Civ 6

Civ VI looks promising to me. They ditched global happiness which was dreadful and went back to local happiness, ala cIV.
They have brought back a form of modifiable government which is more like cIV.
Some interesting changes that indicates that they were not happy with Civilization 5.
Sadly, they kept 1UPT which is a disaster but at least the developers realized how bad it was and have modified it somewhat.

Hopefully modding can remove more of the Civilization 5 dross.

They'll never be able to recapture the magic of cIV but CIV VI looks like a game I might buy down the road. Definitely not a day one purchase after the disastrous launch of Civilization 5, so I'll watch for unbiased reviews from credible people. Aka: not the sycophantic gaming media.

Finally, I am tired of the Civilization 5 supporters that think they can bully people with different opinions that them and refer to people that don't agree with them as "haters." That needs to stop, yeah.

> female Egyptian leader
> Cleopatra

lindsay40k said:

> female Egyptian leader
> Cleopatra

Click to expand...

Cleopatra wasn't Egyptian.

civfanchambers said:

Cleopatra wasn't Egyptian.

Click to expand...

That's debatable, but she certainly did rule Egypt.

Why is having Cleopatra such a big deal? She is clearly on of the prominent figure of ancient Egypt...

civfanchambers said:

Cleopatra wasn't Egyptian.

Click to expand...

I'd say she was as Egyptian as Alexander was Greek.

MrGrandiose said:

Why is having Cleopatra such a big deal? She is clearly on of the prominent figure of ancient Egypt...

Click to expand...

Because people dislike when famous leaders get chosen instead of the ones who successfully ruled when the civ was at its peak.

The other egyptian leaders we have had in the series are certainly regarded as much more successful leaders and they do represent egyptian culture.

If Firaxis wanted a different time period than the one Ramesses II and Hatty represents, then going back to the old kingdom when the pyramids actually where built would have been more logical, or the middle kingdom.

Whatever the case, the graphics seem to be a lot more cIV like which is a welcome change from the cold and sterile Civilization 5 graphics.

Other than being lower quality art work, the picture looks like they just used Hatty's CIV picture.

Camikaze said:

Most people seem to think the videos show a very promising game. Could you explain why you disagree?

Click to expand...

I guess the biggest gripe I have about it are the "Looney Tunes" graphics. Seriously, I expect to see Elmer Fudd walking out of the forest looking for "Wabbits" to hunt.

I also was rather disenchanted at the cumbersome unit movement, but then I don't like 1 UPT at all.

The workers expiring did not impress me. I have to keep throwing hammers at workers in order to keep building things? That seems like a waste, or a deliberate mechanic to stop you from building too many things.

It seemed like there was less to build in the city screen, though I realize that the game is unfinished. That may be why the UI looked so drab.

One thing that I did like though was the little in-place wonder movie for the Oracle. That was well done.

Overall though, there will have to be some seriously good reviews of game mechanics and good "let's plays" to make me buy this thing. And I won't be buying it at release either. I'll wait for TMIT and a few others to pass judgement before I'll even consider it. $80 is too steep anyway. I'll wait for a Steam sale and maybe pick it up with expansion packs for a fraction of the price.

I'm patient. I can wait, and I'm in no hurry to go hunting "Wabbits"

s.bernbaum said:

Other than being lower quality art work, the picture looks like they just used Hatty's CIV picture.

Click to expand...

That is Hatty's picture.

I will keep in mind that Civ4 was not that good at release, too.
Would i still play it sometimes without BTS and mods like BAT..probably not

So buying at release, rather expensive, is out of question for me.
These games need time, modders working on them and ideally good expansions coming out that fill gaps.

The games get better with expansions certainly. It's also very expensive at launch. Unless Civ VI gets rave reviews from the people that care about strategy rather than graphics, I'm not even going to buy it without the expansions. If it gets great reviews at launch, I'll buy it once it goes on sale.

The game better at least be good at launch though. V was a trainwreck without expansions. It was pretty much an unfinished game. If VI is as bad as V was at launch, I will most likely be done with the civ series for good. A weak game at launch would be a signal that they've fully given up on an in depth strategy game to diversify into a larger, dumber, and simplified demographic.

I played IV because it didn't hold your hand. It told you what improvements, buildings, and units did what, but that was only 5% of the game. The hard part is figuring out which things to do when, for how long, and what things not to even bother with. Yeah, a cottage gives +1 gold now and +5 gold later, but the game doesn't tell you if the cottage or farm is better. That's the part you have to figure out for yourself.

In V, they ruined that and made it extremely clear. When tech costs go up at 15% per city, there is a hard cap on expansion that gets additional penalties from founding cities, science was directly based on population, buildings cost upkeep, you get a massive penalty for going to war, and there was policy track specifically for small empires it was pretty clear how you had to play. Tall is ALWAYS better than wide in V and they built the game to make it that way.

If they structure VI and hold your hand like they did in V, I'll be done with the franchise. I hope Sid redeems himself for the "strategy game" that Civ V was.

Before civ6 was officially announced I had my own thougths/wishes for the new game.
So far, so good from the released info. The worker unit has changed. No more worker stacking (civ3 & civ4) or worse waiting x turns (civ5) to complete an improvement.
Also, no more wonder whoring. It was bad in civ4, but I've seen capitals in civ5 with 20 or so wonders.
The city screen is gone or has been minimized. It was simply too repetitive and distracted playing the map.
There will be a dynamic policy/government system. The policy system was too static and policiies were too good just like some civics in civ4.
It looks like the annoying bonus percentage system (combat, production, etc.) has significant been reduced or better removed.
I really didn't care in civ5 to get a 5% or 10% bonus towards something and the numbers were already low.
Civ6 has left a good impression so far.

Tatran said:

The city screen is gone or has been minimized.

Click to expand...

Haha, seriously?

That alone would be enough to turn me off this game. It was virtually gone in 5 too, but at least there was something, even if pathetically underpowered and simplified compared to the 4.

The impression I'm getting from 5 and so far 6, is that Firaxis are moving away from strategy and empire building and management.

I took a look at some of the available gameplay and it looks much more promising than Civ V. From my pov the downside is that Civ V was not my cup of tea. I'm hoping as Pangaea said above, that Firaxis is not moving away from strategy altogether. I really do love Civ III and IV so hopefully the affair doesn't end there.

I've seen quite a few people hopeful about Mods being a big thing in VI but I for one have always been anti Mod. The game should stand up on it's own. Then again, I predominantly play HoF so any Mod that changes the gameplay would be disallowed anyways.

Pangaea said:

The impression I'm getting from 5 and so far 6, is that Firaxis are moving away from strategy and empire building and management.

Click to expand...

I think that you're right here. Civ 5 seemed so much more like a tactical war simulation, rather than an empire building game. That and they seemed to throw strategy out the window.

Just as an aside, I was advised that a Civ 5 mod makes the game so much better, so I downloaded it. I'm taking a little break from the game to post here. The interface is better, and apparently the AI is better, though I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. I'm going to see if I can actually finish the game without rage-quitting or boredom-quitting. I'm going to try to be objective about it. We'll see.

Oh yes. There is a thread over on the Civ 6 forum that I would like to invite all of you to check out and perhaps post in. It's really quite interesting and it's gone 8 pages without a fight, though tempers are starting to fray now. Nevertheless, I am suggesting it because it's interesting, not because I'm encouraging thread violence. Here it is:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=568025

@ Lemon

I read through all 8 pages of your link and I find it a bit amusing plus confusing, lol! Now I might be an older dude on the forums at almost 45 but I still play what I consider up to date games. I.e., I regulary play Black Ops AW (and III) as well as BF4 (and 3). I also spend quite a bit of time playing SC2 Lotv and Soren Johnons new game Offworld Trading Company.

COD, BFseries, and especially SC2 Lotv keep getting better with each new realease. SC2 Lotv just absolutely destroys all previous versions - units, counters, maps, game controls, strategy,etc. Why bring up these other games?

It seems like a lot of people in the Civ6 or Civ5 forums seem to get the impression that Civ IV players are some kind of elitist dinasours who hate change and refuse to adapt or try a new game. It has nothing to do with that lol.

Other franchises continually make new games better via kick ass additions in strategy, depth, game mechanics, graphics, etc. Pretty simple to me. If a company makes a better game then I will say HELL YES!!! I can't wait to play it. If the game suddenly becomes much much worse, not just different (different is absolutey fine as long as it's not a detriment) then why would anyone want to waste their time?

Hopefully Civ6 will have a much stronger UI in conjunction with giving the player many more choices! Single turn games imo are all about the micro and ability to control literally every aspectof the game. Do not take away.....ADD.

So if Civ6 eventually gives the player more control to leverage every aspect of the game to their liking I will love it. If not then I'll definitely avoid it.

Lemon Merchant said:

Civ 5 seemed so much more like a tactical war simulation, rather than an empire building game.

Click to expand...

Fingers crossed they sort things out with regard to the XP imbalance, then. Four Crossbows can easily conquer any empire that has not got tanks or an Air Force if you level them up enough.

Quill's gameplay vid has converted me somewhat. I'm really interested in the new mechanics, especially the culture tree. I also think the graphics look pretty good, though the trees are a bit too dinky and it's too bright for my taste. The mountains look fantastic though.