Civilization VI: Rise and Fall |OT| Just One More Era

Mengy · Feb 12, 2018

Zed said:
Do free cities offensively attack? I had one send units into my land, decided to save and see if they will attack and then just marched around doing nothing.

Yeah they attack, they effectively act like barbarian cities for the most part, only a bit more tame. In my first R&F game I saw cities flip to free a lot on the continent across the world from me, the AI kept trying to expand to places it shouldn't have. I sailed my battleships over there and bombarded the rebel cities and units for easy XP, lol! I could have captured them but it would have been very hard to hold onto them so I didn't bother.

El Toporo · Feb 12, 2018

StraySheep said:
So this isn't Rise and Fall, but I would like some Civ Strategy advice.

Rome and Scynthia declared war on me (it was stupid, I was trying to send a War Cart and a Settler to pass near Rome's borders), and so I built up an army. Rome ended up actually asking for peace early and I agreed, but Sycnthia is right below me on the continent and I was kind of holding a grudge already.

I have proceeded to wipe out almost all of her Civ. Along the way China denounced me for being a warmongerer even though she declared war on me (maybe the fact she has been asking for peace for 10 turns affects this lol). The problem is there is one last weak city of hers someone in the middle of Chinese territory. Do I send my soldiers along, prolonging this war and possibly starting a new one with China, to wipe the civ out of the game? Or do I just leave it be? Is there anyway to do this without pissing off China further?

Kill them all. Burn down the cities. Salt the ground. Do not take prisoners. Leave no survivors. Give no pardon.

electricblue · Feb 12, 2018

StraySheep said:
So this isn't Rise and Fall, but I would like some Civ Strategy advice.

Rome and Scynthia declared war on me (it was stupid, I was trying to send a War Cart and a Settler to pass near Rome's borders), and so I built up an army. Rome ended up actually asking for peace early and I agreed, but Sycnthia is right below me on the continent and I was kind of holding a grudge already.

I have proceeded to wipe out almost all of her Civ. Along the way China denounced me for being a warmongerer even though she declared war on me (maybe the fact she has been asking for peace for 10 turns affects this lol). The problem is there is one last weak city of hers someone in the middle of Chinese territory. Do I send my soldiers along, prolonging this war and possibly starting a new one with China, to wipe the civ out of the game? Or do I just leave it be? Is there anyway to do this without pissing off China further?

It's worth it to learn the rules of warmongering. Basically you get a negative opinion penalty with (almost) every other civ every time you take an enemy city, or a lot more if you raze them. The effect is tripled if it's the last city that civ has. So this is the moment when you gotta think, am I going full warmongering asshole here and wiping everyone off the map (domination victory) or do you want to go another direction?

El Toporo · Feb 12, 2018

From my experience, if you're at that point, they're going to denounce you as a warmongerer for much of the game anyway. That, of course, is an insult that warrants death. So why not be a little proactive?

Maledict · Feb 12, 2018

The warmonger penalty remains ridiculous and one of the worse parts of the game. Take a couple of cities, not even a capital, and you're basically out of the game displomatically for the rest of the game. It's stupid and unbelievably unrealistic (France hates Britain and the USA for capturing Berlin!). It makes for a shitty play experience that means you either go full on warmonger against the rest of the world, you don't ever actually capture a single city, or you take a few cities and suffer a diplomatic penalty so aggrecious that 1000 years later no-one will speak to you because you captured a couple of cities on your border.

Dylan · Feb 12, 2018

I'm having the same problem with religion that I did in the base game.

How does the AI get their religions so quickly? I find that unless dedicate every decision in my early game to accumulate faith / great prophet points in lieu of everything else, I miss out on religions entirely.

Dylan · Feb 12, 2018

Maledict said:
The warmonger penalty remains ridiculous and one of the worse parts of the game. Take a couple of cities, not even a capital, and you're basically out of the game displomatically for the rest of the game. It's stupid and unbelievably unrealistic (France hates Britain and the USA for capturing Berlin!). It makes for a shitty play experience that means you either go full on warmonger against the rest of the world, you don't ever actually capture a single city, or you take a few cities and suffer a diplomatic penalty so aggrecious that 1000 years later no-one will speak to you because you captured a couple of cities on your border.

