Civ4 Lovers/Civ5 Haters Level of Optimism for Civ6

How optimistic are you about Civ6?

  • Extremely Optimistic

    Votes: 20 10.6%

  • Somewhat/Cautiously Optimistic

    Votes: 53 28.0%

  • Somewhat Pessimistic

    Votes: 68 36.0%

  • Completely Pessimistic

    Votes: 48 25.4%
  • Total voters
    189
Thormodr said:
Not entirely true.

Civ VI divides advances into a scientific and civic tree. Added together, there are around 120 techs. For example, Craftsmanship or Early Empire are found in the Civics tree.

I would say that things are more returning to cIV, than anything. :)

Plus, the 92 techs for BTS were cIV with expansions. We'll see what Civ VI has after its expansions to make a totally fair comparison.
Click to expand...

Good to know. I forgot about the Civics Tree. :goodjob:
 
I dunno, I sometimes feel like the techs are too close together. In a game with 500-odd turns, having more than 100 techs means you’re going to be getting a tech at least every 5 turns (and how many of us finish games well before we get to 500 turns?). A tech tree bigger than that, and you’ll be getting a new tech every turn. That’s fun in a way, but if each tech brings a new improvement/unit/civic/whatever, you’ll never build at least half of what you unlock. And if you don’t build a unit/improvement unlocked by a tech, why bother having that tech in the tree?
 
6K Man said:
I dunno, I sometimes feel like the techs are too close together. In a game with 500-odd turns, having more than 100 techs means you’re going to be getting a tech at least every 5 turns (and how many of us finish games well before we get to 500 turns?). A tech tree bigger than that, and you’ll be getting a new tech every turn. That’s fun in a way, but if each tech brings a new improvement/unit/civic/whatever, you’ll never build at least half of what you unlock. And if you don’t build a unit/improvement unlocked by a tech, why bother having that tech in the tree?
Click to expand...

I agree with this. If Civ 6 really has 120 things in the two trees, in a 500 turn game that's a tech or civic every few turns. You should at least have time to actually build the unit before a new tech makes it obsolete.
 
After today's livestream my optimism is going down. Maybe my love for repetition is gone. Or maybe I've seen too many 'let's play' civ 6.
I'm worried about those (long) turn times and the very few actions a player does each turn.
I also have thougths on the "new" religious victory. I'm disappointed that it is what I suspected months ago, converting 51%? of the world. Easily to sabotage?
And why would you allow to convert your cities helping another player to win the game?

Besides I'll need new hardware, I'm in no rush to buy civ 6 until I've seen some 'let's play civ6', especially by Marbozir.
 
Tatran said:
Besides I'll need new hardware, I'm in no rush to buy civ 6 until I've seen some 'let's play civ6', especially by Marbozir.
Click to expand...
For me, this also. And a significant Steam sale. :)
 
I think the interaction between 1UPT and the AI will once again lead to a hopelessly terrible combat system. I'm guessing the game will be easy to beat even on the highest levels, just like Civ V, for this reason.

However, the game looks much more economically sophisticated than Civ V and also much more forgiving of expansion. So I'll say it will probably be somewhere between IV and V in quality--which would mean a pretty good game.
 
Lemon Merchant said:
For me, this also. And a significant Steam sale. :)
Click to expand...

I more than suspect that until Civ V hits GoG I'll not see it, and that puts six so far off my radar it may be buried in a bunker somewhere. But I'm not what you call a hard charger. I picked up Civ IV complete on sale and it sat on my shelf for close to a year before I loaded it because I was happily playing Civ III and just didn't get around to it.
 
Am I right in understanding that one can see the whole map layout (land and ocean) before even exploring it? In the above video, you can distinguish land and sea in the fog of war. That seems like pretty poor game design.

Regards
 
Terrible.."was too difficult planning improvements".
I also could not stop thinking, 2 girls swarming around the guy and making fanlove comments..
all that matters will be blabla and marketing, as in Civ5.
They are not interested in serious gameplay anymore, totally different crowd they try to reach.
 
You're going to not give civ VI a chance because of what you interpreted a dev to be saying about one small facet of the game? I mean that seems a bit brash, you should at least wait until it comes out before totally condemning it.
 
Aristos said:
Phillip will jump at you at any moment :lol:

but yes, EU4 with all its debatable decisions in every patch/expansion is one hell of a masterpiece.
Click to expand...

Just 1 L, even in the full spelling. I have the less common spelling :).

EU is indeed not somewhere you go for realistic gameplay, or even self-consistent rules. It has its fun, but taking lymond's suggestion at face value is playing pretend :mischief:.

Originally Posted by plasmacannon View Post
Civ4 BTS has 92 techs in it's tech tree.
http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/f...e_original.jpg

Civ5 has 74 techs in it's tech tree.
http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/s...riginal=1&c=36

Civ6 has 67 techs in it's tech tree.
http://well-of-souls.com/civ/images/civ6_tech_tree1.jpg

Is anyone else concerned that the Tech Tree is becoming too simplistic?

I feel like we are losing much of the depths of earlier versions.
Click to expand...

Tech count doesn't mean much, if anything, unless it's egregiously large or small. How often is the player making a situation-dependent choice on what to tech? 5 lost depth compared to 4 not because of tech count, but because you could get away with more cookie cutter behavior.

It's when the player is making a choice requiring thought + has a meaningful influence on their success or failure that it becomes interesting. Let's hope the developers manage what they alluded when claiming they want to get away from alpha strats.

