|
One of the things that gets over looked for flashy big beakers numbers in a science game is decent production bonus'. You want someone that can hammer out the stuff you're unlocking and also contribute production to space projects in the end game. Its not just spamming campus'. Population can and often is a huge source of science in general especially when you struggle to have good campus'. Korea just gets easy mode +4 Campus' so its the go to in everyones mind, and they're actually kind nerfed in Gathering Storm realtive to other Civs since there's so many extra ways to get Campus adjacency on the map now, such as reefs & geothermals. Still a solid enough pick but can warp your expectations. Germany is another powerful civ that can get underappreciated as a Science civ because of its unique Industrial Zones and extra district slots. Australia also happens to have a bunch of production bonus' and another source of good campus yields. Japan has some interesting ways to get adjacency from packing districts close together, and Arabia supplements its science game with a religion focused approach. The new Gauls Civ is also a sleeper on the science game, with huge production capacity and ways to get Campus adjacency from mines. Rimusutera fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Oct 27, 2020 |
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Rimusutera is absolutely right. Korea’s +4 also assumes you can put it on a hill adjacent to no other district, so it often ends up only being a +3 a lot of the time. Three other sleeper powers on science: Indonesia starts on the coast, and coast spaces provide .5 adjacency bonuses to the Campus and the Industrial Center. Likewise, reefs give +2 adjacency for Campuses, so a +3 Campus isn’t hard to get. Inca starts in mountains, meaning it’s not too hard to get a good campus going, and terrace farms will have both production and population running high. Brazil starts in jungles, and gets +1 science adjacency for jungles, meaning good +3/4 campuses aren’t that hard. More importantly, they get cheaper Great People, and Great Scientists will help your science production and later ones give bonuses for Space Project completion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
I was going to mention Australia too; they get a big boost to adjacency in breathtaking hexes, so if you find a spot next to 3 mountains, you're usually looking at +6 science campus spots easily. Doesn't take much to get a crazy headstart that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 09:34
|
|
|
You only need a +3 campus to get the ridiculous +50% from rationalism. Higher is just a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 12:51
|
|
|
Across my last several games I think I may have noticed a glitch. When negotiating peace, demand every one of your opponents’ cities you can without triggering outright refusal (I.e. ‘what would it take?’ Needs to remain an option). They still refuse, but once I click ‘What would it take?’ They switch to accepting the deal without any further alterations. Has this happened to anyone else? Is the AI just more willing to cede cities than before, particularly when they’ve been defeated militarily?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 13:29
|
|
|
The update totally broke my amazing Rome game I had going  Getting "EXCEPTION_ACCESS-VIOLATION 0X40" crash whenever I click on Ottomans or when it tries to process his turn. Super super lame. Hopefully its fixed at some point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
this game-pass has been horrible in that regard if you play with mods every patch you roll the dice on how long you have to wait to actually play, and then in a few weeks the next big patch rolls around
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 09:45
|
|
|
I'm fairly certain my fastest science win was with Australia. Not saying it's the fastest way to get there, but it has some ridiculous bonuses that boost both early science and eliminate a lot of early housing concerns. It really allows you to focus on rapid expansion until it's time to grind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 11:08
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:this game-pass has been horrible in that regard if you play with mods I hate the season pass release model for Civ DLC that adds/modifies game modes for this reason. Myself and my partner find the game incredibly cumbersome without CQUI (so good- cuts the number of clicks required to do anything by like... 75%) and the Global Relations mod, and we're having trouble completing games before they're broken by whatever season pass update comes out. If they must do piecemeal DLC, I'd really rather they reserve gameplay additions to major expansions and just release new Civs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
You could turn off auto-update and only update after a current game is done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
That happened to me a bunch with Skyrim. Be right in the middle of a game full of mods, new small update would drop and break SKSE. I'm still bad about turning off auto updates for games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 18:13
|
|
|
 From over on the Civ Reddit, Looks like the DLC pack went up early on the Switch store briefly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
Another science civ? Oh geez.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
Do any of you play multiplayer with groups? If so, how do they usually play out pacing and balance wise? I recently got my boardgame group into Civ 6 and were planning our first 5 player game this weekend. We are a fairly competitive and hardcore gaming group(we play Twilight Imperium 4 regularly). We really enjoy the balance in TI4 between turtling and agression, and the meta that game can create so we really want to try and mimic that balance as much as possible. Our plan is a 5 player no AI game with score system in place to make it a bit more directly competitive. Any recommendations on map size for 5 if we want to keep it competitive but not have it be outright close proximiyy constant war? How often does it come down to score vs victory condition, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
I have never personally organized a game involving >2 people that lasted more than 2 sessions.  But if you want a game that's competitive without immediate warfare, I'd suggest playing on a map 1 size larger than the intended player count. 6 players on a standard size map. Early war is strongly driven by land claims and border establishment, and that will give you more breathing room. Dynamic turns could be a huge slog, but are the most fair option. Alternatively, play simultaneous turns and follow the 'gentleman's rule'- the aggressor moves military units first, then the defender. As for what victory type is most common... That comes down to your skill level. To be frank, a score victory should be very rare among a group of human players. It would take a pretty bad map and sloggy back-and-forth war for no one to score a science victory I figure. The earliest achievable wins are religion/domination wins maybe?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
