Early game barbarians in a nutshell
Posted: 21 Dec 2016 05:24 PM PST
 | submitted by /u/BaconGristle [link] [comments] |
Victoria can't hide her true face
Posted: 21 Dec 2016 12:04 PM PST
 | submitted by /u/DerMonti [link] [comments] |
Civilization VI - 4k Experience
Posted: 22 Dec 2016 06:53 AM PST
Since I couldn't find anything definitive in one place, I thought I might just share my experiences so far with Civ6 on my new 4k-capable laptop. It hasn't been 100% smooth sailing, so I thought it might be good to have a place to record issues as they're encountered. After all, gaming beyond 1080p is only going to become more and more common as this game matures. This machine (MSI GS63VR-6RF) has a 4k display with a GeForce GTX 1060 (Optimus, so no G-sync) which is powerful enough to play the game at just-maybe-acceptable frame rates at native res. TL;DR Summary at the end.
Graphics Quality
Out of the box, running at 4k res this game looks incredibly sharp. I played through two games on high detail at 4k, with MSAA turned off. The actual 3D rendering is fantastic, wonders look very nice in particular, with intricate ones such as the Bolshoi Theatre really showing off the benefits of 4k. The UI however is more of a mixed bag. The UI scaling works well when enabled and nothing requires me to squint. Fonts are rendered very sharply at 4k res and look crisp. However, the rest of the UI is clearly upscaled and icons in particular are blurry enough to be noticeable. This is a bit disappointing for a 2016 game, and for 2D elements for which I am sure the artists have high-res copies available. To me, it would make more sense for the game to store high-res copies which are then downscaled at lower resolutions, instead of vice-versa. As far as 4k crispness goes, this is the only thing that appears to need fixing.
Controls
I am a fan of edge scrolling as I essentially like to play Civ one-handed. This was a mess and unfortunately even with the comprehensive fixes listed over at CivFanatics in this thread, edge scrolling on the Right and Bottom of the screen simply did not work as expected. Carefully looking at the edge of the screen in these locations, it appears as though the tip of the cursor was no longer on the screen when at the right-most or bottom-most positions when in 4k. What I found was that disabling the UI scaling actually fixed this problem, of course at the expense of UI readability. Obviously, this needs to be fixed.
Running in DX12 mode, the game forces itself to run in a borderless window on my laptop, regardless of whether fullscreen was selected or not. This meant that running in 1080p would have the game only showing in the top-left quarter of my screen instead of upscaling to fill it. Switching to DX11 and selecting fullscreen was successful, however, and so playing without UI scaling means edge scrolling works as expected while retaining a readable UI, just without the crispness of 4k.
It reminds me of a similar problem with Heroes of the Storm forcing borderless window mode in DX11, whereas playing the game in DX9 fixes that issue. That problem is still currently open with Blizzard, and they mentioned it was mostly an issue for Optimus-enabled laptops, so I would not be surprised if something similar is going on here.
Finally, mouse sensitivity. This isn't an issue at 4k as it will simply replicate your desktop mouse sensitivity. However, if your graphics card is not quite powerful enough for your 4k screen and you wish to run at 1080p, the mouse will become overly sensitive (as in many other games). My mouse has a DPI switch on it to work around this problem, however it would be nice to see a sensitivity slider in the in-game options so I don't need to do this, again ala Heroes of the Storm. Other sensitivity options such as the edge scrolling pan speed are editable in .lua files, but I am unsure if there is a value for general mouse sensitivity in there as well.
Performance
I have only today started playing in 1080p instead of 4k and am yet to make up my mind about whether to stay. Even with 8xMSAA, the Bolshoi Theatre is looking pretty rough in 1080p and fonts are actually quite blurry across the board. On the flip side, frame rates are a lot smoother and UI icons seem less blurry (indicating a different upscaling algorithm to the one Civ itself uses with the UI scaling option). I might change some detail settings to see if I can find a 4k compromise, as Civ is not a game in which perfectly smooth frames matter to me, as long as they're reasonable.
