it seems like austrailia's production bonus when the target of a war might be super overpowered under the current AI btw; in my current kongo game russia declared war on me like 200 years ago and has never wanted to make peace, even though they stopped sending units a while back
Yeah, the way AI works it will be OP in games for sure. Especially those Civs that are on the other side of the map, declare on you because it's the fashionable thing to do, but then never send a unit or ask for peace 100s of yrs later.
it seems like austrailia's production bonus when the target of a war might be super overpowered under the current AI btw; in my current kongo game russia declared war on me like 200 years ago and has never wanted to make peace, even though they stopped sending units a while back
Seems like it would be hard coded to accept peace if say, no combat has happened in the last 10 turns or something.
Also OP for my play-style, which is to never surrender to the AI if they take something of mine.
I would have appreciated some reference to the indigenous people of the continent. I would also be more excited about AI changes or possibilities for peaceful opponents.
0
Options
KlatuAussie Aussie AussieOi Oi OiRegistered Userregular
I would have appreciated some reference to the indigenous people of the continent. I would also be more excited about AI changes or possibilities for peaceful opponents.
Like Teddy references the indigenous people of his continent? oh, wait....
In all seriousness though, it would have been nice.
I'm surprised the diggers get a bonus off continent seeing as a well known plan of defence of this continent is to cede the top half of it to the invaders and then fight them on our turf.
I am torn on Australia. It means the odds of a Canadian civ later on are good (because they picked fuckng Australia of all places) but also bad (they're never choosing another white english nation whose prime Civ leaders would come from 1920 onwards)
OH WELL. Thanks, Australia. Guess I'll use literally all the mechanics you got, switch your tile preference to fucking TUNDRA, and I've got a Canada?
So much salt.
More seriously, having started to play Civ 5 last summer when it was on sale and lightly prodding at Civ 6 until it becomes a good game in five years, I see absolutely no attachment to any civilization leader. Like, do people really want the same fucking Civ leaders over and over? I understand tradition, but it seems limiting.
I can understand that Persia is a staple of the series, and one of the greatest human empires, but it really doesn't seem more or less essential than any of the hundreds or thousands of cool leaders and eras. They could have the Persia Plateau geography bonuses, and rock Cyrus and Darius with alternate leaders. But I don't want expected leaders or one's whose mechanics I can imagine with ease.
With the advantage of the new leader, continent and nation bonuses I'm interested in them continuing to choose weird, oddball choices I'd never see to really develop and explore.
So now that 2k recognises my country can they recognize my dollar and not list Civ VI for $70 US for no reason?
It's like 83$ in Canada, so no. None of us will ever be happy.
Edit: From reddit's Civ Page, one of the community leads: "Yes. Australia has been scoring consistently high on the list of community-requested civs. I blame /u/TPangolin"
How is trade route duration determined? On shorter routes it seems like 2 round trips, but it doesn't seem like that for longer routes because that would be 100+ turns. Is it something like "2 round trips, OR x turns, whichever is less"?
On that note, what determines age advancement? Just techs or techs + civs? What's the formula in how many you have to discover until the age advances?
(honestly though how was trade route time something that was not included at the start, or at least quickly patched in? Especially when they make you manually renew routes and re-do the road system every age)
How is trade route duration determined? On shorter routes it seems like 2 round trips, but it doesn't seem like that for longer routes because that would be 100+ turns. Is it something like "2 round trips, OR x turns, whichever is less"?
On that note, what determines age advancement? Just techs or techs + civs? What's the formula in how many you have to discover until the age advances?
(honestly though how was trade route time something that was not included at the start, or at least quickly patched in? Especially when they make you manually renew routes and re-do the road system every age)
Tech or civic, whichever one in the next era you get first.
The ages are displayed as vertical bars in the background of both the tech tree and the civic tree.
But it seems like you can't get techs or civics in an era until you advance to that era. Like I've had the prereqs in the tree but I just couldn't choose them. I figured you had to research a certain number in the current era before the next era's were unlocked.
But it seems like you can't get techs or civics in an era until you advance to that era. Like I've had the prereqs in the tree but I just couldn't choose them. I figured you had to research a certain number in the current era before the next era's were unlocked.
If that's true, I don't think that number is more than 1.
An upcoming patch is going to make it so that forming an alliance with another player gives you shared visibility with them.
