|
The Human Crouton posted:Also, I'm sick of AIs never accepting reasonable trade for luxuries in the early game, but then coming to me every other turn for my silks in the late game and offering me 3 gold because they hate me. Maybe give the AIs a giant and temporary positive modifier toward players that have luxuries they want when their amenities get low. maybe they could just accept a 1:1 deal even with people they hate if they're trading for something they really want also the ai probably shouldn't be initiating trade offers if they're not willing to offer something close to fair value
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
As far as I can tell the AI already does value luxuries based on need. If I have a lot of spare luxuries it often happens that I can sell the first few for all the AI's gold, and then a few turns later when they've got more money they'll barely pay anything. Conversely, I've seen AIs rapidly ramp up their bids out of the blue even while their attitude is spiraling downwards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:As far as I can tell the AI already does value luxuries based on need. If I have a lot of spare luxuries it often happens that I can sell the first few for all the AI's gold, and then a few turns later when they've got more money they'll barely pay anything. Conversely, I've seen AIs rapidly ramp up their bids out of the blue even while their attitude is spiraling downwards. I've noticed in one game in particular Robert the Bruce was willing to trade well for luxuries despite lukewarm relations, though I don't know if it was because he was unhappy or if he's specifically programmed to do so because of Scotland's bonuses. Would be interesting to verify.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Back in Civ IV, there was a memorable game for me when I played on a Terra map and by the time I made it to the new world, there was an entire barbarian civilization - cities, roads, improvements, the works. I would like to see something a bit more of this nature in the game somehow - maybe a hierarchy where Barbarians on their own long enough can found cities and become Free Cities, and clusters of Free Cities left alone long enough can pull together into a new full civilization.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
back in Civ II it was possible for a civilization to split into two civilizations. I think I only saw it happen once or twice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Myssu posted:Back in Civ IV, there was a memorable game for me when I played on a Terra map and by the time I made it to the new world, there was an entire barbarian civilization - cities, roads, improvements, the works. I would like to see something a bit more of this nature in the game somehow - maybe a hierarchy where Barbarians on their own long enough can found cities and become Free Cities, and clusters of Free Cities left alone long enough can pull together into a new full civilization. the Revolutions mod for civ 4 does that, p much impossible for 5 or 6 iirc
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
In my last game Robert the Bruce wanted me to join his book club. Every 5 turns he offered to trade one of his works of literature for one of mine, usually the one I just got from him in the last trade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
korea is loving sick if you spam seowons everywhere i'm about to launch satellites and three cives are still crawling into the medieval era
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
I have noticed lately that civs really want great works of writing. They offer me everything short of a city for a book. I still say no because I don't want to give them the culture/tourism, but still. Huge uptick in that happening post DLC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:the Revolutions mod for civ 4 does that, p much impossible for 5 or 6 iirc iirc civ 4 does this normally as well. if your cities on a separate landmass have serially low happiness, the game will prompt you to grant them independence, and they'll spontaneously form a nation with permanent alliance levels of positive opinion
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:iirc civ 4 does this normally as well. if your cities on a separate landmass have serially low happiness, the game will prompt you to grant them independence, and they'll spontaneously form a nation with permanent alliance levels of positive opinion Only if you have vassal states enabled. And it was more voluntary since you had to confirm allowing them to split off. It was supposed to be a "colonial" mechanic as the newly-created empire would be a vassal of your empire. It was one of the many misguided features introduced in Beyond the Sword.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:korea is loving sick if you spam seowons everywhere Korea is total bullshit right now. This happened to me but in reverse; they were about to win a science victory in the modern era, and this is them controlled by the AI on King And no I couldn't just stomp them out because they were on the other side of the planet and by the time I was even in a position to project power that far they were already an era ahead of everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:iirc civ 4 does this normally as well. if your cities on a separate landmass have serially low happiness, the game will prompt you to grant them independence, and they'll spontaneously form a nation with permanent alliance levels of positive opinion happiness was fine, what you'd get if you had vassal states on is really high overseas maintenance, scaling