Summary
submitted by /u/Cyrris Graphics Quality
Out of the box, running at 4k res this game looks incredibly sharp. I played through two games on high detail at 4k, with MSAA turned off. The actual 3D rendering is fantastic, wonders look very nice in particular, with intricate ones such as the Bolshoi Theatre really showing off the benefits of 4k. The UI however is more of a mixed bag. The UI scaling works well when enabled and nothing requires me to squint. Fonts are rendered very sharply at 4k res and look crisp. However, the rest of the UI is clearly upscaled and icons in particular are blurry enough to be noticeable. This is a bit disappointing for a 2016 game, and for 2D elements for which I am sure the artists have high-res copies available. To me, it would make more sense for the game to store high-res copies which are then downscaled at lower resolutions, instead of vice-versa. As far as 4k crispness goes, this is the only thing that appears to need fixing.
Controls
I am a fan of edge scrolling as I essentially like to play Civ one-handed. This was a mess and unfortunately even with the comprehensive fixes listed over at CivFanatics in this thread, edge scrolling on the Right and Bottom of the screen simply did not work as expected. Carefully looking at the edge of the screen in these locations, it appears as though the tip of the cursor was no longer on the screen when at the right-most or bottom-most positions when in 4k. What I found was that disabling the UI scaling actually fixed this problem, of course at the expense of UI readability. Obviously, this needs to be fixed.
Running in DX12 mode, the game forces itself to run in a borderless window on my laptop, regardless of whether fullscreen was selected or not. This meant that running in 1080p would have the game only showing in the top-left quarter of my screen instead of upscaling to fill it. Switching to DX11 and selecting fullscreen was successful, however, and so playing without UI scaling means edge scrolling works as expected while retaining a readable UI, just without the crispness of 4k.
It reminds me of a similar problem with Heroes of the Storm forcing borderless window mode in DX11, whereas playing the game in DX9 fixes that issue. That problem is still currently open with Blizzard, and they mentioned it was mostly an issue for Optimus-enabled laptops, so I would not be surprised if something similar is going on here.
Finally, mouse sensitivity. This isn't an issue at 4k as it will simply replicate your desktop mouse sensitivity. However, if your graphics card is not quite powerful enough for your 4k screen and you wish to run at 1080p, the mouse will become overly sensitive (as in many other games). My mouse has a DPI switch on it to work around this problem, however it would be nice to see a sensitivity slider in the in-game options so I don't need to do this, again ala Heroes of the Storm. Other sensitivity options such as the edge scrolling pan speed are editable in .lua files, but I am unsure if there is a value for general mouse sensitivity in there as well.
Performance
I have only today started playing in 1080p instead of 4k and am yet to make up my mind about whether to stay. Even with 8xMSAA, the Bolshoi Theatre is looking pretty rough in 1080p and fonts are actually quite blurry across the board. On the flip side, frame rates are a lot smoother and UI icons seem less blurry (indicating a different upscaling algorithm to the one Civ itself uses with the UI scaling option). I might change some detail settings to see if I can find a 4k compromise, as Civ is not a game in which perfectly smooth frames matter to me, as long as they're reasonable.
Summary
- Running at 4k on a 4k screen will greatly enhance font and 3D render quality, while somewhat reducing the sharpness on all graphical UI elements if upscaled.
- Running at fullscreen 1080p on a 4k screen will cause the inverse of the above, but may be worth it for performance. It will however cause mouse sensitivity issues which aren't resolvable in-game. Additionally, this only seems to upscale properly in DX11 mode, not DX12.
- Running in 4k with UI scaling enabled causes edge scrolling to stop working if you have applied the fixes mentioned to obtain true edge scrolling instead of near-edge scrolling. Perhaps this issue is why the scrolling problem existed in the first place, as a Firaxis workaround? Hard to say.
[link] [comments]
My current game has descended into Orwellian nightmare.
