Thanks for that link! It looks like there are two quotes for most techs. That’s a nice touch.

This expansion has grabbed me more than vanilla Civ 6. I especially like loyalty, eras, the new golden/dark ages, and alliances, which really improve the diplomatic game. I don’t have much experience with emergencies yet.

I think Governors are under-developed. I like the idea, but the implementation in Endless Space 2 is better. I’d add more upside/downside pairs to the Governors, and make their experience trees a bit more detailed. I’d make it more intuitive to swap them in and out. I like that ES2 lets you assign governors to either settlements or military units. For immersion, I’d certainly add more than 7 governor portraits and names that every Civ uses. Yeah, if each Civ gets a unique slate of governors, that’s a lot more work, but they have time to do that for the next expansion.

The diplomatic AI in general seems better to me. It’s mildly annoying to be the occasional target of “formal” joint declarations of war, but my impression is that the AIs are trading DOWs for goodies, so I can live with it. On the other hand, the alliances actually mean something now. The combat AI is still flawed, but even that has seen some incremental improvements: the AI can and does take walled cities, and it’s better about both beelining toward cities and picking off wounded units. The economic-development AI seems slightly better too. None of these AI improvements will change the minds of those for whom AI is paramount, but the net result for me is a tenser, more challenging game.

The game still takes too long even on small maps (I don’t like the tiny ones) and the AI is still weak, but I’ve been enjoying learning how to use the new systems and trying to win more quickly, I made it before 1900 last time. Nowhere near as good as the experts and I haven’t moved up past King difficulty but it works for me :)

Yeah, my biggest complaint is turn time, especially in the mid to late game. Is there anything that speeds it up?

Enabling quick movement and/or quick combat speeds it up a lot.

Holy shit the AI is still absolutely horrific. I bottled up Australia by parking 2 scouts about 5 spots away from their capital. For over a thousand years they had a settler adjacent to my scout. They could’ve walked around. They could’ve declared war. They could’ve done anything except just allow themselves to be stuck forever. Just awful.

I use both quickness options h and I still feel the late game turns take too long; this is one of the reason I stick to small maps.

I have a question. If you genocide a civilization off a continent before they can tell other people, it’s okay right? I believe if I click on their diplo screen it shows which civs they have contacted.

I can’t remember if Civ 6 is this way or if I’m misremembering earlier civ mechanics.

I don’t remember myself. All I know is that declaring war pre-classical age does not incur warmonger penalty, so it may not matter if that is the case.

I just finished my first game of Rise and Fall playing as Nubia (Amanitore). The end game was a slog with long turn times and the general brain drain that comes with managing a large empire. I stopped caring in a sense, but wanted to see thing through to completion. No way could the AI contest either cultural or space victory, and both of those were mine well before the final turns. In fact, I had 230 turns until finish, playing in epic speed.

Furthermore, I was playing on a standard sized map with the default number of civs, yet still there were large empires including my own. I had 13 cities spanning across a vast desert, and admittedly a few of those cities were more space fillers than anything else because Civ 6 doesn’t penalise ICS anymore, a big step back from Civ IV and V. Amenities were well and truly covered with all my cities at happy or ecstatic, populations in my cities ranging from 10 to 28 in size and still happily growing.

My early game advantage was cemented by an early war against China. I had one turn to go before progressing to classical era, so I made good use of that time by declaring war on China. I think the only reason for the war was to try out the Pitali archers that are the unique unit to Nubia. Those things hurt! A group of 3 archers were able to siege down the cities and allow a single melee unit to claim it in my name. Because war was declared pre-classical era, I incurred no warmonger penalty. I don’t know what to say about that.

I don’t want to whinge too much about combat AI. It lacks aggression, it doesn’t read far enough into the future, it is just plain bad. And the gripes have been said over and over again. A classic example was when I had China’s capital under siege with archers and at no point did they choose to send their spearman out to attack my archer that was within melee range. It just camped in the city waiting to die. Another example was Scythia moving Great Admirals around the ocean that I merrily killed off with a roaming battleship during an emergency. Or its lacklustre effort of sending single cavalry to my troops just to die during the emergency.

