An earlier post and boredom at work has inspired me to work out a theoretical maximum for wonders in a single city. This assumes you have the production to keep up (I'm guessing China to secure the early wonders), and an absolute perfect starting location. It also assumes you have supplemental cities providing district adjacencies.

That means you would need approximately the following (1st, 2nd, and 3rd ring refer to tiles emanating from the city center):

• 4 flat tiles in the 1st ring
  
• 1 cattle in the 2nd ring
  
• 1 stone in the 1st or 2nd ring
  
• 1 deer in the 1st or 2nd ring
  
• 2 flat desert tiles in the 2nd ring
  
• 1 desert hill tile in the 2nd ring
  
• 1 single tile lake in the 2nd ring
  
• 1 jungle tile in the 2nd ring
  
• 1 forest tile in the 3rd ring
  
• 1 marsh tile in the 1st or 2nd ring
  
• 5 coastal tiles in the 3rd ring (needs to be on a narrow bay for 2 supplemental adjacent harbors)
  
• 3 grassland or plains hills
  

It would be something like this. The supplemental districts are color coded the best I could manage. I also realized after uploading that the river would have to flow differently to account for the Hanging Gardens.

http://imgur.com/EXosbdu

This uses 36 of the 42 available wonders with R&F.

Wonders not used:
Angkor Wat
Amundsen-Scott Research Station
Casa de Contratacion
Kotoku-in
Mausoleum at Halicarnassus
Potala Palace

Edit: formatting

I just played a game where two continents where separated by one sea tile, just like Beringia and I thought to myself what if I could build a bridge to connect the two land masses, it would allow units to easily move thought one sea tile during late game. I think it would be an awesome addition to the game, upvote if you think the same.

So I just lost a game playing as the netherlands, found myself with France and Germany on either side of me and Scotland above me.

Germany declared war on me, which made Robbie upset at me for fighting a war nearby. That put our relationship on a downward trend, but what clinched it is that after making peace with Germany, France declared war with me, keeping Robbie upset. He eventually declared war with me just as I was desperately trying to hold off France as "I'm warring with my neighbours"

This agenda should really only count wars where you are either the aggressor, or you're conquering their cities. Blaming a kingdom for fighting a war of pure survival (where I lost a city in anyway) is just nonsensical.

Anyway, I lost the game but thought I'd post to see if any of you have had a similar situation, and just in case Firaxis sees this and tweaks Robbie's anti-war agenda to maybe hate the aggressor instead of the victim. =)

I recently picked up the game and R&F and I'm just baffled at how fast the AI just gobbles up every CS in sight, game after game. When even Brazil is doing it something's weird. I'm on King so it can't even really be explained by difficulty.

Full disclosure: I've never built a non Roman Fort in Civ VI.

Part of it is that the requirements are pretty arcane (you need to build a Military Engineer, which requires an Encampment and an Armory) and the payoff is rarely worth it.

What I propose is this:

• Forts become available at the Construction tech and can be built by Builders.
• Forts built by Military Engineers gain additional defense.
• Forts gain additional defense after researching Castles, Siege Tactics, and Steel.
• Two new Military Policy cards: Defense in Depth (Forts gain bonus defense if near a district, Scorched Earth civic) and Trench Warfare (attack bonus vs units in Forts, Mobilization civic).

What other ways can we make Forts useful?

So, I was having a very peaceful game the other day, built a few walls on my border cities just for precaution. I even managed to keep Tamar happy with these walls.

However, I unlocked the Steel technology, and Tamar now hates my guts because I'm not building enough walls. You can't even build walls anymore after you research Steel, how am I supposed to keep good relations when it's impossible to satisfy her agenda?

This is not the first time that happens either, it's the second game she hates me because I don't build walls after researching Steel.

Also, what game should I start with and such?

In history there have been situations like the trenches of the First World War, where whole divisions mutinied. Mutiny on ships has a long history as well.

Unit loyalty would be a fun thing to add to the game and it would function like morale. You would lose loyalty by repeatedly sending wounded units into combat, by multiple units being killed nearby (say within five tiles), or for non-explorer units being outside your territory for too long. Having Great Generals and Admirals nearby would increase loyalty, as would victories. Pillaging would also bring loyalty since the soldiers would be looting. Policy Cards could also affect it in various ways. Units that got to zero loyalty would mutiny and became like free city units.