Posted: 21 Dec 2016 06:58 PM PST
I am a peaceful Civ player. We all know that the Civ V AI is pretty terrible at conducting warfare, so it's generally more interesting for me to focus on my own stuff than worry about taking those other badly-placed cities full of angry people. This is especially true early game, when the AI races ahead of me in tech and my classical-era games generally skirt a fine margin between adequate defenses and total annihilation. Such was the case in this game; I grabbed Mt Sinai with my second city, leveraged it for Tithe and a truly Biblical legion of missionaries, and converted roughly half the world to the Church of aubergineshinobi the Creator, First of His Name and All the Other Ones Too, Father of London, God-King, President for Life and the Undying. I was friends with everyone, built a fifty-meter monument to my dick out of tithe gold, and set about seeing just how awesome I could make London.
But alas! it was not to be. The conniving Ottomans, sensing opportunity, launched a dishonorable sneak attack into the western flank of my empire, which appeared vulnerable on paper but occupied, as they discovered, an abundantly defensible location. The ensuing war was hard-fought - I possessed near-unchallenged command of the seas, but no experienced Civ player fucks with Janissaries except at extreme range. Eventually, the tide inevitably turned against the Ottomans, as my navy and my longbows chipped away at his land defenses. I took four cities, and added Lord of the Inland Sea and Gentle Guardian of Istanbul - ironically, settled two hexes away from a canal city location into the inland sea - to my titles.
Here's where it gets weird. I didn't want to take any more cities, as they were expensive, poorly-placed and full of angry people. But neither did I have any incentive to make peace, because I'd so thoroughly humbled them that they had nothing to offer. The status quo suited me just fine.
That was in AD 1500. It is now AD 1900, and for 400 years my longbowmen have used the ruined Ottoman people for target practice. Their next promotion will be Barrage III, for lack of an alternative. Furthermore, I've discovered that perpetual, pointless war is the cornerstone upon which the stable world order rests. Any experienced Civ player knows that if an AI has to choose between two of its friends, one an AI and one human, it inevitably chooses the AI. Piss off one AI, and you piss off them all. And their tool for expressing their displeasure is the infamously annoying denouncement. You see where this is going, right?
If you're at war with a civ, they cannot denounce you. Pulverizing the Ottomans for 500 years has enabled me to remain friends with all of their friends.
On the other side of the globe, the other world powers are mired in a titanic struggle for a particularly obstinate border area covered in mountains and jungle. I don't expect that to change anytime soon either.
tl;dr Perpetual war has resulted in a remarkably stable late-game, which is eerily reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.
submitted by /u/aubergineshinobi But alas! it was not to be. The conniving Ottomans, sensing opportunity, launched a dishonorable sneak attack into the western flank of my empire, which appeared vulnerable on paper but occupied, as they discovered, an abundantly defensible location. The ensuing war was hard-fought - I possessed near-unchallenged command of the seas, but no experienced Civ player fucks with Janissaries except at extreme range. Eventually, the tide inevitably turned against the Ottomans, as my navy and my longbows chipped away at his land defenses. I took four cities, and added Lord of the Inland Sea and Gentle Guardian of Istanbul - ironically, settled two hexes away from a canal city location into the inland sea - to my titles.
Here's where it gets weird. I didn't want to take any more cities, as they were expensive, poorly-placed and full of angry people. But neither did I have any incentive to make peace, because I'd so thoroughly humbled them that they had nothing to offer. The status quo suited me just fine.
That was in AD 1500. It is now AD 1900, and for 400 years my longbowmen have used the ruined Ottoman people for target practice. Their next promotion will be Barrage III, for lack of an alternative. Furthermore, I've discovered that perpetual, pointless war is the cornerstone upon which the stable world order rests. Any experienced Civ player knows that if an AI has to choose between two of its friends, one an AI and one human, it inevitably chooses the AI. Piss off one AI, and you piss off them all. And their tool for expressing their displeasure is the infamously annoying denouncement. You see where this is going, right?
