|
I still play V occasionally with friends. I love that there's a viable way to build a small empire, whereas VI is all about the player with the most cities winning. I usually like playing one-city challenges on Prince difficulty instead of trying to do the infinite city spam thing.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
I really miss playing tall and wish it was more viable in VI. Having to manage 30-40 cities in the end game every time is a pain in the rear end. I also really miss not being able to play Venice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
I still play tall. When I have about four or five cities is usually the time to stop spreading for me, and I'll only get larger if I'm going to war and taking cities away from someone else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
I dont think the 'tall vs wide' distinction works the same way in VI with its mechanics, but my big gripe with V is just how clearly superior playing tall was and how rote the optimal decision making there was. VI is much more flexible at this point compared to how V was even post BNW.
Rimusutera fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 22:29
|
|
|
The main thing I miss from Civ V is that it had... heart, for lack of a better word. Cities and buildings all looked distinct across the handfuls of tilesets, the Civpedia was a pleasure to read, and the UI somehow made everything intuitive. VI is built on the framework of V, but with no direction whatsoever. The Civpedia is a complete mess, there's a jillion art assets for the city center up until the industrial era, but the exact same skyscrapers for everyone past that, and districts use the exact same greco-roman through modern European graphics no matter who's building them. The UI somehow is so much worse, and they paid to have Sean Bean on call but couldn't be bothered to pay anyone to dig up tech quotes or tell him how to pronounce things. VI has some good ideas, but very little cohesion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
I'm gonna try to get back into this, but haven't played since Rise and Fall released and for the most part I remember nothing about the game, though I did play countless hours of Civ 5. Anyway, I own everything except for the stuff that falls under the New Frontier pass. Any general pointers to improve quality of life and/or just dodge any dumb poo poo (there's always some in games like this)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 01:22
|
|
|
Foppish Yet Dashing posted:I'm gonna try to get back into this, but haven't played since Rise and Fall released and for the most part I remember nothing about the game, though I did play countless hours of Civ 5. Anyway, I own everything except for the stuff that falls under the New Frontier pass. Turn on tile yields and Show Yields in HUD ribbon, I don't know why they're disabled by default, but they are both extremely helpful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 01:46
|
|
`
|
Rimusutera posted:I dont think the 'tall vs wide' distinction works the same way in VI with its mechanics, but my big gripe with V is just how clearly superior playing tall was and how rote the optimal decision making there was. VI is much more flexible at this point compared to how V was even post BNW. Yeah I agree with all of this. In Civ 5 there was just no reason to go wide - beyond the opportunity cost of founding them, extra cities tended to slow down progress more than they helped. This isn't an issue in Civ6 - it's an example of how it does a good job of offering multiple paths forward that are equally viable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 03:47
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:VI is built on the framework of V, but with no direction whatsoever. The Civpedia is a complete mess, there's a jillion art assets for the city center up until the industrial era, but the exact same skyscrapers for everyone past that, and districts use the exact same greco-roman through modern European graphics no matter who's building them. The UI somehow is so much worse, and they paid to have Sean Bean on call but couldn't be bothered to pay anyone to dig up tech quotes or tell him how to pronounce things. The big thing when I defend VI as better than V is its strictly in mechanical terms. Pretty much all of these are reasonable aesthetic and UI criticisms. While I also think the common condemnation of VI being cartoony is a bit misguided, and their reasons for that art direction make sense in a way, the rigid lack of any cultural distinctions in district buildings feel like just the tenth billion thing in the checklist about how Eurocentric the game is (though it makes the unique buildings/districts standout that much more)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 04:11
|
|
|
Is there really value in playing tall in VI? The guides I read all said go wide, which really makes it hard to focus for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 04:25
|
|
|
prom candy posted:Is there really value in playing tall in VI? The guides I read all said go wide, which really makes it hard to focus for me. Like I mentioned above I don't think the "tall / wide" concept has any meaning, because that distinction was predicated on how the happiness mechanics in V worked and your social policy decisions were set. VI is much more flexible in how you're managing your growth from section to section of the game and amenities dont function in the same way. Without getting too detailed about it cos I need to sleep, and have a headache, in a sense to play optimally if you could expand to having more cities you should but you should also be expanding all of them to be bigger in a way thats a lot more involved and based on conditional planning. This gets called playing wide, but I don't think that's helpful or accurate. There's a bunch of specific things that relate to what people call playing tall that can be taken advantage of that I'll try and compile but they're typically certain percentile bonus' or governors. If you want to avoid having to manage ten billion cities I recommend avoiding larger map sizes. Rimusutera fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Sep 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 04:47
|
|
|
prom candy posted:Is there really value in playing tall in VI? The guides I read all said go wide, which really makes it hard to focus for me. There's always value in investing in your cities, so if you want to do that then you're not wrong in doing it. Using governors and wonders to create metropolises is very worthwhile. Civ6 does a good job of making everything useful. You always want more land, more cities, more population, more districts, more resources, more troops, more traders, more allies, etc. You can't have it all, so it's up to you to decide what to prioritize. Expanding your empire is always useful, but so is building districts or chasing golden ages. It's very possible to win the game on high difficulties with only five or six cities, and there's civilizations like Korea or Kongo that are particularly good for that approach. Kaal fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Sep 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 05:40
