Why Can't People in MP Play anything but Dom?

Basically, it doesn't matter what you do with science, religion or culture if you cannot protect it. Which leads to players creating sizeable armies. Also, in MP, it's just human nature to always expect the worst of your fellow players, lol. Your mind set is geared towards the military side of things. It's a must to build up your army, more so than in single player. And then you're always just one step away from building one or two more military units instead of that district improvement... and then putting them to use.
 
When i lurk other people games(reload game and take seat of other players to see what they have done) after they end, i always see same problems occuring...and it's often related to production. With high production, you can build everything you want. I even find some games where i litterally don't know what to build until new techs evolves.

How to raise production: Improve cities, improve most mines as possible, beeline apprenticeship and later industrialization(if no one do turn 70 cavs), but, most important, build industrial zones!

Why most players don't build this asap? It's a mystery to me. Commercial hubs and industrial zones are the bread and butter of this game. Science can wait a bit.

How to raise military: Build cheap units with 50% policy cards before getting better units. Spam commercial hubs to get enough gold for upgrades. I rarely hard build knights and crossbowmen for example. Everything comes from upgrades. Try to learn how to synchronize these upgrades and you will find yourself with much more time to build infrastructures.

In conclusion, if you rush for science right of the bat and you are my neighbor, all i say is thank you for building it for me :D
 
I have taken now to building units to within 1 turn of completion and then not finishing them in all my cities. This way I have a large army just one turn away but I don't have to waste the maintenance payments on them. This also makes me look like I have a weak army so that the tools in MP think I'm vulnerable, so they declare... and then out comes the hammer!!! You should see the incredulous comments when this happens :) I always get some idiot saying something like, "you have a hack, you're cheating... no one can insta-build an army like that!" Even after I explain it to them, they still don't believe me... bunch of tards.

meh
 
Yeah units prebuilding is a nice cover. But you can think the other way...get huge army to tame other players so they dont attack you while expanding. With unit maintenance card they are litterally free until medieval era. Problem with unit prebuilding in this version is that at some point you can build all cheap units in 1 turn so its almost impossible to prebuild them unless you deliberately lower production...

A good trick to raise production is to use hammer overflow from these 1 turn units build and use these hammers into infras right after some chain build of units. I made some 1 turn wonders at some occasions! You need a high prod cap though. At some point these units are hammer free thats insane.
 
How about a policy that provides for a strong defensive army that springs to life if you are attacked. This is a real world thing, especially in the modern world. Maybe free units upon declaration, or military production bonus for defensive war. Then, you don't incur the cost of having a large army, but it would at least incrementally make people more reluctant to attack a peaceful player if they are carrying this policy - especially if that peaceful player has a tech advantage or the like. It wouldn't allow you to initiate aggression, and would require a policy slot, but could be worthwhile if strong enough on defense.
 
Well, at least if you try to go for a science victory you will have more advanced units. The problem is that the other victory types don't help defending as much, I mean you can unlock armies and corps earlier with lots of culture, but tourism doesn't give anything. And religion is currently a bit weak for anything that isn't a religious victory. I think they should make something with tourism, maybe increased war weariness if fighting a civ with a lot of touristic influence over your own. Religion currently has beliefs like Crusade or Defender of the faith that help you with war, however if you are using your resources to spread your religion it means you probably have a weaker army than your opponent, and 10 bonus combat strength isn't going to help a lot if your opponent has next era units. So in conclusion, I think both tourism and religion should have a bigger impact in war, maybe even give players who want to go for a domination victory an incentive to found a religion or generate some culture to defend from tourism.
 
I think that problem is, that culture and religion pay up only later on. I mean science is passive stat and always will, I cant imagine having scientists attacking cities, its only used for strengthening infrastructure and military. But culture and religion dont have to be so passive stats early. It would be awesome if you could have some early-mid culture units that would act like spies in cities, but instead spying they would spread your culture. You could make people emmigrate (rapidly lowering food income), or their units would be weaker against you or they wouldnt want to fight you so much that they would even desert. That would make much harder to warmonger therefore you wouldnt have to put so many deffenses around, but instead using culture and religion that youre focusing on.
 
Early culture is amazing for war at any stage. It's the main reason I find Rome so terrifying and why the colosseum is considered the best wonder. You get first/2nd/3rd their governments first, boosts in production, free walls, yields, infrastructure, combat bonuses, extra civic card slots and any yield type you want before anyone else.

More culture directly effects every other yield and aspect of your game regardless your civ or strategy and you're not relegated to trying for a cultural victory type because you focus on it. It is simply an option if you choose to use it.
 