If you're at war with a civ, they cannot denounce you. Pulverizing the Ottomans for 500 years has enabled me to remain friends with all of their friends.
On the other side of the globe, the other world powers are mired in a titanic struggle for a particularly obstinate border area covered in mountains and jungle. I don't expect that to change anytime soon either.
tl;dr Perpetual war has resulted in a remarkably stable late-game, which is eerily reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.
[link] [comments]
[Civ 6] Rifling makes Winged Hussars obsolete?!
Posted: 22 Dec 2016 08:13 AM PST
I was deep in my Poland game and noticed that after researching Rifling (Industrial Era tech that allows you to build Rangers) Winged Hussars disappeared from the units list. Neither Mercenaries civic nor Rifling tech describes this. Not to mention Shitopedia.
Also, having unfinished Winged Hussar in production froze production in one of my cities - Winged Hussar was being displayed as production in progress yet End Turn button was still prompting me to select production in that city, but clicking the production button would not let me open the units/buildings/wonders/projects panel at all. As a result I could not finish my turn. Reloading previous turn and changing nothing..well, changed nothing :) I met the same result. If I removed Hussars that would have not been finished at the turn I researched Rifling, everything was fine (aside from unexpected inability to build more Hussars), my production wasn't boned, I could select other things to produce and could end the turn smoothly.
Anyone else experiencing that?
submitted by /u/Grzemek Also, having unfinished Winged Hussar in production froze production in one of my cities - Winged Hussar was being displayed as production in progress yet End Turn button was still prompting me to select production in that city, but clicking the production button would not let me open the units/buildings/wonders/projects panel at all. As a result I could not finish my turn. Reloading previous turn and changing nothing..well, changed nothing :) I met the same result. If I removed Hussars that would have not been finished at the turn I researched Rifling, everything was fine (aside from unexpected inability to build more Hussars), my production wasn't boned, I could select other things to produce and could end the turn smoothly.
Anyone else experiencing that?
[link] [comments]
When you got planes before wheels
Posted: 22 Dec 2016 07:09 AM PST
 | submitted by /u/BambooWhiteBoeiiii [link] [comments] |
I was playing with a few friends and noticed my borders looked a lot like the espionage symbol
Posted: 21 Dec 2016 07:21 PM PST
 | submitted by /u/TotalLegitREMIX [link] [comments] |
Why isn't there a "Restart Game" button in the game menu for Civ VI yet?
Posted: 21 Dec 2016 06:52 PM PST
The one thing I had hoped that would come along with the Winter 2016 Patch was a restart button for when I start in a bad map. I guess I'll have to keep going back to the main menu and creating a new game....
submitted by /u/Gojira085 [link] [comments]
Question: Captured wonders in Civ VI
Posted: 22 Dec 2016 06:38 AM PST
When you capture an enemy city in Civ VI, do you get the bonuses from that city's wonders, does the original civilization keep those bonuses, or are those wonders' benefits lost forever?
submitted by /u/GinjinFey [link] [comments]
Why can't I finish a Civ VI game when I used to be obsessed with Civ V?
Posted: 22 Dec 2016 07:14 AM PST
Per the title, I have about 100 hours in on various plays so far, but I get about to the medieval period, and just lose interest. I know a fair bit of it is I just can't get used to the new UI - explored, non-active tiles look too much like unexplored tiles; can never figure out where I am for happiness; and determining which Wonders are actually worth building is a royal pain. Religion is much more aggressive if you turn it on as a victory condition, and it seems like almost everything the UI does tries to steer you toward putting most of your emphasis into units. I just feel lost a lot of the time, and even seeing I am number one for most categories on the menu doesn't have the same feel as it did before. Is it just me? If you felt the same way and overcame it, how did you do that?
submitted by /u/EwanG [link] [comments]
The Perfect Tile - Conquest Deluxe Scenario
Posted: 22 Dec 2016 08:54 AM PST
 | submitted by /u/bitermer [link] [comments] |
The Water Pyramid! Oh whale..
