I would love to be able to rename units whenever, not just after the second promotion. Alternatively, perhaps some sort of built-in, unique identifier that would indicate date and place of creation.
I am more interested when the next expansion will drop. Would a Nov/Dec drop be feasible at this point? I just see players losing interested if Firaxis lets the game go too long without new content.
Some of us are still disappointed that big features like World Congress, a decent world builder and the Inca/Anatolian civs were left out in R&F...
Fix diplomacy... Make AI actually offer deals that are consistent with their friendliness level
Make free cities keep their units in their borders
Make it impossible to liberate a free city if it initially was conquered by you
Make liberation on CS that join your empire as a free city possible
Buff city state strength (give them +combat difficulty level bonus same as AI civs
Make casus belli more important. Make war weariness very punishing for surprise wars in later eras.
I am more interested when the next expansion will drop. Would a Nov/Dec drop be feasible at this point? I just see players losing interested if Firaxis lets the game go too long without new content.
Some of us are still disappointed that big features like World Congress, a decent world builder and the Inca/Anatolian civs were left out in R&F...
Thats a bit rough, England was at best only ever mid tier and I have often added comments about releasing modding despite not using them myself.
Unkind comments are oft remembered more than kind and that was well below the belt.
With TSL maps, England gets to start fairly close to some very nice natural
wonders - Cliffs of Dover, Lysefjord, Giant's Causeway and Matterhorn. The first
two in particular give a significant fillip to progress and to the effectiveness
of English ships.
To complaints that TSL maps are not the best ones to gauge whether a civ is
adequate, all I can say if boo-bloody-hoo. Don't expect that all civs will play
equally well on random maps. Should Russia be tweaked to cope with rainforest
starts? Does Kongo need a buff in case it starts closer to tundra than jungle.
England is neither the best nor the worst civ on TSL maps. A buff now would mean
that it would move ahead of other civs that are, in general, more powerful or
more versatile. Why should the players who prefer those civs be disadvantaged
because there are those who want England to be stronger?
Winning with England at high levels is very tough now, no doubt, but nowhere
near as difficult as it was in Civ5 on TSL maps. (It was the only real challenge
left for me and some of my extended family.)
Don't like the challenge England presents at high levels now? Play at a level
or two lower.
You will find on the original TSL thread people were complaining some civs were impossible on deity because the started on such small islands and I showed them how you do it. It’s not about how OP a civ is, it’s how interesting it is to play.
If I use a mod I cannot share a save... and bugs have to be reported in vanilla amd I cannot accurately comment or playtest if I have such a mod.
Not all of us want to play Australia and be OP but a civ has to be interesting amd England has lost that. But blind as a great galah you seem to be and boo hoo comments just strengthen that.
You will find on the original TSL thread people were complaining some civs were impossible on deity because the started on such small islands and I showed them how you do it. It’s not about how OP a civ is, it’s how interesting it is to play.
If I use a mod I cannot share a save... and bugs have to be reported in vanilla amd I cannot accurately comment or playtest if I have such a mod.
Not all of us want to play Australia and be OP but a civ has to be interesting amd England has lost that. But blind as a great galah you seem to be and boo hoo comments just strengthen that.
It's still special pleading for one civ without considering the effect on other
civs. You and others want to win a greater proportion of games with England
(and do so in an interesting fashion, no argument). By increasing England's
strengths and/or diminishing their weaknesses, other civs will win fewer games.
You have not once mentioned how all other civs should be buffed in response to
making England stronger.
It is very clear that you are a Deity level (or higher) player with many, if not
most civs; you are just not up to that level with England.
You will find on the original TSL thread people were complaining some civs were impossible on deity because the started on such small islands and I showed them how you do it. It’s not about how OP a civ is, it’s how interesting it is to play.