Once 5 went into "range spam = strongest play for 75% of timeline", it actually fell behind 4 in the tactical warfare department also. At least 4 had terrain promotions, collateral initiative, and a balance between multi-city targeted offense and collateral initiative advantage going to defender. There were more ways to win or screw up than "build tons of xbows and some stuff to cover for that, then punish players who don't or try to out tech them otherwise".
 
Staler87 said:
You're going to not give civ VI a chance because of what you interpreted a dev to be saying about one small facet of the game? I mean that seems a bit brash, you should at least wait until it comes out before totally condemning it.
Click to expand...

I don't think that we're really condemning the game as a whole. We're just finding things about it that we don't like, or that don't appeal to us. That may make us hesitant to buy the game, or may turn us off altogether and make us not buy the game. I think that it's a matter of preferences, not necessarily condemnation.

For me, I expect a complete fiasco at release, but I'm still going to follow the Civ 6 forum and see how it shapes up. I'm going to read reviews from players that I trust, and not some reviews by shills for the gaming companies (read: Almost every review site out there.) I'm also not going to buy until it is thoroughly patched and on sale. I think you'll find that a great many people in this forum share this mindset. Even though we've heard stuff that turns us off from the game, we still might actually buy it after release.
 
He did say that he lost all hope for the game so I don't think my comment was out of line. I myself am optimistic about the game (although I haven't played it so I can't say for sure it will be good) and think the worker idea is a good one for a couple reasons:

1. Immersion wise it is much more realistic for your workers to finish improvements in a couple of years rather than in a century.

2. You need to properly plan out how many workers you need to build. In previous civs building a general amount of workers was necessary and a few more or less didn't affect the game much. In this new system you need to plan out well in advance where you want districts to go and where you want improvements to go and build enough workers. If your needs change and the plan shifts it could have bad implications. This system punishes you for poor planning and rewards you for good planning. The old system didn't really do this.

3. You won't have a million workers crawling around and thus this will help avoid civilian unit traffic jams. This is more of a minor issue as it can be fixed easily by just waving stacking limits for civilian units.

4. It actually makes expansion harder. Although this game initially seemed very expansion friendly, too much so IMO, I keep finding a lot of hidden costs in expanding. Now you have to constantly make new workers rather than just rely on your old ones. This game, from what I've seen, seems to be doing a good job at making a serious cost-benefit to expanding too much without putting a hard cap on it like in civ V, and overall I feel the system may work more like civ IV where too rapid of expansion can leave you in ruins.

5. It allows you to use other cities to rush a new city to success. in civ V there was very little other cities could do to help new cities making late game new cities pointless. This allows cities to be 'rushed' into greatness. Kinda like how stacking workers worked in civ IV.
 
Staler87 said:
He did say that he lost all hope for the game so I don't think my comment was out of line. I myself am optimistic about the game (although I haven't played it so I can't say for sure it will be good) and think the worker idea is a good one for a couple reasons:

1. Immersion wise it is much more realistic for your workers to finish improvements in a couple of years rather than in a century.

2. You need to properly plan out how many workers you need to build. In previous civs building a general amount of workers was necessary and a few more or less didn't affect the game much. In this new system you need to plan out well in advance where you want districts to go and where you want improvements to go and build enough workers. If your needs change and the plan shifts it could have bad implications. This system punishes you for poor planning and rewards you for good planning. The old system didn't really do this.

3. You won't have a million workers crawling around and thus this will help avoid civilian unit traffic jams. This is more of a minor issue as it can be fixed easily by just waving stacking limits for civilian units.

4. It actually makes expansion harder. Although this game initially seemed very expansion friendly, too much so IMO, I keep finding a lot of hidden costs in expanding. Now you have to constantly make new workers rather than just rely on your old ones. This game, from what I've seen, seems to be doing a good job at making a serious cost-benefit to expanding too much without putting a hard cap on it like in civ V, and overall I feel the system may work more like civ IV where too rapid of expansion can leave you in ruins.

5. It allows you to use other cities to rush a new city to success. in civ V there was very little other cities could do to help new cities making late game new cities pointless. This allows cities to be 'rushed' into greatness. Kinda like how stacking workers worked in civ IV.
Click to expand...

Hmnn. All of your above statements are reasonably valid.. For a city builder type of game. From what I've seen on the videos, read on the forums, and even from the devs themselves, a vast majority of the attention appears to be focused on the cities.

What happened to the planning out of your empire? you know, one of the req's in the supposed 4x? From everything I'm seeing and reading, your going to be more focused on your, let's say 4 or 5 cities ( anyone else see a similarity to Civ V?), then you will be in expanding your empire.

Diplo is another biggy. Minimal attention has been spent discussing diplo interaction with the AI's. Why?
Trade routes and bene's... Again, minimal info.

I could continue, but what really is the point? I personally am not condemning anyone or anything. But when I get vilified over in the Civ 6 forums for merely pointing out that past history has clearly demonstrated that pre-ordering wouldn't be a wise decision until more info is given, then as far as I'm concerned, you deserve what you pay for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

planetfall
Where's the joy in civ6?
4 5 6
Replies
115
Views
15K
Licentia
Licentia
The_J
Research - On Being Stuck in Sid Meier’s Civilization: The Promise of Freedom in Historical Games
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
BackseatTyrant
BackseatTyrant
Freaky
Any way to make Civ6 harder in a balanced way (like Vox Populi)?
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
KayAU
KayAU
ToastedHCL
Making a mini-modmod to make CoM more engaging and balanced (IMHO) - let's all share our personal ideas/tweaks for CoM!
Replies
6
Views
257
Mr Smith
Mr Smith
brandonjm8
Need help/suggestions on where to get some stable map scripts/mods for civ6
Replies
3
Views
1K
blackbutterfly
blackbutterfly
Top Bottom