Finished my first game with Economic Victory

[Molly Biscuit]

First time to play CiV was 1992 at a friends house.
Won first game as Rome, then Normans finished as America. Final year 1851

Overall experience didn’t like all the changes at first but adapted to the changes. The quest each age was a fun change up. Didn’t like the limit on cities seems extremely restrictive for domination. I understand the concept just needs to be adjusted imo.

Won by getting world banker and building Worlds Fair wonder. You can stack explorers which I learned from the AI on losing a few artifacts.

Not sure how I feel about all the changes yet will need to play more

[JUMP'NSHOOTMAN]

Players like myself are the reason there's a limit on cities. I literally will colonize anything in Civ VI and turn it into a production facility. Even the ice caps could be colonized with little issue.

But, while I would secure the win, I'd bore myself to death scrolling through 30-40 cities every couple turns.

I will spam forward settle, there just wasn't a good penalty for it.

[Das_Daw]

I have to say i found the end times lackluster. You are trying to beat the progress timer and hit benchmark and then there is the end screen with 1 sentence uttered and that is it. No points, no graphics, no replay, no continuation. you can just see who earned how many ability points by hitting bench marks (and earning points nobody can spend, because the game ends.. for now). I hade no satisfaction at all, because it just ended abruptly. Trying to complete the game progress checklist does not work for me at all in the endgame.

[Molly Biscuit]

Your leader earns those points and you can upgrade them on next game if you use the same leader.

[Molly Biscuit]

And yes the ending was lackluster

[Many-Named]

Originally posted by JUMP'NSHOOTMAN:

Players like myself are the reason there's a limit on cities. I literally will colonize anything in Civ VI and turn it into a production facility. Even the ice caps could be colonized with little issue.

But, while I would secure the win, I'd bore myself to death scrolling through 30-40 cities every couple turns.

I will spam forward settle, there just wasn't a good penalty for it.

Everyone should play the game the way they want to...why would your playstyle impose limits on mine exactly?

[taomastercu]

Originally posted by JUMP'NSHOOTMAN:

Players like myself are the reason there's a limit on cities. I literally will colonize anything in Civ VI and turn it into a production facility. Even the ice caps could be colonized with little issue.

But, while I would secure the win, I'd bore myself to death scrolling through 30-40 cities every couple turns.

I will spam forward settle, there just wasn't a good penalty for it.

Joke is on you then, the Settlement cap doesn't actually mean anything. There's plenty of methods for getting enough happiness per settlement that the -35 penalty doesn't matter.

[jodnus]

Originally posted by Many-Named:

Originally posted by JUMP'NSHOOTMAN:

Players like myself are the reason there's a limit on cities. I literally will colonize anything in Civ VI and turn it into a production facility. Even the ice caps could be colonized with little issue.

But, while I would secure the win, I'd bore myself to death scrolling through 30-40 cities every couple turns.

I will spam forward settle, there just wasn't a good penalty for it.

Everyone should play the game the way they want to...why would your playstyle impose limits on mine exactly?

Because it isn't interesting if more is always better.

With a soft settlement cap, weighing the trade-offs of where and when to settle adds another dimension of strategy.

[katzenkrimis]

Originally posted by Many-Named:

Everyone should play the game the way they want to.

Why would your playstyle impose limits on mine exactly?

Until they start complaining.

Playing on extremely low difficulty can cause problems that people complain about.

Not being aggressive and not focusing on science can also cause problems that people often complain about.

I would never tell someone how to play, but I'll never forget when Civ VI released. There were people in the forum complaining that they were being attacked while trying to construct their beautiful cities.

Some people still believe that this game is a city builder. It's a strategy game. You're on the clock and you are marked for death from the start. There is no time to be weaving baskets in peace.

If you are playing this game properly, you shouldn't be expecting to build every single structure in the game. If you tried to do that on higher difficulties, you'd lose.

It's a race to do only the most important things necessary.

[Molly Biscuit]

Originally posted by taomastercu:

Originally posted by JUMP'NSHOOTMAN:

Players like myself are the reason there's a limit on cities. I literally will colonize anything in Civ VI and turn it into a production facility. Even the ice caps could be colonized with little issue.

But, while I would secure the win, I'd bore myself to death scrolling through 30-40 cities every couple turns.

I will spam forward settle, there just wasn't a good penalty for it.

Joke is on you then, the Settlement cap doesn't actually mean anything. There's plenty of methods for getting enough happiness per settlement that the -35 penalty doesn't matter.

Yes I went 7 cities above the limit before I had real issues, probably could have gone more but it got difficult to manage.

[streetmage9]

The factories were not moving fast enough for me so went to a dominantion ending. Nuke goes boom and its all over. Very lame

[Mountain Man]

Originally posted by Molly Biscuit:

First time to play CiV was 1992 at a friends house.
Won first game as Rome, then Normans finished as America. Final year 1851

Overall experience didn’t like all the changes at first but adapted to the changes. The quest each age was a fun change up. Didn’t like the limit on cities seems extremely restrictive for domination. I understand the concept just needs to be adjusted imo.

Won by getting world banker and building Worlds Fair wonder. You can stack explorers which I learned from the AI on losing a few artifacts.

Not sure how I feel about all the changes yet will need to play more

Do the victories have different win conditions? In my economic victory, I had to take the banker to each of the other civs' capitols and build a world bank.

[Molly Biscuit]

Originally posted by Mountain Man:

Originally posted by Molly Biscuit:

First time to play CiV was 1992 at a friends house.
Won first game as Rome, then Normans finished as America. Final year 1851

Overall experience didn’t like all the changes at first but adapted to the changes. The quest each age was a fun change up. Didn’t like the limit on cities seems extremely restrictive for domination. I understand the concept just needs to be adjusted imo.

Won by getting world banker and building Worlds Fair wonder. You can stack explorers which I learned from the AI on losing a few artifacts.

Not sure how I feel about all the changes yet will need to play more

Do the victories have different win conditions? In my economic victory, I had to take the banker to each of the other civs' capitols and build a world bank.

I had the option of world banker and or build the World Fair Wonder I did both the banker was in last capital and I finished the wonder and it ended.

[Molly Biscuit]

Originally posted by streetmage9:

The factories were not moving fast enough for me so went to a dominantion ending. Nuke goes boom and its all over. Very lame

I didn’t make it to nukes I had a lot of factories going

[Molly Biscuit]

You earn upgrades for the leader you’re using to add onto when you start your next game with said leader which is interesting

[neonhigh]

Economic is easily my favourite right now, with diplomatic being second. I'm still in the first era playing as Hatsheput in Egypt and I'm averaging 20 units with just under 200 gold a turn. Love buying ish for no reason just to school some ai.