with how many cities/pops you had on the landmass. you could avoid this by building your forbidden palace, versaille, or moving your palace over to that continent. or just alt-f1 to release them, but this was never optimal play. Fojar38 posted:Korea is total bullshit right now. i've been having some bad experiences with their hwachas. field cannons at gunpowder? these loving things beat my impi corps in a straight fight and get a great ranged attack on top. very spicy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Korea can be really hit-or-miss. They need a lot of hills, which are already one of the most important things to have in Civ 6, so a bad region with no hills is agonizing for them and a good region with lots of hills is utterly gamebreaking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Anyone else have great luck as the Netherlands? Every time I play as them I get an awesome start filled with hills, rivers, and a protective mountain range. I never have anywhere to build polders, but I'm getting great industrial districts and enough production to build a few quick UUs to take every coastal city.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
Polders are a bit too strict. I had a nice fractal map for a Netherlands go once but still only managed four by time I had already expanded to 8 cities, all coastal. There is a workshop mod to change the req to allow hills to not count against the polder, which I hope they tweak officially.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:Korea can be really hit-or-miss. They need a lot of hills, which are already one of the most important things to have in Civ 6, so a bad region with no hills is agonizing for them and a good region with lots of hills is utterly gamebreaking. Why are hills so good generally in Civ 6? Just for the mines since production is a lot more important in Civ 6 than in 5?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
The Korean campus needs to be built on a Hill, and hills adjacent to the Seowon provide +1 science. So it's just a ton of free science on production tiles, in addition to the Seowon already being worth +4 for being constructed. Otherwise yes, hills are incredibly good production boosts with mines, and the adjacent mines boosts the Industrial District output (more production!) as well, so hills are awesome as a result.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Why are hills so good generally in Civ 6? Just for the mines since production is a lot more important in Civ 6 than in 5? they're +1 yield. in previous civs they were generally 1/1 or 0/2, but in 6 you get 2/1 grass hills and 1/2 plains hills. detract 2 food for the citizen working the tile and you can see that around midgame the tile is something like 50-100% better than a flatland tile - eg a 2/3 grassland mine with apprenticeship generates a 3 cog surplus, while a flatland tile will get you 4/0 food in a feudalism triangle for a +2 surplus. Prav fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Feb 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Why are hills so good generally in Civ 6? Just for the mines since production is a lot more important in Civ 6 than in 5? 1. They're an extra yield over the base terrain 2. Mines scale up very quickly and very well 3. Mines pump up industrial zone adjacency bonuses So, overall, hills make for better yields than most terrain. And on top of that, it's all production and production is amazing. Korea is super extra hungry for hills, though, because they have to put their special campus district on a hill. Which means that even if you have a couple hills, building a seowon eats one of your most important production tiles in a low-production city. And by itself, the seowon isn't super amazing, it really needs to have more hills for the mine bonus to amount to anything special. But you can't stick your industrial zone which also wants mines next to it without sabotaging the yield on the seowon. onesixtwo posted:Polders are a bit too strict. I had a nice fractal map for a Netherlands go once but still only managed four by time I had already expanded to 8 cities, all coastal. There is a workshop mod to change the req to allow hills to not count against the polder, which I hope they tweak officially. I actually like polders  They're really limited but really strong, which makes finding good polder spots exciting. Way more interesting than weak spammable improvements.Overall I think the Netherlands is one of the better designed civs, it's a nice well-rounded package that feels very rewarding without being overpowered. Civ design feels like a bit of a step backwards from 5 overall so when they get it right it feels really good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 01:52
|
|
|
i think that 3 land tiles, of which 2 have to be flat would've been a better restriction. it's entirely possible to play through half the game as the dutch without building a single polder