I had the strongest military without even trying. In fact, I didn’t really bother to build much in the way of new units. So much so that when I had espionage events that saw barbarians rise up in the middle of my lands, I had to rush buy a couple of units just to deal with that threat. It wasn’t much of a threat though as they kept on targeting a holy site that was near useless to me, bypassing rich cities, fertile fields of wheat and productive plantations loaded with bananas.

Good news is that the AI did manage to conquer cities. Scythia knocked out Mongolia over a series of wars. 4 city states fell and I believe an early war between Dutch and Mapuche gave Lautaro another city. I had problems with the AI when first released where it never upgraded units. Thankfully in latter wars I saw modern units on the field. The Cree in fact had a fascination with making armies from helicopters with a few of those buzzing around. For a long time, the AI did seem to be stuck with swordsmen, archers and crossbows, but I think I can put that down to the game pacing where unit upgrades around that time are light. Given the fact I play on epic speed, it does prolong the eras enough to have a true medieval and renaissance era.

Casting an eye over the city development on the map and it looked like distract placement was pretty good. The AI was making good use of adjacency bonuses. Campuses and Holy Sites placed next to mountains, and even positioned to make good use of little nooks in the mountains to maximise their output. Harbour districts would be adjacent to cities and/or commerical distracts, and normally with a fishing resource or two nearby. I did notice that one AI nation beset by barbarians took too long to restore pillaged fields of wheat outside its capital. Too long in this case being around a hundred turns.

I have so many mixed feelings over this Civ. It makes me appreciate what Civ IV did, and also the mechanics in a game like Europa Universalis. I can appreciate that Firaxis tried new things. For instance, Espionage is a marked improvement in Civ VI over Civ IV. Now I want to AI to feel like a threat when it comes to military. I can only hope I suppose?

Cool report, Strato. I’m seeing the same as you: the AI is still weak, but Firaxis has made some improvements in it. I also face upgraded AI units, and yes, the AI can take walled cities now. The diplomatic AI is a little better too, thanks to alliances, which actually mean something now. Usually. And I’m definitely seeing better AI district planning. None of these fixes are stupendous, but things are a little better.

I have found R&F harder than vanilla, but I always make Civ games hard on myself because I don’t warmonger, and I like to build tall. I had to drop back down to Prince for my current game, and it’s still close in the Modern Era. Made all the more interesting because after two straight golden ages, I’ve plunged into a Dark Age.

One question: you said you see no disincentive to ICS. Doesn’t the new loyalty system inhibit you? I’ve found forward-settling to be pretty risky now, and my one overseas colony has loyalty issues (as it should!). Especially in this Dark Age.

Playing on King, I had forward cities during a Dark Age that were in the tiniest danger of flipping. I mucked about with a governor and a civic and that stopped it entirely. It’s a weak mechanic, and is further annoying by the extreme difficulty in using it offensively.

As I see it, it has one purpose: You know how the AI puts a city any damn place it can? With the loyalty mechanic, those cities become gifts to you rather than annoyances, and they don’t need to fix the AI.

However, I find those gifts to be an annoyance- I don’t want free crap from the AI- so it doesn’t really help me.

Hmm, the AI has never forward-settled against me in R&F. I always have a significant no-mans-land between us. Usually my closest neighbors are city states, and there’s a game-long struggle for suzerainty over them.

Well, good! I hope your experience continues that way.

This post triggered me. :) But thanks for the writeup, @Strato!

Player should get a casus beli for catching a spy, or at least if they don’t promiss to stop. I’ve had an alliance with the Cree a long time, relationship maxed. I catch their spy and they won’t promiss to stop.

So hey, apparently Civ VI is sexist now.

The issue centres around Firaxis’ addition of more Hidden Agendas for its various leaders, and a couple of those new Agendas in particular: “Flirtatious” and “Curmudgeon”. The former means a leader will like other civilizations that have leaders of the opposite sex, and dislike those of the same sex. The latter the opposite: disliking the opposite sex and liking those the same as their own.

