that the vast majority of players don't win before turn 200 (or even turn 250) and don't play on the higher difficulty settings (Immortal & Deity). Is that fair?

I suspect that you're right about most players having the ability to play more efficiently and on higher difficulty settings, with practice. But for various reasons, they don't.
 
Top Bottom