Things like this have played such a huge role in important military campaigns such as Napoleon's Russia defeat, fragging in the Vietnam War, or in the Golden Age of Piracy. So I think it would be a really fun addition to the game. It would help keep a a major conquering power in check and make planning major wars more interesting.

In civ 5, making deals with one civ to fight another was massively fun and added an exciting element of strategy. I hope the devs put it back in Civ 6 soon.

At the moment, there are are only two modes, war and peace. You only have the two interactions with other empires. Once spies come along you can start engaging in indirect warfare via hampering the enemy's production/income or boosting yourself. Spies though feel extremely passive in nature, you send them to do the thing, then hope your first spy doesn't proc the 1% to die every single game like they do.

I feel there should be black flagged units like the privateers or a cavalry raider unit, that can let you go in and actively attack the enemy even during peace times without directly declaring war.

Adding a "raid" CB, that lets you go in and pillage the enemy country side (but you can't take cities), would also be extremely nice, as a way to attack the enemy without ever war being wars to the death like they tend to be.

mine is scout > slinger > settler > monument > builder

I have sunk some serious time into Rise and Fall and whilst I generally like the new loyalty system I do think it needs a little bit of tweaking. Some comments and observations:

• liberating leaders who have been removed from the game is now completely impossible as loyalty flips their city within a ridiculously short number of turns. Should there be a grace period or some immunity for these situations?

• You can get around the warmongering penalty for taking someone's last city by leaving them with some piece of crap two population city which will flip and wipe them. I kinda think this is a bit sad as I used to take real pleasure in leaving certain AI in the most hilariously rubbish corners of the map in Civ 5. Especially Elizabeth.

• If you/AI lose your capital in the early game there is no coming back from that. Loyalty will snowball you/them and you're gone. And if you're not you'll spend all your time fighting the risk of rebellion to actually do anything useful.

• the number of turns it gives you before cities you have just conquered flip on higher difficulties is just insanely difficult sometimes. On immortal difficulty with Gilgamesh I have seen 3 turns til rebellion, even sometimes when the city is in range of my capital and with governors and policy cards. This amount of time just doesn't give you any time to fix it. I had one game where I was trying to hold two cities (both in range of my capital) with governors (Amani with loyaly promotion) and both early game loyalty cards (garrisoned units and extra points for governors) and it was just an endless back and forth between capturing them and them rebelling, with their populations (and thus loyalty exerted) decreasing. I eventually managed to keep them both by re-capturing them both on the same turn and using builders to cut down rainforest to rebuild their monument and force them to grow. But it was such a delicate balance and I think there should be a minimum amount of turns it gives you - ten maybe would be fair.

• Some cities (not sure on the criteria but it seems to be based on number of turns til rebellion) go into completely useless mode with a few turns to flip. This seems to be similar to the "resistance" status of Civ 5 where the city doesn't grow and has endless turns to produce anything. This has got me a few times where with a governor in place, and my monument in the process of being repaired, you suddenly lose the city unexpectedly because you can't finish building your monument as expected. I love it when cities don't have one and you can just buy them a monument.

• I've struggled much more with amenities since Rise and Fall. The loyalty system encourages you to pack cities together in a circle and also keep AI cities which you might have otherwise returned for a peace treaty or razed, just for their loyalty. With only 4 approximate luxuries to a continent it can make expanding into new territories very difficult without committing to taking a large number of cities with repeat luxuries that the majority of the AI will offer 1gpt for.

-It's especially annoying as AI wont trade or even accept cities as gifts, even with distracts and luxuries due to loyalty. Smart, but annoying when they think your entire empire for a painting is a good trade deal.

• on a side note, since R&F I haven't seen any AI (immortal and emperor difficulties) agree to trade me cities I haven't captured in a peace treaty. Has anyone else seen this? It's upped my war mongering penalties significantly.

I just thought I would share my observations with Reddit in case anyone has anything to add or comment!

...And I believe the game is missing out.