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Had a weird experience on King. Early game lots of civilizations conquered city states, traded cities, etc., but I was running away with it because it was king difficulty. Later in the game Zulu and Gilgamesh both declared war on me from another continent and I rolled up with three battleships and an ironclad and found Sumeria completely undefended. Not a single military unit to be found in his entire empire. What could have caused this? I know he HAD units because I liberated two city states and took some of Netherland's old cities, could he have sent them halfway across the map? Over about 30 turns I never saw one. Had my first emergency, though, for everyone to reclaim one of Gilgamesh's cities, which he didn't join amusingly. I think he knew he was boned. Also I saw a city state who was ENTIRELY locked into mountains. Hadn't seen that before either. The cree are super fun - spamming a bunch of settlers early game then prioritizing trade routes is a blast if you can criss-cross them right to fill in massive amounts of land, and their UI is very good and scales well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:Korea can be really hit-or-miss. They need a lot of hills, which are already one of the most important things to have in Civ 6, so a bad region with no hills is agonizing for them and a good region with lots of hills is utterly gamebreaking. yeah this is dumb as hell, i'm just clicking along to a science victory. i'm in the information age, the second most advanced civ juuuust got to industrial. everyone hates me and is attacking me but i barely notice their idiot crossbows dying in heaps to my rocket artillery
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
Being more scientifically advanced is fun a couple times but generally works out to be as much fun as picking on kids at the Special Olympics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 09:32
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Korea is total bullshit right now. This happened to me but in reverse; they were about to win a science victory in the modern era, and this is them controlled by the AI on King
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 12:29
|
|
|
The fundamental reason that hills are important is that food is useless, while production is essential for every victory condition. By placing such strict housing caps on cities most cities will hit the housing cap without needing any bonus food. Thus, food can be entirely ignored, unlike in Civ 5.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
So does that mean that things that increase housing are more important than things that give you extra food? There is a pantheon where shrines and temples provide food and another one where temples provides a housing bonus. I have also found out that you should replace farms with neighbourhoods.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
Yes, Religious Community is a pretty good belief if you're doing a religious game, as it helps you fit more people into your cities and makes the holy site nearly pay for itself in the housing it provides, as every three population you add to a city allows it to build another specialty district and it provides two if you build a shrine and temple there. It's not my favorite follower belief, but it's always a good one unless you're not going to be building many holy sites. Feed the World, meanwhile, is... Bad. Don't take it. It'll never be worth it. (Choral Music, which provides culture from holy site buildings the same way Feed the World does food, is great, though, since it lets you get good culture income without making theater squares.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
feed the world and gurdwaras is hilarious as russia on an inland sea map. you can squeeze in a lot of cities in those corners. not like you'll need the culture from choral music anyway
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
So the whole food = pop = science = win isn't what it used to be? And what's the rationale for converting farms into neighborhoods?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
And since the last patch this month, citizens provide even less science than before. As for replacing farms, all I know is that my cities started to grow again when replacing them with neighbourhoods.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
That's a big shift in mindset for me, then, to switch back to production is king. This is also why I'm still a King only player. I'm starting to win handily on King though. Maybe it's time to bump it up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Food is still fairly important, up to a point, as cities do need citizens to produce much. You can't totally ignore it. It's not food is king like in IV/V though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:Food is still fairly important, up to a point, as cities do need citizens to produce much. You can't totally ignore it. It's not food is king like in IV/V though. Most of your cities (that aren't your capital) will not go over pop 12, though, and you can reach that with pretty much no farms or bonus food resources. Worst case scenario you have to add an internal trade route from the city to hit the housing cap. But I haven't done the exact math. I'm just working off of memory here. The key point is that production is king.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
Are internal trade routes not the best anymore either then? I've been throwing Magnus into my capital with the food bonus promotion and running trade routes internally from all my cities to my capital. I don't think I've ever done an international trade route.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:Food is still fairly important, up to a point, as cities do need citizens to produce much. You can't totally ignore it. It's not food is king like in IV/V though. i had a start last game where my capitol was all plains, with no room for farm triangles due to hills, and my best food resource was a citrus even considering the plains hill forest deer, it kinda sucked. my cap topped out at size 6
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
