I do not think this is balance issue, if you will not consider some broken/weak Civs, BUT this is matter of Civ not being designed around competetive multiplayer. Hell if you launch MP with more than 4 people, it seems like the game was not even made for more players than that. One thing BBG HAS for competetive multiplayer, are updates. Every competetive game needs constant changes, buffing the weak, changing the meta, because if not with those updates, your comment proves my point --> the optimal way is clear for many years now, not following it would be trolling if played competetively.

I started playing BBG with BBM in single player. I highly recommend, makes the game more fun, lots of good changes too like no charges for building railroads. I was asking in Hereson's discord about what config CPL FFA uses and got redirected to the multiplayer helper mod, just host a private online game, select CPL FFA preset and copy all values to a single player config. Its cool how this makes single player better, too.

​Even so (i say this as someone who has mostly played vanilla solo and with friends) , in vanilla i find myself falling back on the same strats, monumentality is always crazy op, pingala is op, when is the last time i used moksha lol, even as a religious civ? But i do enjoy spamming serfdom ancestral hall settlers with monumentality lol.

I wholeheartedly agree! My only complaint towards bbg would the balancing philosophy of certain leaders deviating from what was intended in the base game. Like wtf is going on with france.

Im doing bbg single player to improve before going into multiplayer

Doesn't he have a video on this already? Build fishing boats and other improvements that provide housing, rush lighthouses, consider audience chamber, only build granaries if you absolutely have to 👍

If you choose to go for a religion on Eleanor-France, the best way to play is to go for the Stonehenge + Wonder Spam build order, which I detail here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/odJph81etLvXgIk.html

@@HersonCivwhat if you lose stonehenge isn’t it gg

@@youzhou11037 Yes, which is why you generally want to exercise caution about aiming for this build order if the other players in the lobby pick civs that can also go for it. Since it relies on getting two very specific religious beliefs and multiple wonders, it doesn't work if you're being contested. Playing uncontested build orders is a really good idea in FFAs. If the map is 7 seas and everyone else in the lobby picks a harbor civ while you pick a commercial hub civ, you can get all of the best great merchants very easily. In a similar vein, playing a civ that wants to grab a ton of early great writers like Sweden is a lot better in lobbies where there aren't civs like Greece and Kongo competing for writers.

@@HersonCiv so does that just mean Eleanor-France isn't someone u can pick all the time, or can u still run her with different strats and be successful?

You can run her with other strategies, but she always just feels like a worse version of Eleanor England or Catherine Magnificence if you're not doing the stonehenge build.

Yeah, that makes sense. I literally played Poland for the first time ever for the sake of this video, and was just copying the build order I heard recommended. The idea behind two holy site projects early makes sense, but it definitely felt awkward that I still had to wait another 5 turns after the projects finished before I passively earned the remaining prophet points needed to found my religion. It definitely felt a bit wrong to me in the moment, so working in something else between the holy site finishing and running the two projects would probably be better (whether that be a monument or even a settler), and would probably result in founding your religion on the same turn anyway.

I’m mostly playing with friends, and am having trouble knowing if I’m keeping pace. So something like this would be really helpful as a benchmark!

In bbg, the general rule is if you can avoid building a holy site, do so. Pretty much every other district scales better later into the game. While buying boats with faith sounds good, you need insane amounts of faith gen to try to make it work, and building with card is not even that bad as you get 100% card for naval units as opposed to 50% for land units.

dark age is fine. Edge the isolationism card around when you train settlers and found cities. The food and prod is not bad tempo, just drop a few monuments when opening hubs in place of pen brush into heroic next era when you get free inc and pen brush. Only problem is its actually less consistent than hitting golden. You only don't want to be in normal age on a commercial hub opener.

legit, even his 3 comm hub opener + magnus internal is so good vanilla

he already made one

Chopping woods tiles yields an instant burst of production, and chopping a ton of them will slingshot you ahead in development compared to everyone else. Having all of your infrastructure (markets, traders, industrial zones, etc.) finished far earlier thanks to chopping means that you'll actually end up with even more production per turn, in both the short and long-term, than if you had built lumber mills.

Great, thanks! So the insane acceleration of chopping is better than the higher potential output of lumber mills

There's million KZfaqrs for that stuff already

Cry

The second belief choice when founding a religion will usually be something that gives decent immediate value. Beliefs like "+2 faith per city following your religion" and "+2 gold per city following your religion" are decent picks, as well as stuff like "+2 gold per comm hub in a city with this religion and +2 science per campus in a city with this religion." The beliefs that unlock worship buildings are generally never taken when founding your religion. Rather, they're something you evangelize your religion into later using an apostle to add additional beliefs. This is largely because worship buildings' main draw is that faith-buying them is a decent way to spend your faith in the mid-game, but only after your first monumentality golden age expires (since faith-buying civilian units is vastly better for tempo in the early-game)

in current patch: Byzantium: Basil no, Theodora yes India: Gandi flexible, Chandra yes Mali: Enough for good adjacency on your commercials Spain: Unless you are going for a discount chain, you want to build a holy site as late as you can get away with it and only if you are fighting a religious civ

For a faith civ, I would say you pretty much can't recover if you miss first golden as you went for a form of prod (faith) that you can't use. A magnus internal civ will have a rough time but can still recover as you still have the prod.