That type of start is something I've wanted in the main game for a while. Seems a lot of engaging than just ploping downn your settler where you start.
Gennenalyse RuebenThe Prettiest Boy is Ridiculously PrettyRegistered Userregular
edited February 2017
Macedonia, Persia, and Greece all being available in one game would be pretty cool, so I hope that rumor's true. Those three have a lot of history with each other.
Also Alexander the Great would finally be ruling the empire he was heir of. Or maybe we'd actually get his father, Philip II? They've done a pretty good job of changing up the civ leaders so far, so why not?
Man, I still can't deal with barbarians early on. 2 slingers are no match for 5 plus barbarians.
Scout, Warrior, Warrior, Slinger, Slinger is a pretty solid opener when learning the ropes. While it feels slow it gives you a lot of room to breath early on and helps figure out the barb game a lot.
In general fog busting is really important both for preventing scouts from seeing your cap and making it back to their camp to spawn an army, and to make sure there aren't any barb camps near you within 5 tiles of horses.
A side of effect of a large early army is that the increased map vision near your civ means that barb camps are more likely to spawn near your enemies, slowing them down instead!
As I've raised the difficulty, I've found that it's just not worth it to open with a scout. You'll miss out on being the first to meet a lot of city states, but you just can't afford delaying your army. You ARE going to be hit by a neighbor AI, barbarian spawn, or both. Usually before you can even get out a 3rd unit. You're better off skipping the scout opening on Emperor, and anything higher it's mandatory.
Slinger, Slinger, worker (maybe), Slinger has been my go to opening build order at Immortal level. Try to finish archery the instant you get the boost for killing a unit with a slinger, then immediately upgrade all slingers to archers. 3 archers will be plenty to fend off early rushes, plus you'll get the machinery boost.
I never build any melee units (including cavalry) before I have 3 archers. Unfortunately, right now ranged units are so overpowered that it's not worth building melee for anything but capturing cities, so melee is a lot less useful on defense. Don't produce melee until your defense (ranged) is solid. There are some exceptions for civs that get exceptional ancient melee units (Aztecs).
I don't think that's true on emperor. I usually get away with not building a second military unit and until I have at least a second city. And I almost never build a slinger. Just need to keep the warrior close and aggressively clear camps as you find them.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Interesting tease at the end of that video... next DLC will be a double civ pack
edit: rumored to be Macedonia and Persia on reddit
Macedon and Greece being different civs makes a ton of sense the more I think about it. It solves the issue of what to do with the greeks, if you focus on the city states you ignore the importance of Alexander and the spread of Hellenic culture (which had huge knock on effects as far away as India) but if you focus on Alex you lose the importance of the original states on philosophy and governance. This does mean we will probably have 3 Greek flavored civs when Byzantium inevitably gets in, but oh well.
It is funny, I used to skip the scout, then I went back to always getting it, then I went back to skipping it and now I do both approaches evenly! I only play on Deity and haven't really found one approach to be objectively worse then another. I think mostly what it comes down to for me is knowing whether or not I plan on expanding quickly or delaying it a bit and focusing on my capital. Also, it is important to remember that your scouts can fight a little bit, I think of them as half a warrior and use them quite often in engagements for flanking bonuses, fortifying on hills/forests, etc.
If you want an uber capital then you HAVE to get that scout and meet as many city states first as possible, those bonuses are just too good (the closest you can get to the tall early gameplay of 5). If you think you are going to want to aggressively expand then you can definitely skip the scout. You could try and meet as many CS as possible with slingers I suppose, but I find that even missing out on 1 first contact bonus can have a pretty big impact on your snowball.
Edit: On the topic of melee vs ranged. If you have no plans for Great Generals then ranged is usually superior by a large margin, However if you aim to stack GGs then you are really going to want a lot of melee units as they seem to make a lot better use of the extra bonuses. This is true for both SP and MP.
It's not a matter of expanding or not for me, skipping the scout is pure survival mode in all the games I've played. The AI always jumps me with 4-6 units by the time I've only built my first unit. That first unit being a slinger/warrior and I'm still struggling to survive. That first unit being a scout is suicide.
Biggest balance change: "Commercial Hub and Harbor both provide +1 Trade Route capacity, but only the first one applies (used to stack for +2 capacity total)."