I have through sheer persistence managed to keep a small crew of games, with sessions running with 4-6 people out of a bigger pool of closer to 10 just based on whose available. We've had some games never finish but managed a few conclusions! In general, in Civ 6 multiplayer, war is the way to go and to end games, even counting defensive ones when you're protecting your other win con which in optimal terms is also science since those correlate with having a military advantage. If people are being pacifistic and not competitive they'll try other victory conditions like culture or religion but if your friends are good with being cut throat I can't see why war is a bad approach and it'll probably end games sooner. I think sticking things close to the appropriate map size for the recommended number of players is best in general, you tend to have more than enough room on a small map with 6 people for example, especially if you go for continents or pangea. Avoiding war through map size just makes snowballing easier and the wars that happen to stop it much more of a slog in my experience so that may be a matter of taste. The people I play with tend to not be too competitive and I try to play softball with less experienced people, taking weaker Civs and playing not to strengths/optimal strats, till people catch up a bit better so we end up with surprise culture wins and stuff like that. Rimusutera fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Nov 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
PoizenJam posted:I have never personally organized a game involving >2 people that lasted more than 2 sessions. Thanks! Do they not last for you because people lose interest or someone dominates and who is winning becomes obvious fast? Luckily my group is fairly dedicated to long competitive games so Im not afraid we wont finish. Our TI4 games take 12+ hours, our longest being 16 hours straight. We played from 10am until about 2am lol We will most likely play simultaneous turns for pacing w/gentlemans agreement wrt war. Maybe dynamic when some of our players are more experienced, theyre quite fresh to the glory of civ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
In regards to dynamic vs simultaneous turns in war, Dynamic is the old hybrid from civ 5 right? Simultaneous and then whoevers at war goes one at a time? What determines who goes first in a 3+ player war? In a two player war is it agressor first? I know if someones the agressor and they have a fairly large army they could quite easily destroy someones defense before they even have a chance to react on their turn. My idea is to have simultaneous gentlemens agreement but do it per unit so one person moves/attacks with one unit, then the other responds, etc. This way it might make war a bit more balanced or maybe not? That way someone who is on the weaker end can at least get some hits in and move units in or out before an obvious military advantage from an agressor overwhelms them. Or is that just setting it up to drag out war needlessly? I feel like this could set up some more clever strategy possibilities what units are used and moved. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Nov 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
I'm fairly certain dynamic is similar to Hybrid from V, and the player who declares war gets first go in the turn order for the turn war is declared. If I recall correctly it might afterwards revert to player order. My take on what you're proposing alternatively is that it seems like chasing 'forcing people to be more clever' and intentionally ruling out a military strategy through personal ruling that seems unnecessary to me. If a player has a numerical advantage they have a numerical advantage and shouldn't, in my view, be hamstringed for this. I think there's a narrow situation where that first strike is going to be decimating against someone unprepared, but there's ways to be on your toes and avoid this happening and already clever maneuvering and tactics to employ, and forced one unit at a time is just going to be extra tedious and long. If that floats your crews boat I'm not the person to tell you not to do it, but I think its worth noting these effects. Dynamic turns as is at least stops people who are good at clicking fast / have a faster computer from turning the game into Starcraft though. This is partly what I mean above about competitive multiplayer shifting a lot of things to war regardless of how hard you want it not to, though. You dont want to waste production on things that don't help you protect yourself and project power and that weakens the viability of cultural strategies though they can still exist as a back up cultural production is used to pick up Corps / Armies early. As I'm typing this it dawns on me that honestly, if one is inclined and has the sort've dedicated crew to do it, house ruling a system of honor to approaching causus belli/grievences/conquest limits and how/when war is declared vis a vis those things thats adhered to harder than the mechanics of the game enforce themselves in multiplayer might actually be more fruitful towards 'nerfing' warfare as a strategy in Civ 6, if more prepwork. Would maybe lead to more fun roleplay too. That's my weird 2 cents at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
I also have completely forgotten that defending units still get to hit on defense so my entire combat balance problem is moot. 2000 hours logged between 5 and 6 and totally brainfarted that lol Thanks everyone
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:Thanks! Do they not last for you because people lose interest or someone dominates and who is winning becomes obvious fast? One thing I'd be curious to know about if your group plays is the degree to which the first person to win a war decisively has an advantage for the rest of the game. My suspicion is that in a setup that discourages very early war with a larger map that if one player is able to use the first war to take out a player completely or even just get a large share of their empire and hold it, that they'll have a decisive advantage due to the sheer city/resource/population imbalance. And, I should point out, I mean the ultimate winner in a war, not necessarily the initial aggressor. A scenario like "Alice attacks Bob and starts winning, Bob appeals to Charlie for help, Charlie agrees and decisively beats Bob, taking some or all of Alice's cities" is what I mean. Depending on how initial positions are set, Charlie could, in that scenario, then turn on Bob without the other two players being able to intervene in a timely manner, and with the effective might of three of the five players, run away with either a science or a domination victory. I'd be curious to know if informal honor systems are enough to keep a snowball from happening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