Their is a ton of strategy in this game, but I believe the problem lies even deeper. Early Domination is not only the meta, but the only way to ensure you turn a 5/10 start into a 1st place start. In competition, players have been constantly rushing for the 3 classical generals. Whoever ends up with them by turn 15-20, has a HUGE advantage over another player. Spam horses or swords after this and target a player you can easily take out or go hit 2-3 CSs for free cities. Sim city after completion. The only way to avoid this is to play a map like islands, or fractal where the general and land wars may not be as important. If you want to be the best, you take each patch...dissect the flaws and then exploit them. I'm hoping one day it is more balanced, especially map spawns and CS placement. Highly doubt it will anytime soon.
 
GUNSLINGER!!!

This man speaks the truth, And it's gotten worse in recent patches. I'm not sure which DLC exactly but I believe it was Persia/Macedon.

They changed the system in which great people are recruited/spawned from Era to quantity of great people recruited from a certain era so that there's nearly always 3 classical great generals (where as before if the player had gotten to Classical era it would lock the other two generals from Classical out) and if you are not one of the civilizations to get one then you're in pain...
lots of pain
 
The answer to this is there's far more benefits to grow an Army and to invade then to try any other Victory conditions. A big army protects you from invasion as well but you spent production on it therefore it has to be used now. While everyone is complaining about warmongering/war weariness, to make the other conditions viable we would need even more negative effects to offensive wars and invaders. civilization 6 has some new interesting concepts that tries to slow down invasion, but it's not good enough has it is. Domination is the superior choice in multiplayer and this is also true in single player has you go up in difficulty level
 
Last edited:
Domination is the strongest strategy. Or at least one aggressive move in the course of game, be it aginst a player or multiple City States.
That's not to say it's the only viable strat. I regularly play competitive ranked games. With a lot of the people that have commented so far (Hi guys). This week I've lost to a Culture Victory and last night I won a Science Victory.

6 player Conts map. Had an island to myself, got 9 cities down before I'd even met anyone.
Naval rushed Norway at turn 65-ish gaining 5 cities. Sim'd from there, intimidating neighbours with advanced troops as a deterrent for potential invasions.
Ended with a nail biting space race with Egypt.

Would I have beaten Egypt to Mars without taking Norway? I think so, but possibly not. Egypt had successfully eliminated a player early.

Using production to build units to take land will always be more effective than building settlers. But don't but all your eggs in one unescorted settler ;)



*I know the player names would usually be shown. I had reloaded the turn to screenshot for the report. =)
 

Attachments

  • space petra.png
    space petra.png
    3.5 MB · Views: 207
Tombraider174 said:
Using production to build units to take land will always be more effective than building settlers.
Click to expand...

It depends. The first cities built with 50% settler discount is, i think, superior. As long as it's done very fast. Not rare to see someone expand from 2 to 6 cities in like 10 turns. After that it should be always better to build units i guess...unless you start isolated.
 
I'm not an expert of civ6 multiplayer, but I can extrapolate what I learned from civ4: invading a weaker player is the easier and faster way to victory, and if you don't, someone else will. other victory conditions will become viable if noboddy can achieve military dominance; that way, everybody will keep armies for self defence but will need to try other conditions to win. And in civ6 it is easier to defend than in civ4; in civ4, with 50% more power than your neighboor, you could conquer. in 6, you need at least twice, so it's easier to reach an equilibrium. on the other hand, the civ4 combat system ensured that war would have a steep price even when won, while in civ6 it is easier to get away with minimal losses, which is an incentive to trying.
 
Domination has always been the 'dominant' strategy since Civ 3 multiplayer. This hasn't changed since then. Other victory types are more valid vs a passive AI however they are going to be very situational in a multiplayer game.
 
AntrakQuebec, come to Civplayers.....I can't comment on games in other places, but I guarantee games at Civplayers are not slow :p

https://discord.gg/uBEpu3u

CS
 
CanuckSoldier said:
AntrakQuebec, come to Civplayers.....I can't comment on games in other places, but I guarantee games at Civplayers are not slow :p

https://discord.gg/uBEpu3u

CS
Click to expand...

I am a member, but I hate Discord... I know, I know, I sound like a baby with excuses but seriously, I can't stand that App, and you always get someone with some noise in the background that's irritating (I have Batman kind of hearing :p )
 
Well while voice is recommended, you can just type in chat and turn your mic and speakers off. We do have a few players that do that, it doesn't effect playing. I'm new to Discord too....never knew it existed 6 months ago :-/ But it is a much better way to organize games than Steam chat is...not to mention the ability to post in text channels, somewhat replacing forums etc

CS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PDX Firefly
Developer Diary | Achievements, Modding & Multiplayer
Replies
2
Views
745
Prester John 2
Prester John 2
Ita Bear
I honestly think I'm finished with modern gaming
Replies
0
Views
343
Ita Bear
Ita Bear
V
TSG 236 Announcement
Replies
10
Views
1K
JeffreyLXV
JeffreyLXV
F
So is France Busted Now?
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
FinMc
F
L. Vern
My 4.5 Playtest Report + Feedback
Replies
5
Views
815
azum4roll
A
Top Bottom