In Civ V the warmonger penalties dissipated over time. It isn't like that anymore?

Cecil · Feb 12, 2018

Dylan said:
In Civ V the warmonger penalties dissipated over time. It isn't like that anymore?

It should decay with one point per turn, unless it's been changed in this expansion. And it can also be lowered by liberating cities or returning cities to their original owner.

The Warmonger penalty is also lowered, or removed completely, with the right causus belli for the war. Haven't tried this myself though.

That said, the warmonger penalty is quite high. 24 points for declaring a war, and 12 points for capturing a city, in the later eras.

Dylan · Feb 12, 2018

Cecil said:
It should decay with one point per turn, unless it's been changed in this expansion. And it can also be lowered by liberating cities or returning cities to their original owner.

The Warmonger penalty is also lowered, or removed completely, with the right causus belli for the war. Haven't tried this myself though.

That said, the warmonger penalty is quite high. 24 points for declaring a war, and 12 points for capturing a city, in the later eras.

I think one of the paradigm shifts in Civ VI is, unless you are going for a domination victory, you generally should always use a causus belli for war. In a way it simulates the political struggles of a real-world declaration, in that you can't just decide willy-nilly to do it, you have to wait until the diplomatic environment fits.

Or it could be broken, I dunno, I'm still in the Classical Era and I haven't had to declare war because everyone is attacking me for no reason.

StraySheep · Feb 12, 2018

El Topo said:
From my experience, if you're at that point, they're going to denounce you as a warmongerer for much of the game anyway. That, of course, is an insult that warrants death. So why not be a little proactive?

This is what I have to consider haha. It is interesting to me though that A) I didn't start the war, and B) When I go to destroy a city in said war there is no option without Warmongering consequences. I can either keep the city and be penalized or raze it (which I'm not sure why you would do in Civ VI) and be penalized to a greater level.

electricblue · Feb 12, 2018

Maledict said:
The warmonger penalty remains ridiculous and one of the worse parts of the game. Take a couple of cities, not even a capital, and you're basically out of the game displomatically for the rest of the game. It's stupid and unbelievably unrealistic (France hates Britain and the USA for capturing Berlin!).

Do you get a warmongering penalty from allies in a joint war? If so yeah that is really dumb but I don't think i've encountered that. It should be lower/removed when you're capturing a city from a civ the 3rd party civ has denounced (ie capturing cities from a warmongerer), and additionally it would be nice if it told you which civs you'd be getting a penalty with if you start a war/take a city, but otherwise I think it works fairly well

Maledict · Feb 12, 2018

My issue is I NEVER declare war. The fact that three nations allied against me and declared a surprise war without causus belli (Including so-called honourable Scythia) and in defending myself I took a few of their cities means I'm loathed by everyone. Including one nation that I literally didn't meet for another 500 years.

Deleted member 29682 · Feb 12, 2018

Dylan said:
How does the AI get their religions so quickly? I find that unless dedicate every decision in my early game to accumulate faith / great prophet points in lieu of everything else, I miss out on religions entirely.

I've never particularly struggled with getting 3rd or 4th religions, but that's when I'm playing a religion focused civ and really going for it. The best shot you have at getting 1st religion is to spawn near stone and beeline for Stonehenge, hoping you have goody hut/production edge if someone else gets a similar start.

Maledict · Feb 12, 2018

Religion is so underpowered anyways, it never seems worth it. The fact that often the most powerful civs in the game are those without a religion, because they don't invest resources and time into it, is telling.

I just ignore their units parading across my lands.

Dylan · Feb 12, 2018

Maledict said:
Religion is so underpowered anyways, it never seems worth it. The fact that often the most powerful civs in the game are those without a religion, because they don't invest resources and time into it, is telling.

I just ignore their units parading across my lands.

That's usually how I end up playing, either intentionally or otherwise, but it seems strange to miss out on an entire portion of the games' mechanics.

Religious FOMO.

