Civ really did take a major diversion after 4.

[Windsor]

Take Civ 4 for example. On Deity, you could forget about founding a religion or building wonders, or going to war with axemen. In order to win, you had to bulb and trade techs until you got to rifles and drafting, or to cavalry, and then go on a rampage and kill everyone. This is because the AI handicaps made it impossible for the player to build a wonder, but did not make fighting wars impossible.

I find this "on deity you have no choice" narrative to be highly exaggerated. I agree that the founding of early religions isn't viable on deity because of the AI-bonuses. And AI bonuses hurt the viability of early wonders to some extent. Still, you can absolutely build lots of wonders on deity. A good example would be Obsoletes Industrious-Deity series where he basically wonderspams and settles tons of great people.

The most common reason why something doesn't work on deity is because it was a bad choice in the first place. And higher difficulties will of course have less room for bad play.

 

[Rusten]

Yes. If you're pigeonholed into only 1 or 2 strategies on Deity then the problem lies with you and not the game. You can win on Deity in so many ways while using so many different power spikes and approaches.

 

[noto2]

But look at this - raising the difficulty level boosts the AI's ability to tech but doesn't boost the AI's ability to fight. Therefore, fighting is more important at high difficulty levels. It skews game balance, and that is why it should never be a substitute for good AI.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Alright, I will concede this:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/status-of-civ-6-ai.620447/page-2#post-14828035

Some things can't be fixed just by giving more stuff. These things seem so easy to fix. ;;

 

[Lexicus]

I can't believe they locked the original thread (which I've now read in its entirety) in the civ 6 forums. It made me laugh to see that they'd done it though.

It looks like I'm not getting civ 6 anytime soon as I felt it was too expensive even during the recent Steam sale when it was available for (I think) $35, and that's without dlc which I haven't looked into but which may well be necessary to properly enjoy the game as was the case with civ 5.

 

[Slaughter]

The sad thing is that cIV's old engine means that its performance slows down even on modern pcs, so there's only so much you can do with cIV modding before the game slows to a crawl.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

It's not so much a diversion as it is that they seem to have taken the rule book for making Civ games and thrown it out the window, starting with Civ5. And don't get me started on Civ6... endless denouncing, Farmville graphics, leaderheads inspired by the Looney Tunes cartoons (I'm expecting Bugs Bunny to show up as a leader in DLC), and an AI that can't handle it's own combat mechanics. And, to top it all off, it's not even a real Civ game. It's not empire building at all. Four cities does not an empire make. The game is just a mouse clicking exercise you do with your index finger until you win.

I'm guessing that CIv6 players have some of the strongest, fittest index fingers in the game community.

 

[Soupy Delicious]

Just take a look at Civ6 forums, it's all about talking and not about playing.
These are the same peoples who get excited about typing into smartphones outside, they find it interesting anticipating dlc and happily pay for single leaders.
No amount of wisdom can help there, it's like feeding those pink animals.
And that's who they created this game abomination we know as Civ6 for /rant over

Damn straight. Poignant thing you mentioned, the claim about peoples who get excited typing into smartphones outside. I remember when I was 14~ when the first ipod touch came out, thinking I looked pretty suave standing there swiping and tapping, ignoring everyone else on the street. In the next Civ game they'll have to factor in the Dark Ages that comes after the Digital age.

EDIT: Lemon Merchant. What are you referring to with the 'strong index fingers' thing? Is it a similar jab as Fippy's up above ^? I dont get the references yet, I'm new here <

 

[Lemon Merchant]

EDIT: Lemon Merchant. What are you referring to with the 'strong index fingers' thing? Is it a similar jab as Fippy's up above ^? I dont get the references yet, I'm new here <

I was referring tot he fact that there is nothing to do in new Civ games other than click Next Turn, Next Turn... ad nauseum until you win the game with no effort. With all the clicking with their index fingers, Civ6 player's index fingers must be in pretty good shape.

 

[Jabarto]

Civ 6 is fun and has some genuine improvements over Civ 4 while also being a direct upgrade to Civ 5. None of those statements are contradictory, and it's perfectly possible to be a Civ 4 loyalist (as I unabashedly am) without aggrandizing ourselves with the same nonsense about smart phones, or the kids of today going soft, or anything else that we would laugh at an 80 year old for saying but are somehow taking seriously in this thread.

 

[Bandobras Took]

and an AI that can't handle it's own combat mechanics.

That's a traditional aspect of Civ games.

 

[Soupy Delicious]

Civ 6 is fun and has some genuine improvements over Civ 4 while also being a direct upgrade to Civ 5. None of those statements are contradictory, and it's perfectly possible to be a Civ 4 loyalist (as I unabashedly am) without aggrandizing ourselves with the same nonsense about smart phones, or the kids of today going soft, or anything else that we would laugh at an 80 year old for saying but are somehow taking seriously in this thread.

Civ 6 isn't a direct upgrade yet. The district system seems to be a major point for people to expand off when they make claims like this, but it's actually a very game-y, simple system. It's comparable to the changes between 4 and 5 to combat and unit stacking. Looks like a sensible change: makes things simpler.

Kids these days are being spoiled, and it's because, in every area of life, they are being fed baby food (Civ 6, for example). Not enough to make them big and strong, no? Maybe we should start listening to the 80 year olds.