The problem is if you're only getting one trade district, you want the commercial one every time. Buildings are better and Great Merchants >>>> Great Admirals.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I think it might be too early to say that for sure. It seems to me that production will be harder to come by now, and harbors give you more of those hard to come by hammers. As far as merchants go, I think you might be under estimating Great Admirals by a large margin. GGs and GAs are some of the best great people to focus on imo, as all the bonuses from others can be made up for by other means. If someone has a handful of admirals and you do not, there isnt a lot you can do to make your navy competitive. Same goes for generals, Great Warlords are basically worth 1-3 eras of army tech depending on how many you are able to stack.
But what if you could beat the AI at sea with 2 frigates?!?! That seems like a rather poor attitude and can honestly be applied to any aspect of the game...
It is not about beating them at sea, its about having another front to capitalize on for minimal effort.
I didn't see this mentioned in this patch notes but maybe I missed it (or maybe it was always the case?). It looks like barbs no longer get a combat bonus per difficulty like the other AI civs' units do been making them a lot easier to deal with.
lol @ harbor nerf. Entertainment district nerf next?
Steel now requires Rifling.
That whole branch was whack. Horseback->rifling->combustion wut??? The idea that combustion technology was completely separate from steam power and did not require it as a prerequisite was nuts. Square rigging is a prereq for steam power and industrialization but steam power not a prereq for combustion engines? wut?
Computers now requires Radio.
Not sure what the point of this is. Anyone pursuing a culture victory is already beelining these two techs. All this change does is make it slightly more complicated for anyone trying to pursue a different victory, so it's an indirect buff to culture victories. That was already the easiest of the victory conditions. I have no clue why they did this.
Corrected tourism calculation from National Parks to ensure correct awarding.
National parks are nearly useless. Huge faith cost, required a huge amount of unused land with tight restrictions, and didn't even offer that much tourism once you finally got them. They're laughable compared to seaside resorts. So while it's nice to see that they're fixing a bug to make parks better, in the larger picture it's another change that's making culture victories easier when it's already the easiest condition. Culture victories do not need buffs! This change would only make sense alongside a nerf to seaside resorts.
I like that you're incentivized to expand; makes games a lot more interesting than those times in 5 where you'd wind up with no borders of any consequence because it didn't make sense to expand past four cities.
I do wish they'd let you remove districts once you place them though; I mean why can't I bulldoze this entertainment district to make room for a national park?
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Posts
Yeah, the way AI works it will be OP in games for sure. Especially those Civs that are on the other side of the map, declare on you because it's the fashionable thing to do, but then never send a unit or ask for peace 100s of yrs later.
I don't think it will be reliably permanent at all.
Seems like it would be hard coded to accept peace if say, no combat has happened in the last 10 turns or something.
Also OP for my play-style, which is to never surrender to the AI if they take something of mine.
Like Teddy references the indigenous people of his continent? oh, wait....
In all seriousness though, it would have been nice.
I'm surprised the diggers get a bonus off continent seeing as a well known plan of defence of this continent is to cede the top half of it to the invaders and then fight them on our turf.
OH WELL. Thanks, Australia. Guess I'll use literally all the mechanics you got, switch your tile preference to fucking TUNDRA, and I've got a Canada?
So much salt.
More seriously, having started to play Civ 5 last summer when it was on sale and lightly prodding at Civ 6 until it becomes a good game in five years, I see absolutely no attachment to any civilization leader. Like, do people really want the same fucking Civ leaders over and over? I understand tradition, but it seems limiting.
I can understand that Persia is a staple of the series, and one of the greatest human empires, but it really doesn't seem more or less essential than any of the hundreds or thousands of cool leaders and eras. They could have the Persia Plateau geography bonuses, and rock Cyrus and Darius with alternate leaders. But I don't want expected leaders or one's whose mechanics I can imagine with ease.
With the advantage of the new leader, continent and nation bonuses I'm interested in them continuing to choose weird, oddball choices I'd never see to really develop and explore.
It's like 83$ in Canada, so no. None of us will ever be happy.
Edit: From reddit's Civ Page, one of the community leads: "Yes. Australia has been scoring consistently high on the list of community-requested civs. I blame /u/TPangolin"
via: https://www.reddit.com/user/FXS_PeteMurray
On that note, what determines age advancement? Just techs or techs + civs? What's the formula in how many you have to discover until the age advances?