Posted: 21 Dec 2016 08:55 PM PST
 | submitted by /u/FalloutGeek448 [link] [comments] |
Golden Ages
Posted: 22 Dec 2016 02:56 AM PST
Now that I've got used to the civ 6 mechanics I've finally noticed that Golden Ages aren't in civ 6. Which is a shame. They were one of the innovations that civ 3 introduced that I found really fun.
They've been slowly watered down over the years though (much like wonders used to be a big deal in the early civ games, but a lot of them feel pretty underwhelming in 6). In civ 3 you could only get 1, and it lasted 20 turns and have you a pretty hefty boost to production and science. Chosing when to trigger a golden age was a big deal, and since it was tied to a civs unique unit, different civs got them at different points.
They seemed to become less dramatic with each subsequent iteration. Civ 5's GAs were not really that noticeable by comparison, and much shorter. And now they're gone entirely.
I'd like to see a return of a significant, one off golden age personally. Added some significant narrative to the story of the game.
submitted by /u/ThoseSixFish They've been slowly watered down over the years though (much like wonders used to be a big deal in the early civ games, but a lot of them feel pretty underwhelming in 6). In civ 3 you could only get 1, and it lasted 20 turns and have you a pretty hefty boost to production and science. Chosing when to trigger a golden age was a big deal, and since it was tied to a civs unique unit, different civs got them at different points.
They seemed to become less dramatic with each subsequent iteration. Civ 5's GAs were not really that noticeable by comparison, and much shorter. And now they're gone entirely.
I'd like to see a return of a significant, one off golden age personally. Added some significant narrative to the story of the game.
[link] [comments]
This front line hasn't moved in about 6000 years, thanks to jungle, hills and citadel spam.
Posted: 22 Dec 2016 03:19 AM PST
 | submitted by /u/miauw62 [link] [comments] |
Am I confused, or is this normal?
Posted: 22 Dec 2016 03:29 AM PST
 | submitted by /u/21sage [link] [comments] |
I'm not sure that it's actually possible to defend this...
Posted: 22 Dec 2016 06:37 AM PST
 | submitted by /u/drunkenstarcraft [link] [comments] |
Go home Captain Morgan, your drunk. Literally.
Posted: 21 Dec 2016 08:53 PM PST
 | submitted by /u/FalloutGeek448 [link] [comments] |
New bug? I'm friends with England but we can attack each other.
Posted: 22 Dec 2016 06:33 AM PST
Just noticed this in my new SP game since the new DLC. England and I are declared friends, but upon entering their territory, their units and cities attack mine.
http://imgur.com/a/Yxffh
Don't know what the deal with that is.
submitted by /u/AlduirCelestar http://imgur.com/a/Yxffh
Don't know what the deal with that is.
[link] [comments]
MRW I see "Germany and Japan are now Friends!"
Posted: 22 Dec 2016 09:05 AM PST
 | submitted by /u/NotChuckGrassley [link] [comments] |
I wrote a review of Civ VI, but I just want to talk about the negative parts of that review here.
Posted: 22 Dec 2016 03:38 AM PST
There are currently some balance issues with the game, and these balance issues that negate a lot of the advantages of the reworked mechanics. I think the first issue is the AI in the game appears to be based on the Beyond Earth AI, which means it is largely too peaceful and universally hates conquerors. I have yet to play a game with a warlike AI who pursues a domination victory. It seems the AI will pursue science, religious, or culture victories only. This is unfortunate and it leads to a certain predictability and lack of variety across games. Finally, it seems the effort required to achieve various victories is not quite balanced. Until the most recent (Dec 20, 2016) patch, science victories required both a tremendous science investment and a very large industrial investment, which meant someone might win another victory long after you have completed the research tree, but have yet to build and launch all the rocket parts. I believe the latest patch is meant to address this issue. However, the religious victory is still the most out of balance of all of them. This is largely due to how the religion mechanic works in Civ 6.
