1:30 Some good points by Kirsty here. This was basically what happened in the series with filthyrobot, the guy came in and played the worst (non-Venice) civ in the game and won the game in the medieval era.
The only other balance for a noob civ game I can think of is if you have two experienced players in the lobby who are just there to be like world police and are forbidden from trying to win at all. They could knock down any runaway player, ally with underdogs, or send gifts or units. Basically, they’d roleplay as an AI civ or city-state that you can actually diplomacy instead of the computer refusing to trade luxuries and whatnot.
Or maybe limit them to a single city? That way they could have influence, but not so much that they just stomp the whole game. Though I guess that still leaves the backseating issue.
@@evilemuempire9550 if you mean the experienced players, they could also just stop building buildings at a certain point, or even tech up to a certain level and then just sell their science and culture buildings and just produce gold and units for gifting for the rest of the game. If they just don’t build spaceship parts or great works they shouldn’t be able to win, and if they spread their gifts out they shouldn’t be kingmakers too much, and if they sell their science buildings at, say, modern or atomic era, a domination player should be able to out-tech them. Even if they’re forbidden to win, I bet they could still have fun roleplaying as ai-civs and being diplomatic.
even playing passively it's extremely easy with Lekmod to build a strong culture empire so experienced players would run the risk of winning without doing anything
@@VioletViolent they could gift their great people to the noobs, and so long as they don’t build hotels and airports they shouldn’t generate tourism. They could even avoid building some culture buildings, or just sell all the buildings at a certain point to make it possible for one of the noobs to win a culture victory. Experienced players should be strong enough to provide some military or financial balance even if they never build a world wonder or a single culture building after opera houses.
I'd be down for master and padawan(s) vs AI, i think that'd actually be some real good viewing, especially for viewers who want to actually learn the game. i remember using lewis and dunc's guides for 5 back in the day to scrub up a bit, and if KRBcrew did one, the shitchat in between would be great anyway!
That would actually be really interesting. I'm fairly familiar with Civ games, but I've only ever really played them singleplayer, just doing what I want with easy AIs. Having some guidance on what a competitive multiplayer minset is like would be eye-opening.
Imagine if we got a series of master + padawan teamups against AI before the next series is the padawans going against each other... we'd get to find out who taught their noob the best
Well said - I thought I wanted a noob game, but when they actually did it, it WAS a bit underwhelming. What I really wanted was just more people playing civ! I would watch the heck out of people learning civ in AI games or whatever
3:24 Well, everybody knows that Civ 6 actually only gets really good after 365 hours, so if he'd just stick with for a bit, he'd enjoy it. It's like FFXIV, except like 9 times worse.
I personally prefer Civ 5 but that's mainly because I'm just a lot more comfortable with the game, but there is no doubt in my mind that Civ 6 is a far more complex and strategic with a lot more forward planning required from City placement alone.
1:20 Potato did something similar a few weeks ago where he had a friend of his that doesn't play civ play 50 turns or so (some light coaching), and then played the same 50 turns somewhat optimally while walking through each optimization with his friend which I found quite interesting.
I think I good balance for a noob game would be to have one or two masters in the session not playing the game but watching the players view points and helping them out if they don't know a mechanic or are doing something poorly to help balance out the players at the higher skill level not needing as much help.
Sure, a noob game is hard to balance but they managed fairly well with Kirsty's noob game. Kirsty was obviously a lot better than the rest but it was fun to watch.
The only way getting experienced players and noobs in the same game together really works is if they're teamed up vs ai. Having one pro vs 5 noobs just doesn't work. Having 5-6 noobs all together while not full of cool pro strats and sneaky backstabs is still fun because it's different people playing. Seeing Lewis and Duncan have the same old conflicts in different games as different leaders gets old fast.
If, Civ4 would have hexagons and didn't allow you to make doomstacks, then it would be my choice. Mainly because of the events you did get to choose how to react to barbarians forming a pirate fleet of an asteroid hit one of the forests near you. Also the amazing fantasy total coversion: Fall from Heaven 2.
i think if you made it a 3v3 or a 2v2v2 and then had a decent player advising each team. maybe even rotate advisors every 25 turns it would prevent the bacvk seating. one good player cant control 3 civs at once.