Not at all. In the few times I settled near another nation, I just placed a Governor if the game said a city was losing loyalty. Normally there was plenty of push coming from behind my established cities to keep the loyalty up on my newer areas of settlement. The other good thing which was a result of the map is that I didn’t have to compete much for city sites. For instance, I built the Statue of Liberty and had 2 settlers wander off and create their own cities well away from the influence of anyone else thanks to the southern part of the map being largely uninhabited.

Like you, the AI didn’t really forward settle near me in this game. The AI certainly did pre R&F, and it was that forward settlement by Montezuma that started off my domination victory game in my game just before the expansion released. Maybe in my next game things will be different and I’ll have those issues once again.

When I was talking about ICS, a big part was going back and filling in gaps with my borders with a few smaller cities. They can still produce districts that contribute overall to my civilization. They had no real role to play in the functioning of my empire beyond offering incremental advantages. Even if it means a commercial or habour district just to get that single trade route slot plus a little extra gold flowing into the coffers. I had room for another 2 cities within my borders that could have become decently sized cities. The end game was slowing down, and I didn’t want to manage another 2 cities is the only reason I stopped. And with the tundra to the south, I could have added another 3 cities leading to another 3 trade routes, so long as I placed the governor who could allow me to construct fisheries on the water. Ack, it is dumb that the Governer has to be present in the city radius in order to construct the fishery improvement.

Would love to know what triggered you! Haha, like I said, this game makes me appreciate all the more what a game like EU IV gets right. Sure, there’s a narrower focus in time with EU, but the mechanisms in place help the AI act like a believable opponent/ally. They might be brain dead on occasion by having a stack of 12 cannons supported by 4 infantry or trying to run a doomstack of 40k troops across Siberia, but as an opponent, I am never left wanting more from what I have to deal with. Moreso, there are measures in place to slow snowballing (aggressive expansion) and diplomatic bonus and penalties degrade over time. Firaxis are on the right track with Civ VI and their alliances, I hope they keep applying a critical look at what they are doing.

A few other points with this game to wrap up my thoughts. I complained about the lack of Hall of Fame for the end of game, and it still bothers me. I have a nice video of my space race victory, and the end game summary that doesn’t tell me the sort of information I’d like to know easily. There’s no map painting video to relive my journey through the ages. The graph is a tiny part of my screen with ample space left unused. If I mouse over the graph, there’s nothing to tell me specifics of how much culture I was making for instance. And for a game that has spanned 500 turns, the scale is woeful. There’s just so much wrong with the information displayed for the end of game.

Firaxis’ refusal to address very basic and longstanding AI issues. It really grinds my gears!

While it can only address some basic aspects since they still haven’t allowed modders full access to the game’s inner gullyworks, this latest edition of AI+ might help (now with full R&F support):

https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/ai.25439/

Beyond a lot of general fixes for all AI, the dev has tried to tweak stuff so that each of the civs better play to their unique strengths.

I appreciate what that guy has been doing with the limited tools he has available, but I just can’t financially support Firaxis for two main reasons:

  • Not even bothering with the low-hanging fruit of AI issues. They just put zero care or effort into what I consider a fundamental aspect of a strategy game. I don’t expect anywhere near perfection, just a minimal effort to improve.

  • Their refusal to release full modding tools until they’re done making DLC out of some misguided fear it would cut into DLC sales, just like they did with Civ5. That prevents people who do care, like the AI+ guy, from doing their damn job for them.

I’m not meaning to sound militant or anything, but Firaxis’ behavior in this regard is just so repugnant to me. And that really sucks because Civilization is a franchise that has been really important to me, especially in my early formative years. Playing the first game as a kid was the start of my love affair with strategy games.

Anyway, not meaning to climb up on a soapbox. I usually try to keep my mouth shut and just lurk in this thread because I don’t want to piss on anyone’s good time. I often fail my will save, though. :) Hopefully once the mod tools are out the community can fix the game for Firaxis again.