StraySheep · Feb 12, 2018

Maledict said:
My issue is I NEVER declare war. The fact that three nations allied against me and declared a surprise war without causus belli (Including so-called honourable Scythia) and in defending myself I took a few of their cities means I'm loathed by everyone. Including one nation that I literally didn't meet for another 500 years.

Damn this feels too real.

Mengy · Feb 12, 2018

Dylan said:
I'm having the same problem with religion that I did in the base game.

How does the AI get their religions so quickly? I find that unless dedicate every decision in my early game to accumulate faith / great prophet points in lieu of everything else, I miss out on religions entirely.

Yep, I have always had this problem with Civ VI. I've gone entire games and never even got close to forming my own religion despite having huge amounts of faith. Sometimes I do, sometimes I dont, and I honestly don't know what I do differently in either case.

Largely I now just ignore religion, and if I get to form one then great, if not then I don't worry about it, heh.

Cecil · Feb 12, 2018

Had a nice era bonus where I could use my religions accumulated faith to "buy" builders, and my religion really improved my relationship with Kongo after my missionaries spread it there.

Got some nice bonuses for my religion for production as well.

Sibylus · Feb 12, 2018

Pantheons are always useful and low commitment, depending on the effort required I'll often go with a basic religion to throw more buffs onto a city or two.

electricblue said:
Do you get a warmongering penalty from allies in a joint war? If so yeah that is really dumb but I don't think i've encountered that. It should be lower/removed when you're capturing a city from a civ the 3rd party civ has denounced (ie capturing cities from a warmongerer), and additionally it would be nice if it told you which civs you'd be getting a penalty with if you start a war/take a city, but otherwise I think it works fairly well

I think this one of the things that was changed in the past, your war partners don't accumulate warmongering animus toward you for declaring a joint war with them as your partner. Your conduct after that point? Counted afaik.

If you want to salvage as much of your diplomatic standing as possible, take 2-3 cities, make peace, and let the penalties subside. Liberate city states and friend cities aggressively wherever possible to bring it down faster.

Codosbuya · Feb 12, 2018

Cree is awesome. I did a web of cities, all with internal trade routes, netting me extra tiles and a lot of food for rapid expansion.

I read that Korea is OP with the Science production. You can force a Dark Age, select the +100% science dedication and snowball into science victory at 1700 AD XD

Carthago Delenda Est · Feb 12, 2018

Something I'm unclear about regarding Science. In Civ 5 I believe more cities scaled the cost of research up accordingly. Does that happen in Civ 6 as well? Or is there no reason not to expand as much as possible to generate more Science? That seems more realistic.

Dylan said:
I'm having the same problem with religion that I did in the base game.

How does the AI get their religions so quickly? I find that unless dedicate every decision in my early game to accumulate faith / great prophet points in lieu of everything else, I miss out on religions entirely.

On higher difficulties I usually have to trade resources to get lump sum gold and then buy part of the Great Prophet with gold. The AI will buy them as well, which is why they'll sometimes jump like 30 GPP and snag the last two prophets even when you were on track to get there first.

Loan Wolf · Feb 12, 2018

Starting my first emperor playthrough, noticed a huge jump from king to emperor; is it normal for the AI to have double your score early-mid game? Still at the renaissance era with Seondeok and Australia is a warmongering civ, neighbors with him and Japan, Tokimune is a good neighbor though.

Carthago Delenda Est · Feb 12, 2018

yrba1 said:
Starting my first emperor playthrough, noticed a huge jump from king to emperor; is it normal for the AI to have double your score early-mid game? Still at the renaissance era with Seondeok and Australia is a warmongering civ, neighbors with him and Japan, Tokimune is a good neighbor though.

On your first try at a new difficulty, yeah that's normal. As you continue to get better at the game, they won't be so far ahead. Just keep playing and if it doesn't work out, try again! You'll learn what works and what doesn't.