In Civ 6, religion is a core feature of the game, not an added feature. If you want to pursue a religious victory, you must decide to do so at the very beginning of the game, since in each game there are fewer religions allowed than there are civilizations. This is I think the core failing of the religion mechanic. You must push to get the most religious points and buildings early, so you can found a religion. If you do found a religion, you can spam religious units who can ignore borders and convert cities in any empire. Any civilization who does not have their own religion must resort to physically blocking their cities from being converted by constantly keeping their cities surrounded by units or going to war to capture/destroy the invading religious zealots. If you do have your own religion, you can build units to defend with. However, religious warfare is not all that interesting, since there are only a handful of different units and only one that is capable of offensive religious warfare against other (religious) units. This basically comes down to who can spam the most units wins. It seems that in many games, there are usually two major religious players and if you're going for a religious victory, your major challenge is defeating the other major religion. all the other players have no defense, which is different when compared with other victory types where every civ can be at least somewhat competitive or at least have a credible strategy for countering a win.
A science victory can be held off with spies, as can a culture victory or a domination victory. (sabotage factories and spaceports, steal artefacts). A domination victory can be held off by simply holding your capital. However, I have yet to see an AI anywhere close to a domination victory. A culture victory, as with a science or domination victory, can be achieved by simply out-producing your opponent at the relative metric. You can use conquest or production to fuel this rise in power. However, a religious victory cannot be rolled back largely because there is no mechanism to de-radicalize your own cities or the cities of others if you have already been converted. If you have yet to be converted but were not lucky enough to get your own religion, it is only a matter of time before someone converts you. Once that happens, you can convert cities to that religion, but that doesn't help you. that helps your opponent. I suppose in theory you could try to interpose your religious units to prevent an opposing religion from becoming too dominant, but if whoever converted you is already dominant, there's basically nothing you can do short of militarily eliminating the civ that spawned the religion. However, this option will incur a heavy diplomatic penalty from every other leader in the game. I think that leads into my final complaint with the AI in this game, which is an unfortunate side-effect of a rather interesting feature of the personalities they imbued each civilization with. Essentially, each civilization respects strength in specific areas, and your strength or weakness in those areas will provide diplomatic bonuses or penalties with that leader. For instance, Cleopatra respects military might, while Harold respects a strong navy. The trouble with this, is that many leaders respect strength in areas that they themselves are strong in, leading them to like leaders that are in direct competition with them. Other leaders don't have this problem, but there are quite a few who do. Separately from that issue, no leader appears to recognize when a leader is nearing victory in a specific area. Thus, a leader might continue to respect your strong culture and like you for it right until they lose. There does not seem to be a sense that they are in competition with you or each-other. Thus, if you act to prevent a civilization from winning through war, you will incur a heavy diplomatic penalty even though other civilizations should instead be backing your play.
Tl;DR: The religious victory is totally different than the other victories and can't be countered in the same ways as the other victories.
submitted by /u/DeathByChainsaw In Civ 6, religion is a core feature of the game, not an added feature. If you want to pursue a religious victory, you must decide to do so at the very beginning of the game, since in each game there are fewer religions allowed than there are civilizations. This is I think the core failing of the religion mechanic. You must push to get the most religious points and buildings early, so you can found a religion. If you do found a religion, you can spam religious units who can ignore borders and convert cities in any empire. Any civilization who does not have their own religion must resort to physically blocking their cities from being converted by constantly keeping their cities surrounded by units or going to war to capture/destroy the invading religious zealots. If you do have your own religion, you can build units to defend with. However, religious warfare is not all that interesting, since there are only a handful of different units and only one that is capable of offensive religious warfare against other (religious) units. This basically comes down to who can spam the most units wins. It seems that in many games, there are usually two major religious players and if you're going for a religious victory, your major challenge is defeating the other major religion. all the other players have no defense, which is different when compared with other victory types where every civ can be at least somewhat competitive or at least have a credible strategy for countering a win.