First, let me explain what 'tall strategies' are for people that don't know. It means limiting your cities to very few and growing them to absurdly large population sizes(tall cities). The contrast to this is the "wide strategy" which is just to found/conquer as many cities as you can and cover a large amount of territory. Civ VI is all about going wide, and there's nothing wrong with that.

From reading all the comments in my thread yesterday, I realized that there's a split opinion about Audience Chamber even between players looking to play tall. On one side is a group of people that will play tall anyways, and Audience Chamber is fantastic for them because it does definitely make tall play better. On the other side is a group of people that are looking for a good reason to play tall, and for them Audience Chamber falls short. I belong in the latter half.

With R&F, tall strategies are more viable than ever and that's great. However, all of these things are just things that make you go, "If I'm playing tall, I should choose this", and none of these goes the other way. I have come to realize that there isn't anything inherently wrong with Audience Chamber, but it just felt so close to something that makes me go, "if I choose this, I should play tall". For example, Civ V had the Tradition tree and various civilizations like India and Ethiopia. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a single aspect of the game in Civ VI that makes me feel the same. I'm desperately looking for a good excuse to play tall other than 'because I feel like it', and the game doesn't deliver.

It was a very long and hard (no pun intended) game. Singleplayer, Emperor difficulty (I usually play King) Earth scenario, lots of civs, very long gameplay. I was Boudicca, had to fight my way inland to have a decent amount of land. Resources were scarce, food tiles were kinda hard to come by and my early development was definitely slow.

The mediterranean was a mess as usual. Two civilizations there were eliminated during the classic times, and France had invaded Africa and captured Songhai's capital. I scouted the continent and saw good oportunities, so I decided to slow Napoleon's progress by supporting Songhai and liberating their capital. I kept Songhai under my protection, built a solid relationship, pillaged Napoleon's territory two or three times to slow him down further and settled two cities on the west coast.

I secretly undermined all other strong civs by financing their smaller enemies (even city states) and providing units, so I could make them waste time and resources without any risks and nobody could hold me accountable. That enabled me to catch up with the stronger civs and eventually my economy and production capacity became really scary.

Then, on the dawn of the renaissance, WWI began.

At this point, I was powerful enough to turn war into profit so I didn't care, my territories in Europe were pretty solid and my southern colonies in Africa were heavily manned, had a great navy which I could maneuver to close the mediterrenean and had Songhai territory as a shield. A couple more civs disappeared, most civs in America didn't get involved ('cause no Pearl Harbor, right?) but Carthage, my old ally, commited a lethal mistake: they took a city state I was very fond of. (I'm very into roleplay)

WWI was over, my tech was booming during the renaissance and the world became divided into two major powers: the Celts (me) and the Shoshone.

Both me and the Shoshone had reached the Industrial Era (although I was several steps ahead and generating way more tech) when WWII exploded in our faces. In fact, we used to trade a lot, we were not enemies and didn't have anything to do with what caused the conflict.

During this war, I revealed my necromancer powers and brought death to the greedy little bastards trying to acquire territory around the globe.

I waged war on whoever had ever took down another civ and city state, pierced through their territory, liberated and brought back from the dead ancient civilizations and city states, and then spent the shitload of money and troops I had to arm them to the teeth. My undead armies doomed their old enemies, and that increased the gap between the two major powers and the rest of the world even further, as conflicts escalated and the territories became diverse once again.

WWII never really ended, although eventually my enemies asked for peace. My necromancer powers had lit the world's fuse and there was no coming back. Me and the shoshone thrived as the rest of the world collapsed in several wars with me supporting one side or the order as I saw fit. The Shoshone soon became scared of my technological and militar superiority, started building up armies and spying. I took countermeasures and developed my military power further. Cold war took place and I had dozens of tanks, troops, planes and the mediterranean and african navies restricting the Shoshone to Asia.

One day, they decided to attack my allies on southern Asia. As usual, I financed their enemies, but this time they were powerful enough to take the whole Asia, so I had to act directly against them for the fist time. WWIII struck, tanks rolled into Asia, paratroopers rained from the skies, nuclear missiles brought doom to their major cities. Still, they were able to put up a fight, but that was enough to leave them too weak to resume dominating territory, as I had softened them enough for the other civs and city states be able to fight back. At this point, it was safe for me to make peace and leave them to deal with their new foes, now reinforced with new troops I gave. That was the final blow to their progress and I became the major power.

