Civ VI Discussion

[VoxRationis]

There is an option under "Discuss" in the diplomacy screen to ask an AI not to settle near you. I've never used it and am not sure it works.

"Diplomacy" in Civilization seems to boil down to how passive-aggressive v. actually aggressive the AI is to the player, which is what made the diplomatic victory so irritating in V. I think the agendas have only made things worse: now each AI has some weird, arbitrary thing they will denounce you for not being on top of.

[Vitruviansquid]

"Diplomacy" in Civilization seems to boil down to how passive-aggressive v. actually aggressive the AI is to the player, which is what made the diplomatic victory so irritating in V. I think the agendas have only made things worse: now each AI has some weird, arbitrary thing they will denounce you for not being on top of.

It's not at all arbitrary.

Each civ has its agenda and its hidden agenda *on top of* also trying to win the game. Some agendas exist because they help the civ in question win the game. Mvemba a Nzinga, for instance, needs to get foreign religions to become powerful, so of course he's going to be upset if you try to deny him religions. Qin Shi Huang exists to get wonders, so he doesn't appreciate competition. Other agendas exist to drive the AI to war against enemies against whom it would be profitable to war. Montezuma hates people for having luxuries in order to go to war with them and seize the luxuries for his bonuses. But if you're open to attack, or you go after their city-states, or whatever, or get warmonger penalties, they'll all still have a problem with that.

Denunciation does not mean the civilization is going to have a permanent poor relationship with you. It means the civilization thinks it may want to go to war with you after 5 turns. Receiving a denunciation can, but does not necessarily mean, that you did something the civilization doesn't like. Sometimes, it's just being an ******* opportunist.

[Cespenar]

There are various ways, none of which are fool-proof:
1) Don't grant open borders to friendly neighbours
2) Make the gaps too small to settle in - you can't settle next to a border
3) Guess were they want to settle, and put a scout there.

As to the troop thing, it might be a good way to get brownie points: get them to complain, move your troops two squares way from their border, and then get a pat for keeping your promise. That said, they do need to patch that a bit: if the troops are within your borders, the AI needs to accept "these are my defensive troops, they have a right to be there" as an answer - or at least count troops within your border as half measure towards that event, or something, because it gets a little silly.

Grey Wolf

Eh, legit ways, but still not fool-proof as you have said. I wish Civ 3's cultural takeover thing were back. This way there's just no penalty throwing a colony inside people's businesses.

[factotum]

I think they might have to do some tweaking when it comes to Great People, since while you can technically 'pass' on them, that makes it easier for the AI to get them and therefore almost always to your detriment.

It depends on what the Great Person's unique bonus is. If a GP you've earned has a bonus that really doesn't help you at all then you're better off passing, letting an AI grab them, and hoping that the replacement you earn suits your needs better. Claiming the Great Person just to stop the AI getting it is cutting off your nose to spite your face, IMHO.

[Wardog]

That said, they do need to patch that a bit: if the troops are within your borders, the AI needs to accept "these are my defensive troops, they have a right to be there" as an answer - or at least count troops within your border as half measure towards that event, or something, because it gets a little silly.

Grey Wolf

Agreed on the troop thing. I've got a number of troops on my border with China, partially because I saw them building up troops, and then because they actually declared a surprise war on me for having too many Wonders. I beat them back, and they still complain about me being there, in my territory. I'm quite tempted to go after them soon, if only to get their city next to mine that has a campus literally entirely surrounded my mountains.

To be fair, there are multiple real-life examples of countries getting upset with their neighbours for stationing troops near the border. Sometimes even to the point of attacking them for it. And being completely hypocritical about it has plenty of real-life precedence as well.

[kraftcheese]

To be fair, there are multiple real-life examples of countries getting upset with their neighbours for stationing troops near the border. Sometimes even to the point of attacking them for it. And being completely hypocritical about it has plenty of real-life precedence as well.

I'll second this; it makes sense that a civ would get pissy that you don't trust them imo.

What I really wanna do on my next run is try a seafaring civ, maybe on an islands map? I've just never bothered with ships in the 3 games I've played so far (all continental).

[Maryring]

To be fair, there are multiple real-life examples of countries getting upset with their neighbours for stationing troops near the border. Sometimes even to the point of attacking them for it. And being completely hypocritical about it has plenty of real-life precedence as well.

The bigget problem with Civ is that the AI is wholly and completely bastard. It's whiny, petulant, selfish, irrational and generally constantly reminds me that I'm playing against a stupid idiot who's only in the game because they cheat. Whining about border controls is just yet another item on a very long list of hypocrisies that the game commits.

[Foxtail]

So far, I'm quite liking it. The AI has been a bit ridiculous at times, but when haven't they been in civ? I love the new district system, it makes it feel like your city is actually expanding, and makes what tiles you prioritize to work more important.

