Civlization VI

You really think it's that simple? In Total War, one tends to suffer much higher casualties from simulated battles than from commanding them manually, so zoomed-in combat is still encouraged if not mandatory on higher difficulties.

That's a real problem in Total War, but it's an issue with Game Mechanics and how the AI calculates battles rather than the overall concept. It's also a problem that arguably already exists in Civ and just is less noticeable because there is no Zoom-In Combat. In Total War, you can fight a battle and dislike the results or levels of losses, and replay it with better success. (You can also fight a battle and lose repeatedly only to have it fight automatically and win.) But in Civ, you only can fight the battle and see what happens, possibly with the option of reloading and trying again if you have Random Game See options set to allow it. You can't introduce a human element to change you battle tactics. But that doesn't mean you aren't losing more units and more battles than you really should be as a result of that option not being available.

What I'm favoring is some tweaking to how the AI calculates results, the nature of the results (in relation to Civ IV; the Civ V model being rejected entirely); and an option to Zoom In instead of letting the AI calculate it.
 
That's a real problem in Total War, but it's an issue with Game Mechanics and how the AI calculates battles rather than the overall concept. It's also a problem that arguably already exists in Civ and just is less noticeable because there is no Zoom-In Combat.

No, there can't be an issue of different abstraction levels of combat being favored over each other if there is only one abstraction level.
 
This is the one I've thought about the most. I think the way this should work is that units/resources/cities should be able to tax up more than one hex.

So basically, all hexes would be much smaller (or if you want to think of it a different way, the maps would just be bigger in general). When a city is founded, it would occupy a single hex. As it grows, its population would not just grow, but it would grow into new hexes and take up more space on the map.

This might require too much processing power to handle (since its essentially making the map a lot bigger). I think the way to deal with unit spam is just to greatly increase maintenance costs, which is more realistic anyways.

I had the same thought about cities expanding into adjacent tiles. It has some interesting strategic ramifications, as more enemy units are able to surround the city, but more of your units are able to garrison it. Definitely worth considering.
 
When Civ3 Conquests came out, I had a lot of ideas about What Civ4 should be like.

I don't feel that with Civ5. This is pretty much the game I want after BNW. And I THINK there will be a 3rd expansion in some way shape of form before we see 6.

They have built a flexible game platform sitting inside a great games/patch/DLC delivery machine that means it will be much lower cost and profitable for them to keep expanding V than think about 6.

After the Shafer fiasco, I also think they will give it plenty of time to grow, possibly work on the 3rd expansion and start on 6 concurrently, rather than have a clean break like they had with Civ4.

My only hope is 1UPT , hexes and Ed beach is back for Civ 6.
 
The number 6 of strategy games is usually a money-grabbing trick that delivers a buggy, simplified beta with little content and longevity.

I believe they should stop until they can deliver a game with better technology and features.
Else there wouldn't be much difference from Civ 5.

Sure that's been true with some titles but not with others. There's no particular reason six has to be good or bad. In Civ, the odd-numbered games have consistently been the weaker entries. Regardless, the rules of marketing dictate that they need to launch a new version every 4-6 years to keep high-end product moving.

Just pulled up the most recent annual report from Take-Two Interactive, which owns 2K Games. They don't disclose specific sales figures as far as I can tell, but they blame dramatic declines in sales of the Civ V franchise and Red Dead Redemption for a more than $300 million decline in sales revenue. And the company, by the way, operated with a $100 million overall loss for the fiscal year. Meaning that those declines in anticipated sales hurt.

This is why they have to keep releasing new content, good or crappy, wanted or not wanted. And new installments always sale better than add-ons. They have to create a Civ VI in the next year or two, whether from a game-player viewpoint they should or not. (IMHO, the mistake from a game-player standpoint was Civ V)
 
I wish they will expand more on empire of the smokey skies or create a civ or something. Other than that I wish Sid will bring back alpha centauri
 
Hello Fellow Die Hard Civ Fans,

I would like to see more creativity on the space victory. Once you launch that you actually see a functioning colony living on another planet which has building etc. Rather than just a guy that pops out of a window and that's it. With V I was pumped up to see the graphics on that victory win and was so let down. Perhaps have a movie animated or not clip of the victories rather than just a window that pops up and says how you won.

Brew God
 
That's a real problem in Total War, but it's an issue with Game Mechanics and how the AI calculates battles rather than the overall concept. It's also a problem that arguably already exists in Civ and just is less noticeable because there is no Zoom-In Combat. In Total War, you can fight a battle and dislike the results or levels of losses, and replay it with better success. (You can also fight a battle and lose repeatedly only to have it fight automatically and win.) But in Civ, you only can fight the battle and see what happens, possibly with the option of reloading and trying again if you have Random Game See options set to allow it. You can't introduce a human element to change you battle tactics. But that doesn't mean you aren't losing more units and more battles than you really should be as a result of that option not being available.

What I'm favoring is some tweaking to how the AI calculates results, the nature of the results (in relation to Civ IV; the Civ V model being rejected entirely); and an option to Zoom In instead of letting the AI calculate it.

Horrible causalities only happen if you send inexperienced general up against General from Hell with 9 stars.

It's very easy to get a general with 3 stars, just win plenty of battles and it will slaughter any armies with only 1 star or no generals.

A army can beat a army with 9 star general by commanding it personally.... Although it will be hard because it have very good morale on field.

Its preferable for me to utilize one of my many agents to dispose the general before it hits my army.

Total War is very different from Civ

Armies and Agents in Total War. It's like that because skilled general = demigod.

Civs will be all about Armies due to absence of generals except for generic ones that give a flat buff that isn't overpowering.
 
Top Bottom