The thing with Civ V vs Civ VI is that at it's core both are diffrent games, not unlike the diffrence between Final Fantasy 4 vs FF5 or Classic DOS X-Com vs X-Com remake. They have the same name, the same trademark, but are not the same product. Civ VI isn't an iteration of Civ 5, but a diffrent game using the same name, and by the looks of things, the same even is gonna occure with Civ VII vs Civ VI, where fans of Civ VI will be salty that Civ VII isn't like the last game. Even in games that don't share the same title still has this issue, like B4B vs L4D2, where people wanted a Co-op *Hoard* Shooter and got served a Co-op *Rougelike* Shooter. Now B4B has it's own issues, especailly the marketing, but like, I can see the vision the Devs have when making this game, but many didn't see this and just went "Not my L4D2" and left it like that. Point is, some people's only reasoning as to not liking a game is because it's not like this other game they played, which is understandable. Now to say that a game is bad because it's different, now that's silly, but that's a tangelt for another time. Circleing back to Civ, it's fine to not like Civ VI because "It's not Civ V" as Fireaxis isn't making a sequle to Civ V. And I suspect that something similar will happen when Civ VII comes out, where people don't like it because "It's not Civ VI/V". I'm certain Sid Meier is well aware of the demands for a Sequle to these games, amoung many others, but I suspect that he doesn't want to itterate on the same game/system over and over againg. It's why Civ VI didn't pick up after Civ V, and which is why I believe Civ VII won't pick up after Civ Vi. The sooner people can understand and accept this the less pain we'll have in the future, and the more we can apprecaite games based on their asperations and ideas, not just the quality of the gameplay itself, and the more we can understand our own taste, what system is it that we're actaully deriving joy from.
That has always been my philosophy. If I want to play a game like Civ V, I go boot up Civ V--and if I only want some minor variance, that's where mods come in.
I think it'd be better to have a "master" come in and give a low-down version of the mechanics in the game, and then letting the "noobies" figure out the best way forward themselves. Something like, food gives pop and pop can work tiles or buildings. Keep gold and happiness in the positive. Invest in science and culture to get new stuff and bonuses. Just simple explanations that gives them an idea of how the mechanics works, without telling them how to play the game. But for them to have a good time they must be willing to learn and be patient, otherwise they'll probably get overwhelmed or stressed and just won't have fun, which would suck. Or just force them to watch some of the old guide videos that Lewis and Duncan made years ago.
The problem is that you have to actually try to win strategy games. Much like Rythian the other noobs don't care about trying to win, they just want to have fun doing what they want and not trying/try-harding and that doesn't work. I think to enjoy these types of games you just have to be a low anxiety person who can remain relaxed while playing to win.
I have to agree with what theyre saying on civ 5 and 6 and 7. I basically grew up playing V, so I hated 6. And when ive tried other 4x games, as fun as they have been, I feel like im having to learn so many new things that I would rather just play 5 again with mods. And im excited for 7 but im worried i will have the same experience. Tbh, I would most like it if firaxis just made V again but with updated graphics and some new civs lmao
I clearly remember moving around with my scout in Civ 6 in terrain that was mostly hills. One move per turn. It's just not fun. Ironically, what I do find fun, is the "worker minigame" in civ 5 and prior, building roads and such. Which is stripped down to almost nothing in Civ6 and completely gone in Civ7 - talk about not knowing your audience.. Regarding yog editors, why don't they get credit in the description?
I don't like Civ VI (and probably VII) because I want *good* vanilla 4X from Civ. When I want something more advanced or a different flavor of 4X then I play an entirely different game. Here's hoping that VIII will be like a refined V with decent netcode.
@@Banana900000I think 7 looks great and am really excited for it, actually. The age transitions still feel a bit weird to me but there’s a lot that I’m excited about. Commanders, navigable rivers, the way scouts can expand their vision, the way cities get built out, and the legacy paths are all pretty cool to me. Commanders will be such a lifesaver in terms of micro during war, they’re a game changer honestly.
Civ 7 seems to take more from other 4x games like Humankind or whatever that Civ game released by Paradox was called was for some reason even though all these 'civ clones' fail to come close to achieve the success of Civ 5 or Civ 6, so why they have taken so much inspiration from failed attempts at Civ beaters is strange to me. Also both Civ 5 and 6 base game before expansions were pretty mid and I expect the same from Civ 7.
"put in the hours" makes me laugh even the experienced yogs like lewis, duncan, rythian are all absolutely terrible at civ 5 (especially lekmod) and could do with putting in the hours themselves but the yogs dont play civ 5 to be competitive they play it to have fun and hang out
1:30 Some good points by Kirsty here. This was basically what happened in the series with filthyrobot, the guy came in and played the worst (non-Venice) civ in the game and won the game in the medieval era.
The only other balance for a noob civ game I can think of is if you have two experienced players in the lobby who are just there to be like world police and are forbidden from trying to win at all. They could knock down any runaway player, ally with underdogs, or send gifts or units. Basically, they’d roleplay as an AI civ or city-state that you can actually diplomacy instead of the computer refusing to trade luxuries and whatnot.
