so lost

[Mr.Pessimism]

so i bought this game thinking i like civ 5. how bout we try civ 6 and lets just say i am freaking lost i don't even understand most of whats going on.

let me clarify in civ 5 you pretty much researched everything with the exception of certain religious stuff. no way to win through pure religinion then. now i am not sure what i should be doing. the other civs either race up the tree faster than i or are about the same speed. but some how they can get more units build more and have a better area to which to build. while i am just barely hanging on.

not to mention the constant barbarian raids. wtf i used to play with barbarians on the hardest setting now i can't hold on to units long enough to put much more than a defense.

to say the least i really need some help here guys. i don't know what i am doing wrong here. even the policies or are the doctrines i can't remember that you equip don't seem to help very much.

[mrmike_49]

start out playing with No barbarians until you get a feel of basic game
game has problems, unbalanced Science vs Industry, you'll eventually research everything! Research goes too fast, building goes too slow

[jcp011c2]

What difficulty do you start out on Mr Pessimism?

[Mr.Pessimism]

standard difficulty with standard map size to start out.

[jcp011c2]

Originally posted by Mr.Pessimism:

standard difficulty with standard map size to start out.

Ah okay. That shouldn't be too out of line. The game is very different from Civ 5, but to me most of that comes from over the top unpredictability of the AI, not how they are progressing on scienc, religion etc. Though I don't know if this will help, I found their drive to get a religious victory too difficult to manage (for now) so I have turned that off of my games. Why not try removing one of the victory conditions and then not worrying about it and seeing if that will help? You can focus on the other new aspects of the game without worrying about losing through that way, at least.

[terry]

You may want to spend time on youtube watching some of the vids. There are several out there.
Just watch out for outdated information like one videa says to build cities as close as possible and stack industrial zones in all of them because the factory and power plant bonuses stack to all cities within 6 tiles. Thats not accurate any more, it does go to 6 tiles but they dont stack so you dont need them in all cities any more.
Other than that, there are way too many differences between 5 and 6 for me to type that huge wall of text. My advice is to go check some vids on it.

[Mr.Pessimism]

ya know just a side thought. we had a winning strategy with the last game. yeah its not as pretty but it worked fine. i would like to know the reasoning for such a vast change in gameplay. it just seems like a step back than a step forward to me. right now i am just playing to win a game thats it. its not that i am in love with the game its more like i bought this game i will beat atleast one map.

[jcp011c2]

Originally posted by Mr.Pessimism:

ya know just a side thought. we had a winning strategy with the last game. yeah its not as pretty but it worked fine. i would like to know the reasoning for such a vast change in gameplay. it just seems like a step back than a step forward to me. right now i am just playing to win a game thats it. its not that i am in love with the game its more like i bought this game i will beat atleast one map.

I know what you mean. I tried and tried to beat settler but just couldn't and losing on what I thought was the easiest level completely took any fun out of the game. I don't mind a challenge and I know you don't always win, but when you have no chance of winning the fun kind of goes out the window. It didn't get fun for me until I found out that Settler level is messed up and was actually able to win some lose some on higher levels. I actually need to go past Prince at this point and see how I do. Winning all the time is not fun, but what's worse than that is losing all the time. AI nice middle ground makes for an interesting game.

Hoping some of these suggetions help. It is very different from Civ 5, and the AI and low distance starting points are crap but otherwise it's a good game just different from Civ 5.

[Toadman]

At King and mostly emperor level go offensive and don't stop. 3 archers and a scout or warrior can take out the first ity you find and possibly grab a settler to drop close to them to get out a secod archer fast. Go for archer over slingers immediately. Once you have them you can go for religion, etc.

Build order I like, Scout, slinger, slinger, slinger. Depending on any mods that may alter the starting units. If you can capture a settle form another country, awesome. Drop it and pum out another slinger or archer depending on tech level.

As you conquer one countty after another you will gain thier citties with their first districts, usually sicence or religion.