I completely dominated the late game and achieved tech victory, but my true power was basically being a dick, encouraging war, providing troops (specially to city states, who even took other civ's cities LOL) and supporting resistances all around the globe to prevent the other powers from developing.

This game can teach you a lot about how the world works, and now I'm pretty sure there's a Necromancer out there who is the most inexcusable dick you can think of.

[EDIT] Typo.

By untraditional I mean something like Zulu, Seneca or Shoshone which have fewer than 1 million speakers, not like Russian, French or Mandarin.

Don't know if this is a bug or what, but on the tsl Europe map included with the Rise and Fall dlc, Huey Teocalli is missing. Under military tactics there is nothing but the pikeman icon and I can't build the wonder. I have no mods enabled and all dlc enabled. Anyone else had this problem or know if the wonder is disabled on tsl Europe?

Just allowing you to leverage City State armies at half gold and giving them a bit of a boost is super weak in comparison to the Intelligence Agency or the Chapel, which both are much better in comparison.

I think it should grant you +3 Envoys upon being built, and also speed up Envoy acquisition.

i just had a super frustrating game where i was in the middle of 6 ai civs, they all had their 3 cities before i had my settler out which meant that my second city is instantly rebelling -- even before I have a governor civic. Imo loyalty pressure should have a scaling factor off .5 and increase every era by .2. It should be harder to conquer later era civilizations without rebellion but in the stone age it shouldnt.

Hey all, I'd like to start some discussion topics on some mechanics of the game. The governor system) seems like a good place to start as it confused the hell out of me first, but now I've seemed to not be completely lost.

So, your early civics give you two titles, and the ability to construct the government building. The government building offers an additional title, as well as the ability to construct another building that helps with expansion, tall cities, or conquest.

As far as what I use my governor titles on, I've settled around 3-4 major strategies.

• If I have a lot of improvable resources, I will typically go Liang in order to pump out builders.

• If I have not met a lot of other city states or neighbor civs, I will typically go Magnus to chop-rush a lot of settlers out.

• If I am going for a tech-turtle strategy, I will go Pigala.

• If I am going religious victory, I will go Moksha

I have found that controlling key city states (either for their bonuses or for their strategic location) with Amani to be pretty valuable in the mid game.

I haven't found much use for Victor outside of being able to place him quickly in recently conquered cities that might have a loyalty issue.

Which of these strategies do you tend to use most often? What haven't I mentioned?

I mean, in another continent, trying to get some bonus of colonial policies.

I ask this because, in essence, we are influencing the local government with envoys anyway.

This is the scenario: I am the Cree, Persia and I have been vying for control of Mohenjo-Daro since the beginning of time. MD is flipping between Persian, Chinese, and Cree influence. Most of the time I am on top but Persia Suzed it right before a big war broke out between the Persian/Chinese alliance and my contingent (the bro-patrol of Scotland, Sumer and of course myself). MD is important to me because as the Cree I am spamming Mekewaps and building high-populous cities and I could use all the housing I can get. I don't particularly want to own MD and I would prefer the Suzerain bonus. So ideally I would like to conquer it and liberate it so I can become Suzerain. Add to this the fact that MD is the only army actually giving me trouble since they border me and have a fair amount of units. But, since they are independent at this time my only options are to keep the city or raze it.

I think it is more realistic to have the option to "liberate" it even though it is independent. I say this because obviously it jives with my strategy, but in real-life I think the option to conquer the city and then install a favorable government is something that would be and has been done in real life.

Not to mention it could cause an emergency which can prolong the war for 30-40 more turns even though the war is all but over.

TLDR: if you take a CS you should have the option of "liberating" it and becoming the Suzerain even if the CS is already independent.

My friend and I just started playing Civ 6 together but around turn 60 or so he starts to DeSync and resync to the game like every other turn. It's not too much of a problem for me but it seems to give him less time for his turns and it is a little unfair. Is there any fix for this? I have seen a lot of old threads on it but I don't seem to see a solution. It is really weird too considering we live in the same apartment....