Or maybe limit them to a single city? That way they could have influence, but not so much that they just stomp the whole game. Though I guess that still leaves the backseating issue.
@@evilemuempire9550 if you mean the experienced players, they could also just stop building buildings at a certain point, or even tech up to a certain level and then just sell their science and culture buildings and just produce gold and units for gifting for the rest of the game. If they just don’t build spaceship parts or great works they shouldn’t be able to win, and if they spread their gifts out they shouldn’t be kingmakers too much, and if they sell their science buildings at, say, modern or atomic era, a domination player should be able to out-tech them.
Even if they’re forbidden to win, I bet they could still have fun roleplaying as ai-civs and being diplomatic.
@@evilemuempire9550 This is the way to do it. One experienced player to answer questions and offer tips but not trying to win the game.
even playing passively it's extremely easy with Lekmod to build a strong culture empire so experienced players would run the risk of winning without doing anything
@@VioletViolent they could gift their great people to the noobs, and so long as they don’t build hotels and airports they shouldn’t generate tourism. They could even avoid building some culture buildings, or just sell all the buildings at a certain point to make it possible for one of the noobs to win a culture victory. Experienced players should be strong enough to provide some military or financial balance even if they never build a world wonder or a single culture building after opera houses.
I'd be down for master and padawan(s) vs AI, i think that'd actually be some real good viewing, especially for viewers who want to actually learn the game. i remember using lewis and dunc's guides for 5 back in the day to scrub up a bit, and if KRBcrew did one, the shitchat in between would be great anyway!
That would actually be really interesting. I'm fairly familiar with Civ games, but I've only ever really played them singleplayer, just doing what I want with easy AIs. Having some guidance on what a competitive multiplayer minset is like would be eye-opening.
Imagine if we got a series of master + padawan teamups against AI before the next series is the padawans going against each other... we'd get to find out who taught their noob the best
Well said - I thought I wanted a noob game, but when they actually did it, it WAS a bit underwhelming. What I really wanted was just more people playing civ! I would watch the heck out of people learning civ in AI games or whatever
3:24 Well, everybody knows that Civ 6 actually only gets really good after 365 hours, so if he'd just stick with for a bit, he'd enjoy it. It's like FFXIV, except like 9 times worse.
my two friends and I play against AI and just have a chill time. One of us is a huge noob as well. It's great, definitely something I would watch!
I personally prefer Civ 5 but that's mainly because I'm just a lot more comfortable with the game, but there is no doubt in my mind that Civ 6 is a far more complex and strategic with a lot more forward planning required from City placement alone.
1:20 Potato did something similar a few weeks ago where he had a friend of his that doesn't play civ play 50 turns or so (some light coaching), and then played the same 50 turns somewhat optimally while walking through each optimization with his friend which I found quite interesting.
I think I good balance for a noob game would be to have one or two masters in the session not playing the game but watching the players view points and helping them out if they don't know a mechanic or are doing something poorly to help balance out the players at the higher skill level not needing as much help.
Sure, a noob game is hard to balance but they managed fairly well with Kirsty's noob game. Kirsty was obviously a lot better than the rest but it was fun to watch.
The only way getting experienced players and noobs in the same game together really works is if they're teamed up vs ai.
Having one pro vs 5 noobs just doesn't work. Having 5-6 noobs all together while not full of cool pro strats and sneaky backstabs is still fun because it's different people playing. Seeing Lewis and Duncan have the same old conflicts in different games as different leaders gets old fast.
If, Civ4 would have hexagons and didn't allow you to make doomstacks, then it would be my choice. Mainly because of the events you did get to choose how to react to barbarians forming a pirate fleet of an asteroid hit one of the forests near you. Also the amazing fantasy total coversion: Fall from Heaven 2.
i think if you made it a 3v3 or a 2v2v2 and then had a decent player advising each team. maybe even rotate advisors every 25 turns it would prevent the bacvk seating. one good player cant control 3 civs at once.
I'd like a Masters and Padawans team battle. You could have Lewis/Rambler and Rythian/Kirsty it'd be so cool
The thing with Civ V vs Civ VI is that at it's core both are diffrent games, not unlike the diffrence between Final Fantasy 4 vs FF5 or Classic DOS X-Com vs X-Com remake. They have the same name, the same trademark, but are not the same product. Civ VI isn't an iteration of Civ 5, but a diffrent game using the same name, and by the looks of things, the same even is gonna occure with Civ VII vs Civ VI, where fans of Civ VI will be salty that Civ VII isn't like the last game.