|
|
|
My problem is that you can win with a handful of cities in VI, but you are just playing with a self-induced handicap. There is no disadvantage at all for having another city, and you can build a large well developed city regardless of how many other cities you have. In Civ V you could have 4-5 cities and go blow-for-blow against another Civ with 20 cities in science and culture. You can set up a one-city win megacity in VI, but you could have done the same thing while still building out an empire with other cities. In V building out actually gave you penalties for your new cities to overcome. I understand why they did what they did with VI, because the optimal strategy in V involved turtling up with a handful of cities which got pretty boring after a while, but I wish they would at least toss in a few more civs focused on tall play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 06:26
|
|
|
Zyklon B Zombie posted:My problem is that you can win with a handful of cities in VI, but you are just playing with a self-induced handicap. There is no disadvantage at all for having another city, and you can build a large well developed city regardless of how many other cities you have. In Civ V you could have 4-5 cities and go blow-for-blow against another Civ with 20 cities in science and culture. You can set up a one-city win megacity in VI, but you could have done the same thing while still building out an empire with other cities. In V building out actually gave you penalties for your new cities to overcome. Isn't Mayan supposed to be a tall civ? That got released pretty recently
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 06:32
|
|
|
Zyklon B Zombie posted:My problem is that you can win with a handful of cities in VI, but you are just playing with a self-induced handicap. There is no disadvantage at all for having another city, and you can build a large well developed city regardless of how many other cities you have. In Civ V you could have 4-5 cities and go blow-for-blow against another Civ with 20 cities in science and culture. You can set up a one-city win megacity in VI, but you could have done the same thing while still building out an empire with other cities. In V building out actually gave you penalties for your new cities to overcome. Yeah, I'm hoping they release more tall civs (and Venice) in the new frontier pack. I remember Ethiopia was kind of made to be tall in V because it had some sort of bonus the fewer cities you had, so I was a little surprised/disappointed that they went almost a totally different direction with Menelik II. A tiny cultural powerhouse civ (maybe Portugal?) would be cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 06:36
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Isn't Mayan supposed to be a tall civ? That got released pretty recently The ideal number of cities for the Maya is 13, whereas the ideal number of cities for all other civilizations is infinity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 06:55
|
|
|
Sid Meier wrote a memoir: Sid Meier's Memoir!: A Life in Computer Games Needless to say, I already bought it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 10:37
|
|
|
Megazver posted:Sid Meier wrote a memoir: I'll wait for the patch that fixes the balance issues 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 10:44
|
|
|
I miss how IV had a mechanic for city corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency based on the city's distance from the capital. I still tend to space out my government plaza away from my capital, and I'm always hesitant to build the Forbidden Palace in my capital because of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 12:46
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Isn't Mayan supposed to be a tall civ? That got released pretty recently Chamale posted:The ideal number of cities for the Maya is 13, whereas the ideal number of cities for all other civilizations is infinity. The ideal number of cities for Maya is also infinity. Their abilities offset the malus on new cities up to a point but then the productive potential of cities continues to outweigh not having any cities at all. One of the huge differences over all between V and VI is that, besides amenities working differently, cities penalize your tech progress in the former. This was a weird way they tried to halt snowballing but it just lead to the whole "tall" thing being optimal anyway. Combined with techs unlocking more traders, traders being able to run internal trade routes to grow cities, and science output being tied to production meant the optimal thing to do literally every GODDAMN game was found 4-5 cities, feed them with internal trade routes and fund wars between the AI to keep them off your back then gun for the victory condition you want. Otherwise you fall behind in science. In VI, trade routes are still powerful but they're tied to districts. And districts are one of a kind per city, and tied to population limits on those cities, and happiness isn't global so founding new cities doesn't harm your over all happiness if you manage the population differences correctly. In this way you can found a bunch of extra cities, throw a harbour up or whatever, an entertainment district to maybe feed it amenities and let its population sit at like 3-4 maybe to get more trade routes to feed your 30 population super cities. You can inturn get the Entertainment district buildings that transmit amenities to neighbouring cities so it feeds excess amenities to other cities like the ones you're making huge because its population is content and it doesn't need anymore. Seriously, what game style is this? Is it tall? Is it wide? Is it a bird? A plane? Rimusutera fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Sep 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
What I miss from Civ 5 was culture separated on different trees (it added variety to the game; on Civ 6 is culture is just another tech tree you are going to research 100%) and ideologies (for the same reason and because it divided late game world like real world cold war); and also the World Congress, which wanst perfect but at least made sense Apart from that (and quotes, but I really dont care much about it), I find Civ 6 better in every way and I cant go back edit: about the tall vs wide: I rarely build more than 6/7 cities, and maybe a couple more late game to get resources. And it works for me edit 2: and is not because Im handicapping myself, if just Im a slow expander and so usually I ran out of space to place cities Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Sep 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