So far I've won religious as Russia, Domination as Scythia, and Cultural as Greece. Relgious certainly seemed the easiest, but also pretty underwhelming, it was basically just spamming apostles constantly.

It still needs some balancing for sure, there are gold exploits and weird production exploits with cavalry, just to name a few, but overall, I quite like it, and I think I'll be playing it for a good while.

[VoxRationis]

The bigget problem with Civ is that the AI is wholly and completely bastard. It's whiny, petulant, selfish, irrational and generally constantly reminds me that I'm playing against a stupid idiot who's only in the game because they cheat. Whining about border controls is just yet another item on a very long list of hypocrisies that the game commits.

This sums up my problems with the AI in Civ. The AI knows that it's playing a game with specific victory conditions, and that only one player can win. Moreover, it wants to stop you in particular from winning. Consequently, it acts in ways which are irrational for a simulation of diplomacy and statecraft—it plays against you rather than for itself. The worst part of it is that the diplomatic tools provided for the AI are more numerous than those for the player (e.g., not being able to complain about AI troops near your borders while the AI jumps down your throat with protests about your troops), creating asymmetries which feel frustrating.

[Kish]

I was going to say that the game, as a game, would be weirdly unbalanced against the AIs if you were the only one who was allowed to actually try to win it. Then you mentioned that the player can't do the same "I demand you get away from my borders" thing the AIs often do: yeah, that's bad design.

[Maryring]

This sums up my problems with the AI in Civ. The AI knows that it's playing a game with specific victory conditions, and that only one player can win. Moreover, it wants to stop you in particular from winning. Consequently, it acts in ways which are irrational for a simulation of diplomacy and statecraft—it plays against you rather than for itself. The worst part of it is that the diplomatic tools provided for the AI are more numerous than those for the player (e.g., not being able to complain about AI troops near your borders while the AI jumps down your throat with protests about your troops), creating asymmetries which feel frustrating.

Pretty much.

I was going to say that the game, as a game, would be weirdly unbalanced against the AIs if you were the only one who was allowed to actually try to win it. Then you mentioned that the player can't do the same "I demand you get away from my borders" thing the AIs often do: yeah, that's bad design.

As argued before, the problem isn't that the AI is playing to win. I do want the AI to play to win. The problem is that the AI isn't playing to win. It's playing to make you lose. It's the real life equivalent of someone complaining loudly at you that you're too good at the game, since the game knows that the only real way it can win is by making you quit in disgust.

And I'm only being slightly hyperbolic. But yeah, I far prefer playing Civ with friends. The diplomacy feels organic and natural since real people are actively trying to empower themselves to win. If someone is stationing troops near the border, they'll take steps to prevent a potential incursion, rather than break up the flow of the game with a temper tantrum.

[factotum]

The problem is that the AI isn't playing to win. It's playing to make you lose.

Really? Did I imagine all those occasions where the AI denounced each other or started wars with each other? Heck, Kongo wiped out Japan in my game, and since they were on an entirely different continent I'm struggling to see how that was entirely done to spite *me*, as you seem to think.

[Cespenar]

Another AI story:

I'm allied with Scythia for centuries, we have never warred before, and our relation is as max'd as it can be. Then one day, our alliance expires (?), as does our friendship agreement. I re-propose friendship, to no avail. The turn after, she declares war on me, along with Arabia from a continent away.

[Maryring]

Really? Did I imagine all those occasions where the AI denounced each other or started wars with each other? Heck, Kongo wiped out Japan in my game, and since they were on an entirely different continent I'm struggling to see how that was entirely done to spite *me*, as you seem to think.

The only thing imaginary here is you thinking that's a good argument when it's entirely irrelevant to what's discussed here. We're not talking about the AI specifically being out to spite the player, but the AI being a raging hypocrite that focuses on bringing others down by being annoying, rather than building itself up and playing well.

[Kornaki]

So I'm in this weird state where me and a couple of my city state friends are at war with a city state, and when I end my turn it tells me that me and my allies have made peace with my enemy, and I can't declare a new war for ten turns. Is this one of my other city states making peace and since I'm their suzerain it's forced on me too? If anybody understands why this is happening, and can tell me how to stop it in particular, it would be really helpful.

[VoxRationis]

Does anyone else have a problem with the Sumerian war-cart? I saw a video reviewing Sumeria, and I'm not sure if it represents a current state of the civilization, but the war-cart seems ridiculous as a unit. Stronger and faster than its replacement, with no resource or gold cost, no weakness to spearmen, and no technology prerequisite? That seems really... not broken, per se, as I'm not sure how it will work out in full play (since one's early-game production is a scarce commodity), but off. I especially don't like how a clunky, solid-wheeled cart is faster than the chariot proper. I would much rather have it be slower, but available earlier (and possibly ignoring spearmen counters). Heck, it might even have a place as an extra, no-generic-counterpart unit (akin to Japanese samurai, if I remember correctly) that upgrades into a normal chariot for cheap.