CompeAnansi posted:Most of your cities (that aren't your capital) will not go over pop 12, though, and you can reach that with pretty much no farms or bonus food resources. Worst case scenario you have to add an internal trade route from the city to hit the housing cap. But I haven't done the exact math. I'm just working off of memory here. The key point is that production is king. It's true that production is king, but I was playing a game as Saladin that started in a mountainous area with lots of plains hills, very little flatland that wasn't desert and no flood plains and struggled to get my capital over size 7~8. Now you don't really need more than that if you can spread out and it was still a useful city, but I had more powerful cities in my empire because they could grow more. Fhqwhgads posted:Are internal trade routes not the best anymore either then? I've been throwing Magnus into my capital with the food bonus promotion and running trade routes internally from all my cities to my capital. I don't think I've ever done an international trade route. Depends on how much you need gold. And later on there are policies that give trade routes to allies about as much food/production as you get from most internal trade routes. It really depends, I'd say if I had no allies I'd probably keep most trade routes internal with some going external for some gold, but if I have an ally I'm going to run Wisselbanken for +2 food/production to ally trade routes and pick whichever Civ I have a research alliance with so I can get food/production on top of whatever gold and the +3/4 science trade routes. My trade route priorities change a lot throughout the game. Early on a lot of the time I run trade routes carefully to build roads where I want (but then I play with the 8 Ages of Pace mod which makes roads generally more useful as a speed boost), and transition to powerful internal and then again to powerful international once I have an ally and Wisselbanken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
I try to do an internal route or two originating from a new city whenever possible, if the timing lines up. The +food and +production from internal routes makes the first few pop / district get completed a lot sooner. Magil has the rest of it. Depends what you need at that time really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:Food is still fairly important, up to a point, as cities do need citizens to produce much. You can't totally ignore it. It's not food is king like in IV/V though. Yeah. My region in my current game is about 80% plains (well, the parts that aren't tundra or desert) and you can definitely feel it when you don't have enough food. I've got some really high production spots that have only been so-so for me and some really high food spots that have turned out amazing even with only like 3 hills. But then I've got a grassland hills city with hardly any farms that effortlessly blows them all out of the water. And there's a much shittier city in the hilly grassland region that flipped to me around turn 150 and even with me neglecting it and it having cramped borders it's started to overtake some of my core cities within 50-60 turns. But yeah, overall production is more important, in part because you can optimize it so much better than you can with food (at least until Replaceable Parts, which comes too late to do much good--even with a pile of +6 and +7 food tiles it takes time to grow and there's not a lot of time left at that stage of the game.) Mined plains hills are going to be reach 1F/4P very early medieval and 1F/5P very early industrial, and ones that are next to an industrial zone are effectively worth +1-2 extra production depending on your policy cards; just getting a farmed plain to 3F/1P requires 3 times as many builder charges and really tight positioning. Considering how stingy food bonuses are I definitely think they took the wrong lesson from Civ 5: food was king in Civ 5 because population was the main driver of science, the same way that commerce was king in Civ 1-4 because commerce was the main driver of science. In Civ 6 buildings are the main driver of science and--surprise!--now production is king. Magil Zeal posted:Depends on how much you need gold. And later on there are policies that give trade routes to allies about as much food/production as you get from most internal trade routes. It really depends, I'd say if I had no allies I'd probably keep most trade routes internal with some going external for some gold, but if I have an ally I'm going to run Wisselbanken for +2 food/production to ally trade routes and pick whichever Civ I have a research alliance with so I can get food/production on top of whatever gold and the +3/4 science trade routes. Yeah, pre-R&F I still leaned mostly on internal routes just for the production. Now between Wisselbanken and the trade-centric golden era dedication I'm going full international trade routes by midgame. the holy poopacy fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Feb 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:It's true that production is king, but I was playing a game as Saladin that started in a mountainous area with lots of plains hills, very little flatland that wasn't desert and no flood plains and struggled to get my capital over size 7~8. Now you don't really need more than that if you can spread out and it was still a useful city, but I had more powerful cities in my empire because they could grow more. Fair enough. I went back and checked a bunch of my old saves and my games where my cities hit 9-12 effortlessly without bonus food are all games where I had tons of grassland hills. If you have a ton of plains hills, then you do have to focus on food a bit to hit pop 10.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 16:53
|
|