Loan Wolf · Feb 12, 2018

Carthago Delenda Est said:
On your first try at a new difficulty, yeah that's normal. As you continue to get better at the game, they won't be so far ahead. Just keep playing and if it doesn't work out, try again! You'll learn what works and what doesn't.

ah ic, yeah I suspected higher difficulties are inevitably going to consist of weaker starts but can get better if mitigating the AIs momentum; luckily Korea's science bonuses is keeping me in the lead for a science victory

Maledict · Feb 12, 2018

yrba1 said:
Starting my first emperor playthrough, noticed a huge jump from king to emperor; is it normal for the AI to have double your score early-mid game? Still at the renaissance era with Seondeok and Australia is a warmongering civ, neighbors with him and Japan, Tokimune is a good neighbor though.

Yes - because the AI starts with two settlers, so it has a *huge* head start on the player. You can overcome it over time though - and the score isn't completely accurate, it overestimates world wonders and religions in my view.

decoyplatypus · Feb 12, 2018

Carthago Delenda Est said:
Something I'm unclear about regarding Science. In Civ 5 I believe more cities scaled the cost of research up accordingly. Does that happen in Civ 6 as well? Or is there no reason not to expand as much as possible to generate more Science? That seems more realistic.

Tech costs don't scale with city #s in Civ 6.

Severance · Feb 12, 2018

I'm really loving Rise and Fall. There's a lot of great civs, and Cree has to be my new favorite. I was able to get a science victory on Immortal difficulty without declaring war at all. I kept 5 alliances throughout the entire game. Cree is able to build a massive economy and bankroll a science victory no problem, and likely a culture victory as well if I tried.

One thing I noticed is that i seem to be able to operate with 6-8 cities and keep pace with science/culture much more easily. Before Rise and Fall, I found myself relying on a wide strategy of 10+ cities to be where I was at running a 7 city peaceful victory with Cree. I was really tired of playing wide and having to run a bunch of shitty 4 population cities to have adequate science and culture. That's just my experience on immortal in two matches anyway, we will see where things go from here

Imperfected · Feb 12, 2018

Maledict said:
Yes - because the AI starts with two settlers, so it has a *huge* head start on the player. You can overcome it over time though - and the score isn't completely accurate, it overestimates world wonders and religions in my view.

Yeah, the AI in general is just in love with Religion and probably needs to have the priority on it taken down about 100 pegs. Aside from making Religious Victory hilariously, pointlessly difficult (if you can do it, you could've won three other ways by that point) in the vast majority of games, it also makes some of the AI civs just needlessly gimpy because they're rushing Stonehenge and spamming Holy Sites all over the place instead of doing, you know, anything useful.

Then they all fight over who gets to blitz you with the 500 Acolytes they somehow have first, none of them apparently realizing that "have a dominant religion over the player" is not in fact a victory condition, as if it were some Three Stooges routine.

KuwabaraTheMan · Feb 12, 2018

Finished my science victory as Scotland earlier. I had a lot of fun with that one, although I was basically destroying everyone with science per turn and great scientist points. I'm going to try moving up to King now since I feel like I've kind of reached the point where Prince just isn't much of a challenge anymore (but my last attempt on King ended poorly).

Dekuman · Feb 12, 2018

Imperfected said:
Yeah, the AI in general is just in love with Religion and probably needs to have the priority on it taken down about 100 pegs. Aside from making Religious Victory hilariously, pointlessly difficult (if you can do it, you could've won three other ways by that point) in the vast majority of games, it also makes some of the AI civs just needlessly gimpy because they're rushing Stonehenge and spamming Holy Sites all over the place instead of doing, you know, anything useful.

Then they all fight over who gets to blitz you with the 500 Acolytes they somehow have first, none of them apparently realizing that "have a dominant religion over the player" is not in fact a victory condition, as if it were some Three Stooges routine.

It depends on their grand strategic VC. I just completed my first game with a squaker victory and there were 2 or 3 civs fighting it out for Relgion. I had to switch gears to shore up my culture and tourism as Gorgo/Greece was about to pull away with a cultural victory and she didn't bother with holy sites or religion.

Django.Mango · Feb 12, 2018

Brian Damage said:
This expansion here's an early contender for the inevitable 2018 soundtrack thread. That Cree theme... oof.

Indeed there are really good ones, also like the Zulu theme a lot.

Hella · Feb 12, 2018

I really appreciate that when scouts are killed, their dogs are OK. Such things matter to me.