I see that Gathering Storm is on sale for $20. If I buy it am I going to be completely lost?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I see that Gathering Storm is on sale for $20. If I buy it am I going to be completely lost?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 04:03
|
|
|
<places first city right next to a volcano>
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 04:39
|
|
|
The one last thing I will say I dislike about the Civ VI wide-game emphasis is the way the strategic resources are spread out you can get completely screwed if you don't control large swaths of land. 90% of the end game units take oil, and you can't build an airforce without aluminum, so if you don't have either you're stuck with machine guns and modern ATs. I like the implementation in theory, but I have never been able to get any other civ to consistently trade me strategic resources if they will let me have any at all, and usually most of the city-states are wiped out by the end game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 11:09
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:<places first city right next to a volcano> I enjoy playing on the Earth maps like ynaemp etc, but I always edit out Vesuvius. With its 3 tile range and super destruction, the Rome AI can't handle it very well and is too handicapped by it. Zyklon B Zombie posted:The one last thing I will say I dislike about the Civ VI wide-game emphasis is the way the strategic resources are spread out you can get completely screwed if you don't control large swaths of land. 90% of the end game units take oil, and you can't build an airforce without aluminum, so if you don't have either you're stuck with machine guns and modern ATs. I like the implementation in theory, but I have never been able to get any other civ to consistently trade me strategic resources if they will let me have any at all, and usually most of the city-states are wiped out by the end game. I actually like this, as it opens the game up for some modern era oil-based conquest like irl. Another reason why I only play Earth maps, it's fun..
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 11:38
|
|
|
Counterpoint - put a city right next to a volcano. Use the extra food and production to rebuild your city as it is constantly wiped apart. Imagine the volcano erupts and scatters your old population and their tools across the mountainside then send workers to go collect them and grow more!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 13:43
|
|
|
Tom Tucker posted:Counterpoint - put a city right next to a volcano. Use the extra food and production to rebuild your city as it is constantly wiped apart. Imagine the volcano erupts and scatters your old population and their tools across the mountainside then send workers to go collect them and grow more! It's very tedious though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 14:27
|
|
|
Yeah I'll stretch loyalty-wise to settle in the shadow of a volcano. Those yields are too legit to ignore. I also like limited strategic resources. The game needs to goose me a bit to play differently. And strategic resources are often the motivating factor behind settling in the desert and on the poles or going hard after a particular suzerainty. One memorable game I had to constantly fight off Eleanor's loyalty pressure on a marginal city to maintain my only supply of gunpowder. It adds richness and story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 14:56
|
|
|
Also you have a governor who can not protect your city and with secret societies on its super easy to level her up before a single eruption goes off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
Chad Sexington posted:Yeah I'll stretch loyalty-wise to settle in the shadow of a volcano. Those yields are too legit to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
I realized the sale was on Steam, but I got the base game for free from Epic. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:Nah, it's pretty straightforward. Just don't put a city right next to a volcano if you can help it. I would suggest playing a round without any of the modified rules like apocalypse mode to space out your intro to the new mechanics though. Apocalypse mode does not comes with Gathering Storm, its from one of the newer DLCs
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
drat I love naval warfare in this game. Usually I find domination victories to be sort of a slog until airplanes, but with a few decent ships you can absolutely gently caress up a civ's entire coast in less than the ten turns than it would take them to beg you to stop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:drat I love naval warfare in this game. Usually I find domination victories to be sort of a slog until airplanes, but with a few decent ships you can absolutely gently caress up a civ's entire coast in less than the ten turns than it would take them to beg you to stop. I'd love to see pillage change into a late game ability that just damages a tile but has a greater range. I'd love to be able to have those cities that are a bit far inland still feel the effects of naval bombardment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Was going to try that apostle skill to convert barbarians and when I was just 1 hex away a barbarian missile boat popped up and blasted him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:I'd love to see pillage change into a late game ability that just damages a tile but has a greater range. I'd love to be able to have those cities that are a bit far inland still feel the effects of naval bombardment. Airplanes can bomb out improvements, right? I wonder how hard it would be to just grant that ability
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:drat I love naval warfare in this game. Usually I find domination victories to be sort of a slog until airplanes, but with a few decent ships you can absolutely gently caress up a civ's entire coast in less than the ten turns than it would take them to beg you to stop. Norway approves this message.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
Splintered fractal is becoming my favorite map for that reason. I can usually get in one early war where it's fairly fun before wall tech/crossbows is all no fun allowed, and then for everyone else you can transition into a big navy to win the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
Is there like a general war strategy and tactics video or write up? Like how many dudes I need and what kinds, where to place them, etc? Also if someone declares war on me and I don't want to dominate should I go after their cities or just play defense?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 00:39
|
|