|
On October 25 2016 07:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2016 04:59 zulu_nation8 wrote:On October 24 2016 23:12 xDaunt wrote:On October 24 2016 18:09 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Archer rush seems a bit too strong on emperor, a lot more room for error compared to BNW.
Basic infrastructure take too long to build, and imo border pop is too slow. What's really strong are the timing/upgrade rushes using swordsmen or knights. Basically you build a lot of archers for defense and 3-4 warriors. Critically, you have to save your gold for the upgrades. Your third city should be dropped near iron so that you can mine it. Once iron is online, upgrade your warriors to swordsmen and go kill your neighbor. If no iron is nearby, then build heavy chariots and prepare go for the stirrups tech to upgrade them to knights. What's your army comp? I'm still doing the old Civ V ratio of 8:1ish ranged vs. melee, but I noticed the battering ram unit let's your melees attack through the city defense. Versus cities with difficult terrain, it takes a really long time to get all my archers set up so they can siege at once, just like in V, but there's no city bombardment without ancient walls so early war in general is easier. Also feel like the AI should be spamming way more units. About 3:2 range to melee, plus a battering ram. The archers aren't really there to attack the cities so much as to kill the enemy army. Swordsmen with a battering ram make taking cities almost trivial. And if you aren't seeing enough unit spam, try immortal. I outright die in about half my starts from either barb spam or a really nasty and early AI DoW.
I'm gonna try that now, the less units required to take down a city the better. They got rid of a lot of the tricks/exploits that were essential to warring in V. It used to be that you gain xp even by attacking a city that had no health left, so that you could farm xp with your archers before dowing for the first time. The AI cities still prioritize lower healthed targets and I think melee targets like they did before. But you can't pillage the tile with the target that had been attacked and then repair the tile in one turn with upgraded workers, which was a huge exploit and essential to warring on higher levels. Builders can't work inside an enemy's tile at all so that if the target city is surrounded by hills and/or woods then it becomes extremely tedious to get all of your archers to tiles where they can attack the city.
|
first game aztecs surprise war with half a dozen eagle warriors just as my first legion pops out hue hue
|
On October 25 2016 10:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2016 09:56 Danglars wrote:
Epic Pangaea as scythians. I fight a defensive war with slingers against early tag team England/Congo. Little bit of gold from peace. Not even ten turns later, its Germany/Brazil. This time I take Pedro's capital. But before his ally makes peace, here comes Greece/Arabia. And for some reason Japan too. I have zero infrastructure, two districts, barely breaking even on gold (pillage & sue for peace gpt keeping it up), and falling way behind in science.
So much for peaceful expansion far away from rivals. Five cigs are acting like All Aztec All The Time. The AI civs are definitely very aggressive against players. You basically are forced to play the early conqueror game because you have no choice but to invest heavily in a military. If you don't put those units to use, you'll just fall behind.
I wasn't expecting that on immortal 
ZvZ: Enemy builds lots of lings, you sacrifice drones for ling/bane, now you gotta attack with them so they don't take an eco lead droning, gotta be prepared for counterattack as your army strength weakens...
War forced on my from the start is quite fun. In the medium term, the decisions before you are interesting to survive and then push hard in the catchup phase for tech, pop, gold, and most importantly production. Sucks to feel forced into conquerer even in formerly casual-friendly immortal mode, but it does force me not to cut corners. I'd rather see an AI with some percent chance Pure Aggressive or Opportunistically Aggressive civ spawn, with roughly equal parts reactionary aggressive, big empire + science and/or citystate relations types, tall/culture types, and faith. Not just first pair 2v1 turn 20, second pair turn 30.
Less big alliance making-and-breaking midgames that was a fun part of Civ4&5 AIs (though AIs were dumb in other ways).
|
Caldeum1977 Posts
Yep it seems it was windows defender for me, now it's loading fine. Thanks for posting that!
|
played 3 games thus far -
Prince with an Indian Culture Victory to learn the game with no real focus
King with a German Domination Victory to try out all the units focusing on industry and military
King with an Arabian Religious Victory focusing on Faith and Tech
About to start a game on Emperor with Japan for a Science Victory
Thoughts thus far I won my games early so I still haven't used air or an interesting naval game.
Game is trivial if you can take a civ early, the tempo swing is huge.
AI doesn't upgrade units and it feels awful looking at 5 warriors and 5 archers going into the industrial age.
Going wide seems more powerful than going tall, wonder spamming seems weak.
I love the personality of the game and their leaders however diplomacy seems hard/weak.(I haven't made an alliance or a research agreement yet.)
Culture didn't feel powerful, Religion feels better than Civ 5, they made the early game much better military wise with battering ram/siege tower and no auto bombard.
|
AI not upgrading their units must have to do with military strength value, what they do produce and if they are satisfied with it. In my game France with almost no units at the information's age, but the few were upgraded, meanwhile England whom had the biggest "army score" probably due to me being a warmonger and sharing a border with them all game, only crossbowman, catapults and a few knights. A shitload of them, like 40 stacks.
My bet is not that the AI doesn't upgrade not because it can't, but because it uses the army score, which is obviously flawed, to inform itself if it's military strength is fine or not.