(I only noticed this recently.)

Carthago Delenda Est · Feb 12, 2018

KuwabaraTheMan said:
Finished my science victory as Scotland earlier. I had a lot of fun with that one, although I was basically destroying everyone with science per turn and great scientist points. I'm going to try moving up to King now since I feel like I've kind of reached the point where Prince just isn't much of a challenge anymore (but my last attempt on King ended poorly).

In Civ, it's always important to get into the mindset that it's ok to lose. If you're winning every game, you need to up the difficulty. Those defeats are incredibly important as they teach you what not to do. They're at least as illustrative as victories, if not more so. In a victory, you can recognize the linear path that got you there. In defeat, you get a better view of the options over time.

King will be hard at first, but you'll quickly learn and be ready for difficulties up above that. That move up the difficulty ladder is one of the most rewarding aspects of Civilization.

Dylan · Feb 12, 2018

Hella said:
I really appreciate that when scouts are killed, their dogs are OK. Such things matter to me.

(I only noticed this recently.)

Ha, I remember saying "phew." the first time I noticed.

KuwabaraTheMan · Feb 12, 2018

Carthago Delenda Est said:
In Civ, it's always important to get into the mindset that it's ok to lose. If you're winning every game, you need to up the difficulty. Those defeats are incredibly important as they teach you what not to do. They're at least as illustrative as victories, if not more so. In a victory, you can recognize the linear path that got you there. In defeat, you get a better view of the options over time.

King will be hard at first, but you'll quickly learn and be ready for difficulties up above that. That move up the difficulty ladder is one of the most rewarding aspects of Civilization.

Yeah, for sure. I'm looking forward to pushing up higher, even if it means losing some more. Conquering higher difficulty levels for the first time is the best feeling in Civ.

Loan Wolf · Feb 12, 2018

Carthago Delenda Est said:
King will be hard at first, but you'll quickly learn and be ready for difficulties up above that. That move up the difficulty ladder is one of the most rewarding aspects of Civilization.

King was challenging transitioning from Prince but it wasn't as steep as going from King to Emperor; definitely having fun though making an effort to climb to the top rather than staying at the top and just keep burning turns hoping for the victory soon enough.

Dylan · Feb 12, 2018

Fuck this shit, kinda, I'm restarting a new game (wtf at some people who have already completed multiple games..) because of the missed religion thing. I swear this is an exact copy of a post I made somewhere when the original game was released.

I also noticed they still don't give use the option to name our own Civ, which is an unforgivable atrocity. That alone was one of my absolute favourite aspects of Civ, from the very first game!

E.g.:

Particularly proud of Baconvania.

Carthago Delenda Est · Feb 12, 2018

Dylan said:
Fuck this shit, kinda, I'm restarting a new game (wtf at some people who have already completed multiple games..) because of the missed religion thing. I swear this is an exact copy of a post I made somewhere when the original game was released.

I also noticed they still don't give use the option to name our own Civ, which is an unforgivable atrocity. That alone was one of my absolute favourite aspects of Civ, from the very first game!

E.g.:

Particularly proud of Baconvania.

They patched a way to name cities the month after release. I'm not sure how to flip it on or anything, but it is possible. A bit of Googling has only found people complaining that they can't at launch.

Dylan · Feb 12, 2018

Carthago Delenda Est said:
They patched a way to name cities the month after release. I'm not sure how to flip it on or anything, but it is possible. A bit of Googling has only found people complaining that they can't at launch.

Holy shit you're right! You still can't rename the Leader, Civ, or Civ adjective, but at least you can rename your cities.

Go into City View to edit the name at the top.

Imperfected · Feb 12, 2018

Dylan said:
Fuck this shit, kinda, I'm restarting a new game (wtf at some people who have already completed multiple games..) because of the missed religion thing. I swear this is an exact copy of a post I made somewhere when the original game was released.

I'm telling you man, just don't ever touch religion and everything will be better.

The AI's too stupid and self-defeating to actually win with it, anyway, and it sure as hell isn't worth trying to win with it yourself. It's just a gigantic moneypit.