[Wardog]

I was going to say that the game, as a game, would be weirdly unbalanced against the AIs if you were the only one who was allowed to actually try to win it.

I think that could easily be solved with a game-setup option as to whether the AI plays according to ''realistic'' goals (based on what is good for the civ, or its leader), or ''gamist'' rules (trying to undermine the player's or other AI's ability to meet their victory conditions).

For example, on ''realistic'' mode, an AI might try to win by making the best civilization it can and so getting the highest civilization score. In ''gamist'' mode, the AI would do that, while also trying to degrade your civilization score.

[Sholos]

So my friend and I ran into an interesting situation the other night. Turns out if you convert an AI's holy city to your religion, they'll still spam missionaries and help spread your religion. Especially Spain... It's kind of a weird fault that I hope they patch out, since it just makes no sense for the AI to help you win like that. Especially Spain...

[factotum]

Stronger and faster than its replacement, with no resource or gold cost, no weakness to spearmen, and no technology prerequisite?

The war cart gets 30 melee strength for a production cost of 55, while a regular Warrior is strength 20 for cost 40. So, while the war cart is unquestionably the strongest early game unit, it's not *so* much stronger that it's an issue, IMHO. Because of the change to the way movement works in Civ6*, having movement 3 isn't actually as much of an advantage as you might think--it only really comes into play if you're crossing dead flat terrain with no rivers or forests, which doesn't happen all that often!

* The change I mean is that, in Civ 5, you could always move one square even if you had a fraction of the required movement points available. In Civ 6 you can't, so if you're moving through hills, forests etc. you can still only move 1 hex even with a movement 3 unit--you'll use up 2 points to move the first hex, and then don't have 2 available to move the next one.

[VoxRationis]

The war cart gets 30 melee strength for a production cost of 55, while a regular Warrior is strength 20 for cost 40. So, while the war cart is unquestionably the strongest early game unit, it's not *so* much stronger that it's an issue, IMHO. Because of the change to the way movement works in Civ6*, having movement 3 isn't actually as much of an advantage as you might think--it only really comes into play if you're crossing dead flat terrain with no rivers or forests, which doesn't happen all that often!

* The change I mean is that, in Civ 5, you could always move one square even if you had a fraction of the required movement points available. In Civ 6 you can't, so if you're moving through hills, forests etc. you can still only move 1 hex even with a movement 3 unit--you'll use up 2 points to move the first hex, and then don't have 2 available to move the next one.

It's not that the strength is especially high—it's that every aspect of the war-cart is superior to the heavy chariot, in spite of the fact that it's supposed to be an early, clunky, primitive version of such a device.

Also, the 3 movement helps when you have to move through alternating open/rough terrain.

[Vitruviansquid]

The hideous thing about the war-cart is how much more useful it is in the hands of the AI than the player.

The AI can just churn out units in the early game at a pace far exceeding anything even remotely possible for the player. The tide only begins to turn toward the player once the player's had a chance to implement intelligent strategies to get ahead.

So when the AI gets its hands on Gilgamesh, they swarm the early game with war-carts that are stronger than anything the typical player civilization can field until Swordsmen or Horsemen. Even if you were lucky enough to have something to fend off war-carts, like American spearmen, Aztec chariots, Greek Hoplites (which don't really beat War carts until you have your second Hoplite) earlier than 2 techs and acquiring 1 strategic resource, there's still a fairly good chance AI Gilgamesh will attack you with War-carts before even that's online.

[factotum]

It's not that the strength is especially high—it's that every aspect of the war-cart is superior to the heavy chariot, in spite of the fact that it's supposed to be an early, clunky, primitive version of such a device.

I would just put that down to game balance issues. It wouldn't be very nice if a civ's unique unit were actually *weaker* than the regular one, would it?

[VoxRationis]

I would just put that down to game balance issues. It wouldn't be very nice if a civ's unique unit were actually *weaker* than the regular one, would it?

But it's already available earlier than the regular one, and has no maintenance or resource cost—a definite advantage in comparison to the regular unit. And Civ V at least was willing to give unique units a trade-off. The Byzantine cataphract was hardier and lacked some of the weaknesses of cavalry units, but it was slower than the horseman it replaced. It would be an acceptable boost to Sumeria's power by itself to field chariot forces from the start of the game—there's certainly no need to make them better in every way as well. Besides, since it is available from the start, it could be viewed as the slinger is to the archer—an early-game way of accessing a particular soldier line—and just upgrade into the heavy chariot for cheap.

[Cespenar]

So, turns out Emperor is very different than King, and the reason is this: many difficulty bonuses are linear, but at Emperor, the AIs start with 2 settlers, 3 warriors and 1 builder, instead of just 1 settler and 2 warriors in King. This, on top of the other bonuses, end in a veritable snowball issue. 2 settlers instead of 1 is pretty much a 100% production bonus in early game, while 3 warriors mean that they can almost instantly attack and conquer a city state. One AI got to Industrial age at around ~600 AD, suffice it to say.

It can still definitely be won, but requires you to not get attacked early to early-mid.

So far, King seems like the most reasonable difficulty to me.

[Maryring]

I've been fiddling around a bit with the religion game in Civ VI and... I honestly feel that it's a lot weaker. Mostly because the opportunity cost for getting religion is so incredibly high. Holy sites get a boon from mountains, which makes it directly compete with campuses for placement. And once you do build a holy site and wait around forever to get a prophet, you're still left with some rather subpar bonuses. You're mostly only going to get faith, so unless you're going for a religious victory you're not gonna get any huge advantages. Ultimately it seems the only reason you'd want to get a faith is so that you can protect yourself from other religions.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I've been fiddling around a bit with the religion game in Civ VI and... I honestly feel that it's a lot weaker. Mostly because the opportunity cost for getting religion is so incredibly high. Holy sites get a boon from mountains, which makes it directly compete with campuses for placement. And once you do build a holy site and wait around forever to get a prophet, you're still left with some rather subpar bonuses. You're mostly only going to get faith, so unless you're going for a religious victory you're not gonna get any huge advantages. Ultimately it seems the only reason you'd want to get a faith is so that you can protect yourself from other religions.

Not quite. First, you can also use an early policy (God King?) to accrue the necessary faith that you can be in the running for a religion. And while, yes, it "competes" with campuses for mountains, if you have any mountains at all, you'll probably be able to place both - one might have just a smidge less adjacency bonus, but that's not the end of the world.

As to faith, it can be used to purchase units and great people, which can be a powerful tool. If you are a war monger, being able to somewhat control the neighbours' religion can help provide allies to gang up on your targets. Yes, some of these things can be accomplished with other processes, but faith can be started really early on and controlling the religion allows you to more easily provide multipliers that work for you.

It also helps to pick a civ that naturally gets bonuses, of course. Russia's faith in tundra tiles & lavras are quite impressive when it comes to boosting the cultural victory, because you can and should be able to dominate the acquisition of great artists of various classes.

Grey Wolf

[Maryring]

It also competes in that you've only got a scant few districts you can place in the early game, and when you want to have room for your campus, commerce and construction districts you're gonna run out of people to man the districts pretty soon. Unless you're Germany. Also, God King can help you acquire a pantheon, but it can't help you acquire a great person. While you could theoretically use the faith to buy said Great Person, you'll still need a Holy Site to spend him on. And if you don't get GP points, it's unlikely that you'll get enough faith to buy the great person anyway before they're all taken.

I also find Gold to be far better for getting Great Persons than Faith. Gold is easier to get and is more flexible in value than faith.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It also competes in that you've only got a scant few districts you can place in the early game, and when you want to have room for your campus, commerce and construction districts you're gonna run out of people to man the districts pretty soon. Unless you're Germany. Also, God King can help you acquire a pantheon, but it can't help you acquire a great person. While you could theoretically use the faith to buy said Great Person, you'll still need a Holy Site to spend him on. And if you don't get GP points, it's unlikely that you'll get enough faith to buy the great person anyway before they're all taken.

I also find Gold to be far better for getting Great Persons than Faith. Gold is easier to get and is more flexible in value than faith.

With the right religion boons, you can get science, gold, and faith all from your Holy Site. And faith purchasing is in addition to, not instead of, gold purchasing. So you can purchase while you purchase.

And once you get your Great Priest, you just need to build Apostles to further advance your religion. You get up to three additional benefits to add to your religion that way. Much better use than using them for religious combat or conversion.

Holy Sites also get side bonus with forests, which can be beneficial to you mid-late game as production facilities.

[Vitruviansquid]

There's a lot of advice that becomes less or more relevant depending on your difficulty level, especially regarding time-sensitive issues like wonders and great people. Would be nice if people included their difficulty when giving this type of advice.

[Maryring]

With the right religion boons, you can get science, gold, and faith all from your Holy Site. And faith purchasing is in addition to, not instead of, gold purchasing. So you can purchase while you purchase.

And once you get your Great Priest, you just need to build Apostles to further advance your religion. You get up to three additional benefits to add to your religion that way. Much better use than using them for religious combat or conversion.

Holy Sites also get side bonus with forests, which can be beneficial to you mid-late game as production facilities.

Or I could get even more science from Campuses and tech faster. Faith helps with religious victory and... nothing else. I'd rather just pick up a small religion and then just plant an apostle on the holy site to defend against foreign faiths so I don't lose rather than put any serious investment into faith.