Even in games that don't share the same title still has this issue, like B4B vs L4D2, where people wanted a Co-op *Hoard* Shooter and got served a Co-op *Rougelike* Shooter. Now B4B has it's own issues, especailly the marketing, but like, I can see the vision the Devs have when making this game, but many didn't see this and just went "Not my L4D2" and left it like that. Point is, some people's only reasoning as to not liking a game is because it's not like this other game they played, which is understandable. Now to say that a game is bad because it's different, now that's silly, but that's a tangelt for another time. Circleing back to Civ, it's fine to not like Civ VI because "It's not Civ V" as Fireaxis isn't making a sequle to Civ V. And I suspect that something similar will happen when Civ VII comes out, where people don't like it because "It's not Civ VI/V".
I'm certain Sid Meier is well aware of the demands for a Sequle to these games, amoung many others, but I suspect that he doesn't want to itterate on the same game/system over and over againg. It's why Civ VI didn't pick up after Civ V, and which is why I believe Civ VII won't pick up after Civ Vi. The sooner people can understand and accept this the less pain we'll have in the future, and the more we can apprecaite games based on their asperations and ideas, not just the quality of the gameplay itself, and the more we can understand our own taste, what system is it that we're actaully deriving joy from.
That has always been my philosophy. If I want to play a game like Civ V, I go boot up Civ V--and if I only want some minor variance, that's where mods come in.
I think it'd be better to have a "master" come in and give a low-down version of the mechanics in the game, and then letting the "noobies" figure out the best way forward themselves.
Something like, food gives pop and pop can work tiles or buildings.
Keep gold and happiness in the positive.
Invest in science and culture to get new stuff and bonuses.
Just simple explanations that gives them an idea of how the mechanics works, without telling them how to play the game. But for them to have a good time they must be willing to learn and be patient, otherwise they'll probably get overwhelmed or stressed and just won't have fun, which would suck.
Or just force them to watch some of the old guide videos that Lewis and Duncan made years ago.
What episode, where they talk about this, is Rythian talking about?
It's in episode 13 of their Seven Kingdoms series
The problem is that you have to actually try to win strategy games. Much like Rythian the other noobs don't care about trying to win, they just want to have fun doing what they want and not trying/try-harding and that doesn't work. I think to enjoy these types of games you just have to be a low anxiety person who can remain relaxed while playing to win.
I have to agree with what theyre saying on civ 5 and 6 and 7. I basically grew up playing V, so I hated 6. And when ive tried other 4x games, as fun as they have been, I feel like im having to learn so many new things that I would rather just play 5 again with mods. And im excited for 7 but im worried i will have the same experience. Tbh, I would most like it if firaxis just made V again but with updated graphics and some new civs lmao
I clearly remember moving around with my scout in Civ 6 in terrain that was mostly hills. One move per turn. It's just not fun.
Ironically, what I do find fun, is the "worker minigame" in civ 5 and prior, building roads and such. Which is stripped down to almost nothing in Civ6 and completely gone in Civ7 - talk about not knowing your audience..
Regarding yog editors, why don't they get credit in the description?
You just do a 2 continents map and have the noobs on one continent and the pros on the other
What if noobs can play as normal, but experienced players are limited to only a single city. So it's like smart city states. No venice
I don't like Civ VI (and probably VII) because I want *good* vanilla 4X from Civ. When I want something more advanced or a different flavor of 4X then I play an entirely different game.
Here's hoping that VIII will be like a refined V with decent netcode.
i mean its not going to be. have you seen any of the trailers for civ 7
@Banana900000 That's why I'm hopeful for 8
@@Banana900000I think 7 looks great and am really excited for it, actually. The age transitions still feel a bit weird to me but there’s a lot that I’m excited about. Commanders, navigable rivers, the way scouts can expand their vision, the way cities get built out, and the legacy paths are all pretty cool to me. Commanders will be such a lifesaver in terms of micro during war, they’re a game changer honestly.
Civ 7 seems to take more from other 4x games like Humankind or whatever that Civ game released by Paradox was called was for some reason even though all these 'civ clones' fail to come close to achieve the success of Civ 5 or Civ 6, so why they have taken so much inspiration from failed attempts at Civ beaters is strange to me.
Also both Civ 5 and 6 base game before expansions were pretty mid and I expect the same from Civ 7.
Right there with you on civ 6, f that game
'Noob' games aren't interesting to watch. If people want part of the multiplayer they need to put the hours in themselves.
"put in the hours" makes me laugh
even the experienced yogs like lewis, duncan, rythian are all absolutely terrible at civ 5 (especially lekmod) and could do with putting in the hours themselves
but the yogs dont play civ 5 to be competitive
they play it to have fun and hang out
@grandmastercultistofben but there is a base level for those yogs playing civ regularly