(honestly though how was trade route time something that was not included at the start, or at least quickly patched in? Especially when they make you manually renew routes and re-do the road system every age)
Tech or civic, whichever one in the next era you get first.
The ages are displayed as vertical bars in the background of both the tech tree and the civic tree.
If that's true, I don't think that number is more than 1.
An upcoming patch is going to make it so that forming an alliance with another player gives you shared visibility with them.
That type of start is something I've wanted in the main game for a while. Seems a lot of engaging than just ploping downn your settler where you start.
edit: rumored to be Macedonia and Persia on reddit
Also Alexander the Great would finally be ruling the empire he was heir of. Or maybe we'd actually get his father, Philip II? They've done a pretty good job of changing up the civ leaders so far, so why not?
Scout, Warrior, Warrior, Slinger, Slinger is a pretty solid opener when learning the ropes. While it feels slow it gives you a lot of room to breath early on and helps figure out the barb game a lot.
In general fog busting is really important both for preventing scouts from seeing your cap and making it back to their camp to spawn an army, and to make sure there aren't any barb camps near you within 5 tiles of horses.
A side of effect of a large early army is that the increased map vision near your civ means that barb camps are more likely to spawn near your enemies, slowing them down instead!
Slinger, Slinger, worker (maybe), Slinger has been my go to opening build order at Immortal level. Try to finish archery the instant you get the boost for killing a unit with a slinger, then immediately upgrade all slingers to archers. 3 archers will be plenty to fend off early rushes, plus you'll get the machinery boost.
I never build any melee units (including cavalry) before I have 3 archers. Unfortunately, right now ranged units are so overpowered that it's not worth building melee for anything but capturing cities, so melee is a lot less useful on defense. Don't produce melee until your defense (ranged) is solid. There are some exceptions for civs that get exceptional ancient melee units (Aztecs).
Macedon and Greece being different civs makes a ton of sense the more I think about it. It solves the issue of what to do with the greeks, if you focus on the city states you ignore the importance of Alexander and the spread of Hellenic culture (which had huge knock on effects as far away as India) but if you focus on Alex you lose the importance of the original states on philosophy and governance. This does mean we will probably have 3 Greek flavored civs when Byzantium inevitably gets in, but oh well.
If you want an uber capital then you HAVE to get that scout and meet as many city states first as possible, those bonuses are just too good (the closest you can get to the tall early gameplay of 5). If you think you are going to want to aggressively expand then you can definitely skip the scout. You could try and meet as many CS as possible with slingers I suppose, but I find that even missing out on 1 first contact bonus can have a pretty big impact on your snowball.
Edit: On the topic of melee vs ranged. If you have no plans for Great Generals then ranged is usually superior by a large margin, However if you aim to stack GGs then you are really going to want a lot of melee units as they seem to make a lot better use of the extra bonuses. This is true for both SP and MP.
Steam Workshop! Mod tools, but no DLL source yet.
Biggest balance change: "Commercial Hub and Harbor both provide +1 Trade Route capacity, but only the first one applies (used to stack for +2 capacity total)."
It is not about beating them at sea, its about having another front to capitalize on for minimal effort.
:tell_me_more:
*quietly uninstalls Civ*
He's going to lose his shit when I look to settle where he should have.
Don't do that, build a bigger fleet instead.
That whole branch was whack. Horseback->rifling->combustion wut??? The idea that combustion technology was completely separate from steam power and did not require it as a prerequisite was nuts. Square rigging is a prereq for steam power and industrialization but steam power not a prereq for combustion engines? wut?
Not sure what the point of this is. Anyone pursuing a culture victory is already beelining these two techs. All this change does is make it slightly more complicated for anyone trying to pursue a different victory, so it's an indirect buff to culture victories. That was already the easiest of the victory conditions. I have no clue why they did this.
National parks are nearly useless. Huge faith cost, required a huge amount of unused land with tight restrictions, and didn't even offer that much tourism once you finally got them. They're laughable compared to seaside resorts. So while it's nice to see that they're fixing a bug to make parks better, in the larger picture it's another change that's making culture victories easier when it's already the easiest condition. Culture victories do not need buffs! This change would only make sense alongside a nerf to seaside resorts.
I do wish they'd let you remove districts once you place them though; I mean why can't I bulldoze this entertainment district to make room for a national park?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget