Civ4 Lovers/Civ5 Haters Level of Optimism for Civ6

[Lemon Merchant]

Perhaps it's just me, but I find it particularly hilarious that a lot of the people who were claiming that the game was a new religious experience prior to release, bullying people, and shouting down any sort of opinion about the game that didn't agree with their own view are now complaining that the game is broken and the AI is crummy. I don't feel sorry for them one bit.

The people that I do feel bad for are the people who did not bully others, and yell and be abusive, but ordered the game anyway. For those people, I hope there is a patch coming soon.

 

[MkLh]

This is actually worse than V. Global happiness is gone for good, but now there are new super annoying mechanisms. Like the costs of districts (which were the main novelty of the game) rapidly goes up when you advance on tech and culture. The game is basically punishing you for properly managing your empire and advancing fast. The tile improvements are further dumbed down. Now you have exactly one possible improvement per tile. There are almost no way to get more hammers which makes building districts impossible for and advanced empire. All world wonders are totally underwhelming comparing their cost. The diplomacy is non-existent as everyone hates you for just warring defensive wars or whatever reasons. The UI is as bad as in V and the AI is worse...

 

[Fippy]

It's really bad in what state many games are released now, you would think they should at least respect a series with so much history as Civ..but nopes, cannot be bothered.

Backing up Lemon again here: too many peoples reward them with pre-orders, so many "great game" posts after 1 day, i question the intelligence of average gamers these days.

 

[shakabrade]

I like driving the car for a bit before I buy it, if you know what I mean. I wouldn't buy a car in a state that Civ 6 is at the moment. It could still be ok with massive overhaul and if there is a will to admit mistakes. But usually devs are very stubborn and ignore the existence of well-organized fanbase. Sometimes I think employees of Firaxis see us as enemies, like IT departments hate everyone with a complaint. Derailed a bit.

 

[ond_magiker]

It's actually quite fun. The district system and unstacking cities are interesting new additions, although clearly unbalanced. And I find the scaling cost route of hindering overexpansion to be a poor choice. At least you actually want to build some of the options you got, unlike Civ 6 where most buildings were mainly a drain on your economy.

1 unit per tile is still a cumbersome mess.

There are, as we all know by now, lots of unifinished, badly designed or lacking UI elements. Lots. If you doubted whether or not to pre-order the game, and chose not to, you probably made the correct choice.

Although I enjoy the game, it's clearly inferior to Civ 4 and will never be as good. I've been giving some thought as to why I prefer 4, and believe it somehow comes down to the designers' lack of vision. When I played 2 and 4, I got the feeling it was designed to simulate the rise of an empire. The thought behind it was big and it drove the design choices. In many ways Civ 4 perfected that. So what can a designer do when making the next game in a series where the previous version was so good? He can think of "wouldn't it be cool" additions. Use the base elements of the series and add new cool stuff.

Wouldn't it be cool to have tactical 1UPT combat?
Wouldn't it be cool to include city states?
Wouldn't it be cool to have units discover artifacts from a battle fought during the early turns?
Traders auto-building roads would be pretty neat.

Ironically, all the "cool" stuff will actually make the game less cool. And I think it's because you're no longer designing an empire building strategy game. You're making a 1UPT tactical game or a district building game, and then adding the civ-features on top.

 

[Fippy]

Yup..1upt is not Civ, but that's our problem they or not satisfied with "only" Civ anymore.

 

[georgjorge]

So...I bought it (holding my breath for one of the usual suspects to call me an instant gratification-seeking youth).

And I'm having a lot of fun with it so far (which isn't very far, I haven't played a game past the Medieval era yet). Which of course isn't the same as saying that it is as deep and challenging as IV.

Some things to note (I didn't play V so a lot of things don't make sense to me):
- when it comes to interesting choices, someone surely thought "the more different elements the better". So there's Faith and City State Quests and Eurekas and Districts and Influence in addition to all that already was in IV. But since they are at times interchangeable (you can get units with production, gold or faith for instance) it feels more like you can do whatever you want as long as you do it efficiently, and it will amount to the same in the end. Too many seemingly important choices
- I don't know how huge Standard maps are, but on a Pangea map after 50 turns I have only met two AIs out of seven.
- I don't know how competent the AI is in combat, but Norway's Warrior rush (4 of them) when everyone had Chariots or Swordsmen around didn't exactly convince me. I think he wouldn't have been able to take the city even if I didn't have any units around
- I really like districts and buildings (especially wonders) depending on terrain, makes you really think a lot about where to settle and what to improve. Turn 0 settling discussions will now take even longer
- Trade routes - what the fudge? I not only have to make a Merchant and protect him while he makes the road to the target, one tile at a time, then I also have to protect him for the rest of the game while he goes back and forth on that route so a 3-move barb Scout doesn't get him? And there's not even an Escort command for that? I think I'll just pass up on trade routes for now.
- Eurekas, at a first glance, don't seem to be as bad as I thought. There are only a few that I always get no matter what, the rest require some planning ahead.
- More unique abilities/units for each leader are very nice
- Workers (Builders) are heavily diminished, not only because of the charges but because improvements only add 1 bonus yield. I find myself happy with working unimproved tiles most of the time.
- Without Slavery, and with Settlers and Workers not being built with food, it takes some time to get away from "food is king" and value natural production a lot higher.

So better than IV? Definitely not yet, and may never be. But at the moment, I prefer it to a game which I have played for so many years already, and am optimistic about its chances for development.

 

[arigold]

1 upt is so horribad it's not even funny anymore. People complaining about stacks of doom, do they not realise it's that heart pounding realisation that your civilisation is at the edge of a precipice if you don't do something snappy. Hated civ 5, and now trying out civ 6, there's just an entire feeling of pointlessness to it all. The technologies and the districts seem so pointless and the decisions you make seem almost insignificant.

I agree with the poster stating the executives ideas on the game - we need something new for being new's sake - it doesn't matter if the change doesn't support the original masterpiece or extend it, as long as it's cool and different, people will come flocking.

Most of the focus was going into the graphical detail, the vocal performances and the music. Aesthetically the game is pleasing to the eye, but graphics never made a game, it was always the icing. It seems there will never be another Civ 4 again... sigh.

 

[ThERat]

Well, I don't fancy the graphics of both Civ 4 and Civ 6. I prefer the clean look of Civ 3. Very easy to read. And due to the graphics engine, there are amazing mods for graphics, both in terms of terrain and units. Civ 6 is a mess of too fancy graphics with a horrid UI. Very hard to play.

1upt completely destroys that empire feeling. Production has to be scaled down otherwise the map will be a carpet of doom. And thanks to that, nothing much matters. In Civ 5 nothing mattered anyway and in Civ 6 it will be the same too.

 

[Staler87]

After playing some civ VI it does have its fair share of problems but I think it is ultimately starting to get the franchise back on the right track after civ V set it back. Limited stacking and districts are both good changes. Builders alleviate a lot of civilian traffic jams and aren't a bad mechanic. The civs themselves seem to be more balanced than civ V and the Eureka system ended up working very well IMHO. This is not to say it doesn't have problems, but I think most of it is just numbers rather than any serious issues (there is the AI but to be honest it's pretty comparable to civ V - so still awful). Deity is too easy. On the whole it was a pretty good launch and I'm glad I pre-ordered. This is not to say it is better than civ IV in its current state but after some expansions I don't know. It is, however, better than civ V.

Just was reading steam reviews and found this great excerpt from someone who should be playing sim city not civ:

"If I have a weak military strength, some civs attacks me on very early game only because I don't have a developed military."

 

[georgjorge]

Oh, one "What the..." in addition to trade routes: Diplomacy. The game tells me I have a bunch of negative and positive attitude modifiers for a certain AI, gives me the numbers for all of them - but lists every single one of them with "unknown reason". So I know if they hate me or love me, but have no idea which of my actions lead to which. What is this, a guessing game?

 

[12tn2]

So about all of you have become 4lovers & 56haters. So do I. Why should we complain when we can actually build?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/how-about-crowdbuilding-a-version-of-civ.601510/
Have your say there. Don't need to hope, and rely on them for another 5 or 10 years anymore.

 

[need my speed]

I prefer the clean look of Civ 3.

To this day, I find Civilization III's terrain to be the nicest of all. Its minimap, too - something I would really want for Civilization IV, actually, especially borders that aren't drawn on water on the minimap.

 

[Staler87]

So about all of you have become 4lovers & 56haters. So do I. Why should we complain when we can actually build?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/how-about-crowdbuilding-a-version-of-civ.601510/
Have your say there. Don't need to hope, and rely on them for another 5 or 10 years anymore.

The games only been out for a couple days. That seems pretty fast to form the opinion that it is terrible. I mean I enjoyed playing it but it hasn't been out long enough to form a really conclusive opinion.

 

[MyOtherName]

Oh, one "What the..." in addition to trade routes: Diplomacy. The game tells me I have a bunch of negative and positive attitude modifiers for a certain AI, gives me the numbers for all of them - but lists every single one of them with "unknown reason". So I know if they hate me or love me, but have no idea which of my actions lead to which. What is this, a guessing game?

That's what sending delegations and establishing embassies is for. Printing helps with this too.

 

[need my speed]

sending delegations

I have never had an unfriendly AI accept them, which is silly.

 

[MyOtherName]

I have never had an unfriendly AI accept them, which is silly.

I think every time I've sent a delegation the turn I met the civ or the turn after they sent a delegation, it has been accepted. (on Deity) They don't expire until you unlock embassies.

 

[mrt309]

Got the game and had fun for a few days but today im playing civ IV again Therefore I'm pesimistic so far. Although most of the community like 1 upt i don't. I think it changed gameplay of the civ series negatively. I got bored so easily. In fact i couldn't get the feeling of managing an empire which civ IV always give. I'm sure there will be at least 2 big expansion packs and numerous patches. So it's better to wait for a while before playing.

Many peope who didn't like the game told their reasons here. Especially diplo is like random events taking place out of your control. Luck is more important than player's abilities. UI is a joke, AI is terrible, so on.

Something i also didn't like is civilizations and leader choices. I guess some of them will be added later with expansions. But i'd like to ask where is persia, portugal, alexander, mongols, huns, netherlands, ottomans, caesar, napoleon, etc. I think this was the last time i pre ordered a civ game before release.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

The games only been out for a couple days. That seems pretty fast to form the opinion that it is terrible. I mean I enjoyed playing it but it hasn't been out long enough to form a really conclusive opinion.

It only took two games of Civ V for me to know that it was terrible. I repeated the test with G&K and again for BNW. It was all bright and shiny and everything, but there was no challenge in the game for me, and I did not get the feeling of "Just one more turn" In fact, the game was a crashing bore, though I will admit to enjoying the battle animations.

I should mention that I have not yet played Civ 6 and cannot offer an opinion on it, other than an aggregate opinion of what I have read. So far, I'm not impressed and I am waiting for a 70% off sale with all of the expansions and DLC.

 

[Tyrael]

It comes down to 1UPT as always. There's nothing to make you want "one more turn" because something only happens every 10 turns, with tedious unit micro inbetween. Production has to be a slog to avoid carpets of doom. Techs aren't exciting because it takes forever to build whatever they unlock. And moving units is a royal PITA, because pretending the strategic map can function as a tactical map leads to slogs where units move 1 tile at a time, making actual tactics impossible (ever notice how every other tactics fighting game has much larger unit move speeds? FF Tactics, Advance Wars, Panzer General, etc). Every turn is just... kinda lame. You can't even make meaningful diplomacy choices thanks to the return of utterly irrational AI, with agendas that actively discourage you from playing the game normally (what should you do, completely ignore city-states all game or get insta-dow'd?).

I really like the idea of districts, city placement optimization is an extremely fun puzzle for me, this seems like it could get better with patches. 1UPT could actually work if you made the maps, say, 3-4x as large, gave units actual movement points (5+), and let cities expand 7 tiles wide (obv with much faster city/border growth and reworked tile yields). Basically change from "force a tactical map to work on a much smaller scale than needed" to "force a strategic civ map to work on a much larger scale than usual" which would be a lot more doable, and allow production to actually, y'know, produce stuff, since now we have room for units again. (I think there was a Civ5 mod along those lines? I can't find it again, lmk if there is)