WAR, War, War. At some point you will need peace to settle down the conqued citie' c ivil unrest and you may be going broke.

Watch your money! I always go for civic pickes that give me -1 gold per unit while you are on this military stomp, and stuff like that while fighting, once I crank out units using purchase discounts.

I have yet to see another way to do well in this game other than military conquest. You could possibly do well at the easier levels at peace but the first 50-100 turns is where the game is won or lost IMO.

It is not uncommon for me to have 2 maybe 3 cities of my own and 4-6 other conquered ones by turn 100 or so.

Dam the Warmongering, because the game will eventually look at you as a Warmonger anyway.

At some point the game willl be so predictable that you will stop playing it and say " Lot's of potential, but really screwed up"

[terry]

Originally posted by jcp011c2:

Hoping some of these suggetions help. It is very different from Civ 5, and the AI and low distance starting points are crap but otherwise it's a good game just different from Civ 5.

I was browsing the mods earlier and noticed several that increase the start distance. I dont know if they actually work or not because i havent downloaded any of them yet.

[Mr.Pessimism]

Originally posted by Toadman:

At King and mostly emperor level go offensive and ont stop. 3 archers and a scout or warrior can take the first ity you fid and possibly grab a settler to drop close to them to get out a secod archer. Go for archer over slingers immediately. Once you have them you can go for religion, etc.

As you conquer one countty after another you will game thier citties with their first districts, usually sicence or religion.

WAR, War, War. At some point you will need peace to settle down the conqued cities ivil unrest.

Watch your money! I always go for civic pickes that give me -1 gold per unit while you are on this military stomp.

I have yet to see another way to do well in this game other than military conquest. You could possibly do well at the easier levels at peace but the first 50-100 turns is where the game is won or lost IMO.

It is not uncommon for me to have 2 maybe 3 cities of my own and 4-6 other conquered ones by turn 100 or so.

what about the war monger penalty? i didn't think you could go constant war like that?

[jcp011c2]

Originally posted by terry:

Originally posted by jcp011c2:

Hoping some of these suggetions help. It is very different from Civ 5, and the AI and low distance starting points are crap but otherwise it's a good game just different from Civ 5.

I was browsing the mods earlier and noticed several that increase the start distance. I dont know if they actually work or not because i havent downloaded any of them yet.

They do, at least 4 and 5 do. I tried 5 but it was a little TOO distant for my own purposes of expansion. so I'm using 4 now, which I read was the default anyways, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. It seems a little further away than before there were mods....I could be wrong though.

[Toadman]

WHo care aout warmongering penalty when you rule the whole continent, have wiped out half the civs, and you have X2 the amont of cities they have. The AI will find a way to make you a warmonger ni time whether you like it or not. Read most the posts on Warmongering. SO I di it on my terms.

This game has turned into a pure wargame, you may like it, but to sit back and be a pascifist is not in it's style any more. IMO.

[paugus]

Originally posted by Mr.Pessimism:

what about the war monger penalty? i didn't think you could go constant war like that?

All warmongering really does is make everyone hate you. Certain things will generate negative amenities (like having battles right next to one of your cities), but the warmongering penalty itself is a diplomatic modifier and only matters if you're not able to kill everyone.

[Mr.Pessimism]

so last night i spent about 3 1/2 hours watching you tube vids on the game while i learned a lot. i will probably continue watching more vids till i get all the answers i need.

[SamBC]

Originally posted by paugus:

Originally posted by Mr.Pessimism:

what about the war monger penalty? i didn't think you could go constant war like that?

All warmongering really does is make everyone hate you. Certain things will generate negative amenities (like having battles right next to one of your cities), but the warmongering penalty itself is a diplomatic modifier and only matters if you're not able to kill everyone.

There's the diplomatic warmongering penalty, and war weariness - which gives negative amenities. War weariness builds slowly just by being at war, but losing battles or having battles in your territory add to it quicker.