We have a fairly deep existing meta in our group that carriers over between games and a pretty established dynamic in strategy games that Im hoping flourishes in Civ. We like aggression as a precise strategy or response to a lead, but naked aggression without purpose and justifiable motivation is pretty frowned on in strategy games with a military element. Thats why we want the point system to keep victory condition leads in check, but with motivation. If someones got a huge lead in science, youll probably see players conspiring to declare war to take a city with high science output or to pillage their campuses. But they also get some points out of it via control of the city so theres something to be immediately gained...and maybe that point lead will start getting other players contemplating war now. Declaring war on someone for settling a superfluous city too close or say they have a strategic resource you would like but dont have access to and they arent trading fairly for, those are understandable motivations for war we think. Especially in the late game with espionage going, war because someone will not stop siphoning funds or sabotaging your dams? Have at it. Domination victory will probably be enabled but strongly frowned upon unless as a response to other victorys or a later game path. At least until our newer players understand the game more. We want war to mean something beyond pure dominance, but also leave it open to a victory if its realistically acheivable without completely neuturing people early game. Eliminating anyone is strictly off the table. Youre never allowed to take their last city. Thats also the beauty of civs many options for gameplay, Im sure wed all enjoy a small map domination only game down the line, but were trying to get a standard game balance and flow going that makes room for fun RPG esque-storytelling but with the deep strategy of civ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
That sounds really fun. I'd also be curious how you all balance science/culture/religion victories in that. I honestly can't see games ending up decided on points, though a series of relatively peaceful empires sparring over city states while each working towards a specific peaceful victory would be interesting as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
Yeah, I cant see anyone winning via points unless a serious stalemate happens and its just bumper cars with cities until the timer runs out. I have never ever played a point system in Civ and Ive never really understood the point with the other conditions on but after seeing how the value between war and peace is balanced and measured in TI4, I can see how the point system in Civ can encourage war without domination. Youre not necessarily playing for points, but using it as a barometer beyond the obvious VC counter. I've read a lot about peoples issues with how multiplayer tends to play out in Civ 6 so Im hoping there's a way to balance out a more dynamic game that civ seems to be designed for but often through the mathematical nature of 4X games, doesnt really happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 02:46
|
|
|
New DLC update Heroes sound very cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
Sound dope! Was that dude’s beard troubling anyone else, or just me?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Looks like Babylon has some sort of "kill units to grab eurekas" mechanic. Looking forward to the great people and the new heroes mode, and you can get a glimpse of heroes A-M. Seems like they're all pre-medieval, which makes sense since it's about legendary heroes, but I think it might have been cool to include a few slightly more modern folk heroes or larger than life sorts. Like, I could imagine John Henry as a hero who builds railroads and mountain tunnels without coal before the era where they'd normally be available, that'd be pretty cool
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
The game needs John Brown. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Looks like Babylon has some sort of "kill units to grab eurekas" mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
Eimi posted:The game needs John Brown. Been naming my first promoted scout this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
I love me some Babylon so that's cool (though yay yet another Science civ I guess) Heroes & Legends sounds great though, new civs are always fun but honestly one of my biggest faves from this pass has been the new modes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
I think its actually pretty rad they went out of their way to hype up the non-western familiar heroes they're bringing in. Some of those sound pretty awesome abilities wise too. Feel like modern heroes wouldn't fit conceptually with this though. I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
Wow Heroes and Legends looks awesome. I have yet to pull the trigger on New Frontier Pass but looks like Ill be picking it up finally!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
I totally would've preferred Himeko as an alt Japan leader, just cause my dream is one day to have a leader of each gender for every civ if possible, but I get that she's not strongly attested to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
On the other hand, this is the game that has leaders like Dido and Gilgamesh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
Sumeria should definitely get a unique UU for this mode that just ditches the war cart and instead gets a Gilgamesh/Enkidu hero.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Sumeria should definitely get a unique UU for this mode that just ditches the war cart and instead gets a Gilgamesh/Enkidu hero. So what you're telling me is this is a long con to make the game an official Fate/Stay Night 4x. Well done. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
Civ is going to be so so broken with the addition of heros. Glorious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
ded posted:Civ is going to be so so broken with the addition of heros. Glorious. yeah, all the new official modes turn it into Action Civ Extreme Meteors! Vampires! Super Ages! Heroes!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 10:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Looks like they're great people on steroids, with a limited amount of uses still? Looks awesome, though first hearing "hero" I thought back to Civ 4 Fall from Heaven, which was some of the most fun I've had in the entire 30 year series
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 11:33
|
|