A science victory can be held off with spies, as can a culture victory or a domination victory. (sabotage factories and spaceports, steal artefacts). A domination victory can be held off by simply holding your capital. However, I have yet to see an AI anywhere close to a domination victory. A culture victory, as with a science or domination victory, can be achieved by simply out-producing your opponent at the relative metric. You can use conquest or production to fuel this rise in power. However, a religious victory cannot be rolled back largely because there is no mechanism to de-radicalize your own cities or the cities of others if you have already been converted. If you have yet to be converted but were not lucky enough to get your own religion, it is only a matter of time before someone converts you. Once that happens, you can convert cities to that religion, but that doesn't help you. that helps your opponent. I suppose in theory you could try to interpose your religious units to prevent an opposing religion from becoming too dominant, but if whoever converted you is already dominant, there's basically nothing you can do short of militarily eliminating the civ that spawned the religion. However, this option will incur a heavy diplomatic penalty from every other leader in the game. I think that leads into my final complaint with the AI in this game, which is an unfortunate side-effect of a rather interesting feature of the personalities they imbued each civilization with. Essentially, each civilization respects strength in specific areas, and your strength or weakness in those areas will provide diplomatic bonuses or penalties with that leader. For instance, Cleopatra respects military might, while Harold respects a strong navy. The trouble with this, is that many leaders respect strength in areas that they themselves are strong in, leading them to like leaders that are in direct competition with them. Other leaders don't have this problem, but there are quite a few who do. Separately from that issue, no leader appears to recognize when a leader is nearing victory in a specific area. Thus, a leader might continue to respect your strong culture and like you for it right until they lose. There does not seem to be a sense that they are in competition with you or each-other. Thus, if you act to prevent a civilization from winning through war, you will incur a heavy diplomatic penalty even though other civilizations should instead be backing your play.
Tl;DR: The religious victory is totally different than the other victories and can't be countered in the same ways as the other victories.
[link] [comments]
Discuses: Optimal District Management with Industry and Amenity Nerfs
Posted: 22 Dec 2016 07:13 AM PST
I love civ 6. It is so fun to me. I generally play Germany and I agree with the nerfs to Industry and Amenities. But on the same hand I am very curious about opinions on district optimization now that you can only receive bonuses from one Hansa district. I assume Spreading cities out may be more viable now but I would like to open this thread to discussion on whether or not hansa/industry spamming is still going to be the meta for mid game or if we will see cities with no industrial districts becoming viable as long as they are in range of an industrial district with all the building. As well I am curious about whether the industry nerf actually made science victories less viable or if the reduction in space race production costs evened out the nerf to production. This will also be effected by the slower tech tree but science is never really as issue for me.
Next, is infinitely sprawling cities still viable with amenity nerfs? Or are we going to see a more centralized empire. Not quite the tall strat from previous civs, but maybe capping out at around 8-12 cities since amenities from entertainment districts will no longer go as far as they used to.
submitted by /u/Legitlol Next, is infinitely sprawling cities still viable with amenity nerfs? Or are we going to see a more centralized empire. Not quite the tall strat from previous civs, but maybe capping out at around 8-12 cities since amenities from entertainment districts will no longer go as far as they used to.
[link] [comments]
Oh the Iron E.
Posted: 21 Dec 2016 10:52 PM PST
Was playing Civ 5 game as the Aztecs. Started off on a pretty isolated continent with my only ally being Genghis Khan ( Terrible Idea, I know). When Khan inevitably declared war on me my far northern city got over ran, conviently surrounded by mountains so it was easy to defend everything else. What really saved me was a great general though, the same turn that I lost that city I spawned a great general. Quickly I built a citadel in my northern mountain passage thingy and shortly afterwards forced the Mongols into a peace treaty. Here's the irony, what was the name of the great general who just saved the Aztec empire?
Hernan Cortes.
submitted by /u/FluffyCenturion Hernan Cortes.
[link] [comments]
Post a Comment