I might quibble with this one, though I recognize this is a matter of personal taste. I disliked how, in Civ 5, how much you could get from an AI for a trade depended exclusively on how much they liked you. A very one way system that favoured the human and was a bit immersion breaking. In Civ 6, the AI seems to value trades at least partially based on their own needs, which seems more appropriate to me. If they're low on amenities, it seems they'll pay up, and if they don't need it they'll offer less. The system still favours the human, but perhaps by not quite as much.
I do wish, however, that there was a place in the Trade Screen to offer a Resource for trade and see in one place what each other civ is willing to pay for it.
I might quibble with this one, though I recognize this is a matter of personal taste. I disliked how, in Civ 5, how much you could get from an AI for a trade depended exclusively on how much they liked you. A very one way system that favoured the human and was a bit immersion breaking. In Civ 6, the AI seems to value trades at least partially based on their own needs, which seems more appropriate to me. If they're low on amenities, it seems they'll pay up, and if they don't need it they'll offer less. The system still favours the human, but perhaps by not quite as much.
I do wish, however, that there was a place in the Trade Screen to offer a Resource for trade and see in one place what each other civ is willing to pay for it.
I think one of the things that holds back trade and diplomacy is that often you can’t see the logic of what’s happening or it’s unintuitive at first blush.
I believe you that the AIs ask for things they need - but I usually don’t know what it is they need. Victoria has also talked about seeing the AI trading with each other based on the logs, which is super interesting (and quite encouraging). But of course, you just don’t see that when you’re playing.
FXS are trying. The new “deal breaker” symbol, and that thing in diplomacy that tells you what the + / - is and how you can improve it. But honestly, save for listening to the sage like advice here, my diplomacy gave would be awful because I wouldn’t have a clue what’s going on.
I might quibble with this one, though I recognize this is a matter of personal taste. I disliked how, in Civ 5, how much you could get from an AI for a trade depended exclusively on how much they liked you. A very one way system that favoured the human and was a bit immersion breaking. In Civ 6, the AI seems to value trades at least partially based on their own needs, which seems more appropriate to me. If they're low on amenities, it seems they'll pay up, and if they don't need it they'll offer less. The system still favours the human, but perhaps by not quite as much.
I do wish, however, that there was a place in the Trade Screen to offer a Resource for trade and see in one place what each other civ is willing to pay for it.
That's one that really would be great! A marketplace where civs can place bids
for resources and luxuries that are on offer.
Just don't expect the AI to optimize the bids, or to be particularly good at
placing reasonable bids. About 12 years ago, I tried various genetic algorithms
for the so-called (economic) "Cobweb Model" and couldnt get reasonable answers
because the system can quickly become chaotic. Analytical solutions are
available but (IMO) implementing them would really stretch Firaxis et al.
I'm sure there are some simple, less stringent and exacting techniques that are
already being used in other games, in one way or another, and that Civ6's
Forrest Gump AI could emulate.
Can't see why that is necessarily so. IMO it's just as likely that they first
synch the "base" games, i.e. vanilla and R&F, then the DLCs, scenarios etc in
the next iteration(s).
(As long as I don't have anything to do with their makefiles or similar, I'm
happy.)
What could that be, though, that the DLCs would complicate? There are no features unique to the DLCs, except some City States, Wonders, and Civ Special Abilities. Not that those in aggregate aren't significant, but relative to the complexity of the base game and R&F sans DLCs, I'm struggling to guess at what they could test more easily by excluding DLCs first, if the intent is that the changes subsequently apply to the DLCs.
Is it possible this update relates solely to an upcoming packaging of the base game and R&F into a single purchase option? I don't know why a qa build would be needed for that, but maybe there's a Steam reason.
Alternatively, are there any DLCs that have not been released for iOS/Linux such that this could be for a cross-platform test?
Didn't they remove the additional DLCs when testing out new civs like Nubia? Would it be okay to say if they are testing out new civs/leaders? Just so anything the individual DLCs added wouldn't conflict?
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.