On lategame (atleast on King), it also had very low production, and information's age units takes a lot of cogs, so eventually if you reach that part, you are just cruising because the AI can't keep up with your production. I guess that will be different in harder difficulties because they get more extensive bonuses, but the AI is still crap on choosing what to build.
|
I played on second hardest difficulty and due to those bonuses AI beat me in culture and tech but it cannot into war so I just destroyed any that stood in my way. The game is pointless to play atm, especially since turns take way too long. Too boring to play.
|
Game to me feels completely broken due to balance issues and some stupidly implemented mechanics. City spam is at literally SMAC levels of stupid, you don't even need to worry about tile yields or whatever because stacking a bunch of production + happiness districts on blocks of 4+ cities takes care of every problem you have as soon as factories are out (and they're out stupidly fast because lol 50% research cost reduction on everything because loleureka) and the more cities you have to build campuses in the better so... yeah, that increasing settler cost doesn't mean jack.
I'm actually really sad about that because the game could've been ridiculously fun if it wasn't so poorly balanced. Maybe mods will fix it; but having played a dozen or so MP games on all kinds of speed, from online to epic, the impression is pure sadness. Thank god for Stellaris patch 1.3.
|
On October 26 2016 01:07 Salazarz wrote:
Game to me feels completely broken due to balance issues and some stupidly implemented mechanics. City spam is at literally SMAC levels of stupid, you don't even need to worry about tile yields or whatever because stacking a bunch of production + happiness districts on blocks of 4+ cities takes care of every problem you have as soon as factories are out (and they're out stupidly fast because lol 50% research cost reduction on everything because loleureka) and the more cities you have to build campuses in the better so... yeah, that increasing settler cost doesn't mean jack.
I'm actually really sad about that because the game could've been ridiculously fun if it wasn't so poorly balanced. Maybe mods will fix it; but having played a dozen or so MP games on all kinds of speed, from online to epic, the impression is pure sadness. Thank god for Stellaris patch 1.3.
I don't see the problem with city spam. You can't really afford to city spam until you have a huge military, at which point you probably can just win by conquering everyone instead of bothering to develop new cities.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Largest meh so far seems to be that expansion makes getting districts really high cost(I guess that is the thing they do to disincentivize city spam). Playing more aggressive in both expansions and militairy seem to be much more rewarding in Civ 5 then civ 6 though.
|
It annoys me when you propose something to the AI on your turn and they deny (like declaration of friendship), but on their next turn they propose the same to you. I just started a new game, and it happened between me (Cleopatra) and Germany (I would have to forward-settle him and wanted to minimize the political penalty)
|
The Diplomacy modifier is out of whack that's for sure.
|
Imbalanced/wonky as everything is, the experience is still far more compelling than Civ:BE was.
|
People who think this game is unplayable are mad, this is night and day vs civ 5 release and a really high standard for the base game, can't wait for the improvements rather than oh god I hope they improve this.
|
Started a game with Trajan/Rome on immortal/continents/standard, took two capitals in 80 turns ish, first with legions + battering ram, which is pretty op and might be better than archer rush even without the legion UU. Then I upgraded 3 archers into crossbows and wiped out Japan with about 5 legions, a siege tower, and the crossbows. It seems that barbs are perhaps too powerful since all of Japan's units went to defending vs. barbarians and not vs. me. With pretty much the entire continent to myself and what's left of Greece, I'm thinking that a cultural victory would be the easiest. Science is too slow and I was already an era behind Japan who had a campus and holy site in his capital. Inter-continental wars are too tedious to manage.
It seems that you really only need one campus even if you're not actively bulbing with eurekas, the tech rates need to be nerfed a bit. A commercial district is needed early to buy tiles and maintain an army, otherwise border pops are too slow. Cultural districts should be built in every city to accelerate border pop and civic tech rate. Industrial districts are required at every city otherwise production is too slow.
The biggest challenge with immortal was just to survive early vs. barb camps, which was fine since I planned on rushing anyway. Diplomacy is a bit tougher and the AI tech a bit faster, but otherwise it's nowhere near as hard as immortal in Civ V.
|
yeah I didn't expect the game to be balanced and fine-tuned on day one. there hasn't been a modern civ with this precedent. that said there's a lot of potential in the base game to be augmented by patches/mods/etc as long as firaxis keeps working on the game. people have big expectations though.
|
On October 26 2016 03:24 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Started a game with Trajan/Rome on immortal/continents/standard, took two capitals in 80 turns ish, first with legions + battering ram, which is pretty op and might be better than archer rush even without the legion UU. Then I upgraded 3 archers into crossbows and wiped out Japan with about 5 legions, a siege tower, and the crossbows. It seems that barbs are perhaps too powerful since all of Japan's units went to defending vs. barbarians and not vs. me. With pretty much the entire continent to myself and what's left of Greece, I'm thinking that a cultural victory would be the easiest. Science is too slow and I was already an era behind Japan who had a campus and holy site in his capital. Inter-continental wars are too tedious to manage.
Yeah, this is basically my experience. The only possible hitch with this strategy is getting access to iron. Strategic resources are very scarce in Civ 6. Rome is perfect for this build because you don't need the iron.
|
On October 26 2016 01:58 Kipsate wrote:
Largest meh so far seems to be that expansion makes getting districts really high cost(I guess that is the thing they do to disincentivize city spam). Playing more aggressive in both expansions and militairy seem to be much more rewarding in Civ 5 then civ 6 though.
According to reddit the district cost does not depend on how many cities you have.
https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/5947kp/civ_vi_mechanics_how_district_production_cost/
|
That's a pretty big incentive to focus your tech/civic choices and/or expand early.
|
On my prince game, I was wondering why France had a lot of unupgraded crossbowmen late in the game. I guess Catherine had the highest army score so she didn't bother upgrading them. She then yoinked a great merchant I was trying to get but was still too expensive for me to buy outright. Another civ then yoinked the next one. So I guess the AI in my game was saving their gold/faith to make a great person purchase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