The general guide is chop all stone, and chop everything which is on a hill. The moment where lumber mills finally catch up compared to the production bursts is just far too late.

The extra tempo you get from all of the chops is too important. If you start chopping everything on turn 46, then by turn 56, you'll have higher pop cities with more districts finished, more buildings completed, and all of your stats will be higher. The player who didn't chop anything and started building lumber mills on turn 46 instead will not only have less infrastructure completed by turn 56, their production per turn will actually be lower, since unlike the other player they weren't able to instantly finish a ton of markets/traders/industrial zones/etc. via chopping. Because Civ 6 is a game where small advantages now snowball into large advantages later, the player who built lumber mills will never catch up to the player who just chopped everything and built mines instead.

@@HersonCiv Thank you for the quick reply, does that also apply to stone and deer?

​@@RobinLSL So if the resource/feature was on a flatland tile, then it would be better to keep the resource/feature instead of chopping it? since you can't build an improvement that gives production?

@@seth1626 It depends on the population of the city. If you have a 7 population city with 7 hilly tiles then there's no reason to keep the resource/feature, whereas if the city's population was greater, a lumber mill could be better. It all depends on population

Districts tend to be a better way to spend production early on, especially as they become more expensive the more techs/civics you have completed.

Top Panel Extension Pro

It is abandoned for a long time already. Clueless randoms are still spamming it in mm, but the developers have already moved to the new mod - better balanced maps

Basil so good that he gets banned in some lobbies.

It's important to note that, in a free-for-all setting, players need to prioritize making sure that they can keep up with the rest of the lobby into the late-game. Early game wars are extremely costly and yield very little in the way of rewards, as there are few tiles to pillage and the cities that are conquered need to be developed afterwards. Once the mid-game rolls around and players have all finished booming their empires with serfdom-boosted builder spam, suddenly wars become extremely lucrative, as pilligable tiles are plentiful and conquered cities come with a ton of infrastructure already finished. As a result, in FFA, the best military civs are the ones whose war bonuses scale well into the late-game, and who have some sort of early-game simming bonus that helps them to keep up with the rest of the lobby while avoiding early wars. Montezuma, Chandragupta, and Gorgo are examples of good war-focused leaders for free-for-all games. Some civs, however, perform much better in a Teamers format (4v4) or a duel format (1v1), where early game warfare is actually a viable strategy. In these formats, it doesn't matter if your early wars end up setting you behind the rest of the lobby, so long as the other team is hurt even worse than you are. Genghis Khan, Tomyris, and Lautaro are examples of leaders who are all great in 4v4 games but struggle in FFA. Basil II is a leader who has extremely strong war bonuses that scale well into the late-game, but lacks any early-game simming bonuses to help him keep up with the rest of the lobby. He's the ideal leader for strong players who want to style on a bunch of novices in an FFA, but I wouldn't recommend him in free-for-all games outside of that. Theodora is the better Byzantium leader in free-for-all as she keeps the Byzantium war bonuses that scale well into the late-game while also having some additional early-game simming bonuses to actually help her keep up.

@@HersonCiv thanks for the response

The current version of BBG is 5.8, this one: steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2865001760

@@HersonCiv Thank you, love your content!

What the sigma

What the sigma

Sigma is the most beta phrase to come out of zoomers.

The policy card that doubles holy site adjacency also doubles the production bonus from work ethic. Tons of civs have reliable ways of getting absurdly high prod from work ethic when playing without BBG. Brazil with the Sacred Path pantheon gets a +12 holy site just for having it surrounded by 6 rainforest tiles. That's 24 production from Work Ethic with the policy card for double holy site adjacency. Russia can take the Dance of the Aurora Pantheon and easily get +6 holy sites by placing them on tiles surrounded by tundra, and can still get even more adjacency from woods and districts next to their holy sites. It's easy to get all of them to +8, for a whopping 16 production from each holy site once you unlock the policy card for double holy site adjacency. There are other civs that can abuse work ethic thanks to their bonuses to holy site adjacency, too - Khmer, Japan, Theodora, etc. Not only do these civs get far more value out of work ethic without BBG, they also get that value without needing to invest in shrines or temples.

Based Channel*