Dylan · Feb 12, 2018

Imperfected said:
I'm telling you man, just don't ever touch religion and everything will be better.

The AI's too stupid and self-defeating to actually win with it, anyway, and it sure as hell isn't worth trying to win with it yourself. It's just a gigantic moneypit.

In a way I kind of like the underlying message of Civ: Sure, you can start a religion, and you will reap some benefits from it, but you would have been better off just concentrating on reality the entire time."

Strategically, I'm with you, but I play Civ more like an RPG than anything else. I hold grudges, I do things irrationally (e.g. I will send a Settler to the ends of the earth to found a city on a Natural Wonder that I don't actually need, to spite everyone else).

So in that light, missing out on the morbid thrill of converting other peoples' citizens to my cult is too much to pass up.

I rerolled Scotland, since Cree seems to be a bit of easy street according to this thread.

Hecht · Feb 12, 2018

Dylan said:
Holy shit you're right! You still can't rename the Leader, Civ, or Civ adjective, but at least you can rename your cities.

Go into City View to edit the name at the top.

Not gonna lie, I did laugh at the image.

Mengy · Feb 12, 2018

Dylan said:
In a way I kind of like the underlying message of Civ: Sure, you can start a religion, and you will reap some benefits from it, but you would have been better off just concentrating on reality the entire time."

Hah, I love it!

Lashley · Feb 12, 2018

Ban seems a bit harsh?

Why did he actually post that though lol? Because of the image hosting thing?

Pixieking · Feb 12, 2018

Carthago Delenda Est said:
In Civ, it's always important to get into the mindset that it's ok to lose. If you're winning every game, you need to up the difficulty. Those defeats are incredibly important as they teach you what not to do. They're at least as illustrative as victories, if not more so. In a victory, you can recognize the linear path that got you there. In defeat, you get a better view of the options over time.

This whole post is why I find it so hard to get into 4X and Grand Strategy games - I know that losing is good/useful/a Teachable Moment. But damn, it's hard to accept that losing is, literally, part of the game.

Hella · Feb 12, 2018

When I'm in a protectorate war defending a city state, how can I force the aggressor to make peace with the city state once he's ready to make peace with me? I don't wanna be in a situation where I end the war and then he just takes the city state anyways.

spiritfox · Feb 12, 2018

Once you sue for peace they should peace out with the city state too. You can confirm by checking the city state relationships.

Sibylus · Feb 13, 2018

spiritfox said:
Once you sue for peace they should peace out with the city state too. You can confirm by checking the city state relationships.

In addition, to head off them declaring a new war in 10~ turns, I like to beat the aggressor up badly enough that my city state allies will raze a city or two. No consequences for the hegemon!

electricblue · Feb 13, 2018

Pixieking said:
This whole post is why I find it so hard to get into 4X and Grand Strategy games - I know that losing is good/useful/a Teachable Moment. But damn, it's hard to accept that losing is, literally, part of the game.

In Civ the only things I learn from losing is "i should've invaded that guy 20 turns ago" or "awesome i lose because I spawned next to nubia/macedon fuck me i guess"
The winning and losing part of Civ is often the least interesting part for me. I wish there were more interesting win conditions around happiness and population, bring back UN and diplomatic victory plz

Loan Wolf · Feb 13, 2018

electricblue said:
In Civ the only things I learn from losing is "i should've invaded that guy 20 turns ago" or "awesome i lose because I spawned next to nubia/macedon fuck me i guess"
The winning and losing part of Civ is often the least interesting part for me. I wish there were more interesting win conditions around happiness and population, bring back UN and diplomatic victory plz

When it comes to early-game, there's hardly any repercussions in wars and is often times encouraged in higher difficulties with aggressive expansion leaders. Trying to play peacefully early is only going to leave you with opportunities in table scraps while lagging behind, score-wise unless you're surrounded with only city-states.

Not a fan of UN and diplo victory on Civ V, all it did was gett the votes and embargo, which basically involved individuals leaders voting for themselves while trying to get the most out of city-states

Civilization VI: Rise and Fall |OT| Just One More Era

Chicken Chaser

User requested account closure

Chicken Chaser

Too damn tired

<<Tag Here>>