On September 22 2016 00:12 andrewlt wrote: That's true. In my warmonger games, I do most of my fighting in the medieval to industrial era, maybe spilling a bit into WW1 era. I only start fighting earlier than the medieval era if the UU is powerful enough. I'm not fond of airplane UUs either. So I do end up playing civs that have strong medieval to industrial era UUs.
Airplane UUs tend to suck, but my warmonger games do tend to draw out into the modern era (barring some ridiculous Ghengis conquest that just overruns everybody), so planes in general are pretty great
Ehhh I usually fight when I get composite bowmen and later on trebs, stop at Enlightment era or so. Some games are peaceful and I don't really need bash skulls in and can go full science. But there are... sometimes these retarded AIs that think I am an easy target since I haven't upgraded my Crossbowmen into gatling guns before them. And they invade. And I spend my money since I focused on getting a booming economy and science up. And I push them back. And I invade THEM. and I raze every fucking city to the ground. I pillage their lands and I exterminate the general populace. And the other AIs denounce me and I have the warmonger debuff. Then... THEN Then I decide the world needs to burn. I do not stop. Not once. Not ever. Not for anyone. The space ship parts turn into nuclear missiles, and UN votes can go fuck themselves. I have turned into what they wanted to turn me in to. DOn'T yoU sEE? IT IS aLL THeiR FAulT!
ahahahaha. This is me. This is me every time. They couldn't leave well enough alone!
In order to achieve a science victory there are three conditions
* Launch a satellite * Land a human on the Moon * Establish a Martian Colony
Mars-minimap maybe? Anyhow, this sound like a much better science victory than Civ 5
I only achieved a science victory in Civ5 a few times, but from what I recall, you just had to build and transport ship parts to your capital then launch the rocket to win. Is that right?
I remember thinking it was a huge step backward from the really flexible science victory conditions in Civ1/Civ2. In those games, your ship actually had to make it all the way to Alpha Centauri, and you got a big warning when a civ sent a ship into space. Your score was based on how many of your citizens were in the ship as well as the speed of completing the game, so you could build a really awesome ship with max habitation pods for the best score if you were really far ahead. If you were behind in the space race, you could hastily throw together a crappy ship with 1 habitation pod, a couple of engines, and insufficient structural coverage and try to beat the other civ's ship to Alpha Centauri.
I think the multi-tiered approach in Civ6 will bring some of that level of excitement back, especially if it's really nuanced.
Yes the science victory in civ v was quite boring and lazily implemented. In fact it highlights one of the main problems with the game: bad win conditions. Generally when a civ is ahead of another in science or culture, the only thing that you can really do to pull ahead is start a war, which means both victories basically devolve into military victory. I must admit I have never tried the diplomatic victory however.
On September 24 2016 02:30 solidbebe wrote: Yes the science victory in civ v was quite boring and lazily implemented. In fact it highlights one of the main problems with the game: bad win conditions. Generally when a civ is ahead of another in science or culture, the only thing that you can really do to pull ahead is start a war, which means both victories basically devolve into military victory. I must admit I have never tried the diplomatic victory however.
Diplo victory is just building up a huge stockpile of gold and buying all the city states before the UN vote so you have enough votes to win.
On September 24 2016 02:30 solidbebe wrote: Yes the science victory in civ v was quite boring and lazily implemented. In fact it highlights one of the main problems with the game: bad win conditions. Generally when a civ is ahead of another in science or culture, the only thing that you can really do to pull ahead is start a war, which means both victories basically devolve into military victory. I must admit I have never tried the diplomatic victory however.
I once got diplo victory in one of my games without even trying lol
Hopefully they can become more interesting in Civ 6
On September 24 2016 02:30 solidbebe wrote: Yes the science victory in civ v was quite boring and lazily implemented. In fact it highlights one of the main problems with the game: bad win conditions. Generally when a civ is ahead of another in science or culture, the only thing that you can really do to pull ahead is start a war, which means both victories basically devolve into military victory. I must admit I have never tried the diplomatic victory however.
I once got diplo victory in one of my games without even trying lol
Hopefully they can become more interesting in Civ 6
I usually get science victory because it's a deadlock or I can't be arsed to conquer like four 10+ city civilizations. Diplo I guess is 2nd most common just because if you have the money you can buy city state votes easily just before the vote. Unless they were all eaten up by Attila or bought by Austria (not like AI Venice will ever do well enough to do that LEL). I also got once or twice cultural victory. But it's pretty hard. You gotta live in isolation basically, like on a small continent for yourself or on an islands map. It's a harder science victory basically, you gotta play tall not wide. Believe it or not I do not do that many dominance victories, because when I know I've won the global war against people who denounce me, I don't feel like finishing it and cleaning up and just start a new game.
I also really really hope the victory condition will have more depth and will be a bit more varied without being dull like science or really abusable like diplo.
So, I was looking over the civ list and are they actually not doing Persia? This seems utterly baffling. The iteration of the game where they introduce religious victories they omit one of the coolest potential ways to do that with Zoroastrianism. Like, most of the Civ choices are justifiable. But Scythia is strange and Norway instead of Denmark is odd. Sumeria instead of Babylon likewise strange I think. Kongo is a neat choice generally. Little oddball, but seems cool as a playstyle (could be great for team games paired with, say, Spain)
What an interesting early specialization... I guess the idea is you have to either be really aggressive with diplomacy to have an ultra-early game ally or you just play on a team of 2 with Aztecs.
Depending on whether religion has more of a central role (and by all accounts so far, it looks like it most definitely will, with its own win condition and all), that looks like an extremely powerful bonus. In general, I like how each civ is being made even more different, tailored to different play styles. In Civ 5 (and earlier games) this was also the case, but it seems to have been given even more emphasis. I like it.
Marbozir, my favourite Polish Civ player is uploading a playthrough for Civ 6, now that the content embargo is over. Enjoy I'm pretty sure Quill18, Arumba and others have theirs on the way as well!
On September 30 2016 01:03 Latham wrote: Marbozir, my favourite Polish Civ player is uploading a playthrough for Civ 6, now that the content embargo is over. Enjoy I'm pretty sure Quill18, Arumba and others have theirs on the way as well! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByY_fjcfHqA
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.fokzine.net/upload/16/09/160923_28827_b8f631d6bc75190c4b9def51ee66a8e1907f8e17_800_450.jpg)