Get off my lawn.

 

[Fish Man]

Civ 6 isn't a direct upgrade yet. The district system seems to be a major point for people to expand off when they make claims like this, but it's actually a very game-y, simple system. It's comparable to the changes between 4 and 5 to combat and unit stacking. Looks like a sensible change: makes things simpler.

Kids these days are being spoiled, and it's because, in every area of life, they are being fed baby food (Civ 6, for example). Not enough to make them big and strong, no? Maybe we should start listening to the 80 year olds.

Get off my lawn.

It's not so much a diversion as it is that they seem to have taken the rule book for making Civ games and thrown it out the window, starting with Civ5. And don't get me started on Civ6... endless denouncing, Farmville graphics, leaderheads inspired by the Looney Tunes cartoons (I'm expecting Bugs Bunny to show up as a leader in DLC), and an AI that can't handle it's own combat mechanics. And, to top it all off, it's not even a real Civ game. It's not empire building at all. Four cities does not an empire make. The game is just a mouse clicking exercise you do with your index finger until you win.

I'm guessing that CIv6 players have some of the strongest, fittest index fingers in the game community.

I'm going to play a little bit of devil's advocate here. We can all agree that Civ 4 >>> anything that came after, in almost any sense of the phrase. However, that doesn't mean that people playing 5 or 6 are "dumber" or "spoiled" than people playing 4. In fact, I would encourage people on either side of the argument to be careful not to fall into this elitist mindset. Perhaps some people just deal with enough complicated thought-intensive activities in their life already, and need some relatively easy eye-candy to chill on at the end of the day. Maybe other people just don't like to take video games seriously, which is totally fine. Maybe some have never even heard of 4, and would actually love it if they tried/bothered to learn - which is hard considering how obscure this community is becoming and how predominant other places like /r/civ have become. Maybe still others like to take other games seriously and want Civ as one of the games which they don't have to.

I won't lie and I'll admit I've fallen into this mindset in the past. Still, just because the game is (relatively speaking) bad does not mean all the people who are playing it are mindless sheep and spoiled brats demanding instant gratification. Making fun of them ironically is fine, showing exasperation is fine, and I'm not your mom and can't force you to do anything, but to be honest, it's kinda lame to brag online about how superior you are just because you have a more "refined" taste in video games and understand how real strategy games which actually offer a challenge are supposed to be played.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Smart people can play dumb games and dumb people can play smart games. The difference is smart people can do both.

Consider the sod debate is definitely one of ignorance towards civ iv though. One word : nukes

 

[Lexicus]

Consider the sod debate is definitely one of ignorance towards civ iv though. One word : nukes

Well, nukes don't come early enough to be a very significant influence in how the game plays out. I guess it's okay if people don't like SoDs but my experience is the opposite, the "tactical" combat of Civ 5 (haven't even played 6) is incredibly boring because there's very little chance of losing, whereas when you get hit with an SoD and you're not sure you can deal with it it's terrifying.

That is, to me, the most fun aspect of Civ 4, getting invaded before I'm ready and hanging on for my life, then gradually gaining the upper hand and capturing most of the aggressor's territory to become the most powerful Civ by far.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well, that is true though I picked nukes as a definitive example . But honestly it is rarely even about whoever has the biggest stack and sending suicide siege. It can be a thing but not even the fastest.

Add in things like spy revolts and it is not necessarily less engaging than massing range units and surrounding a city.

5 and 6 don't have much rng combat though which I do like, but that is another topic.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I'm going to play a little bit of devil's advocate here. We can all agree that Civ 4 >>> anything that came after, in almost any sense of the phrase. However, that doesn't mean that people playing 5 or 6 are "dumber" or "spoiled" than people playing 4. In fact, I would encourage people on either side of the argument to be careful not to fall into this elitist mindset. Perhaps some people just deal with enough complicated thought-intensive activities in their life already, and need some relatively easy eye-candy to chill on at the end of the day. Maybe other people just don't like to take video games seriously, which is totally fine. Maybe some have never even heard of 4, and would actually love it if they tried/bothered to learn - which is hard considering how obscure this community is becoming and how predominant other places like /r/civ have become. Maybe still others like to take other games seriously and want Civ as one of the games which they don't have to.

I won't lie and I'll admit I've fallen into this mindset in the past. Still, just because the game is (relatively speaking) bad does not mean all the people who are playing it are mindless sheep and spoiled brats demanding instant gratification. Making fun of them ironically is fine, showing exasperation is fine, and I'm not your mom and can't force you to do anything, but to be honest, it's kinda lame to brag online about how superior you are just because you have a more "refined" taste in video games and understand how real strategy games which actually offer a challenge are supposed to be played.

And just whom are you calling elitist? Exactly where did I claim that I was superior to Civ5 and Civ6 players? I criticized the game and I'm entitled to my opinion about it, so don't come off all holier than thou at me for disliking a product and voicing my opinion in a thread in which many others have voiced theirs. The only time that I actually mention Civ6 players is when I suggested that they have all well developed index fingers from clicking "next turn" until they win out of sheer perseverance.

Be careful whom you quote when accusing people of bragging or feeling superior and elitist.

 

[Fish Man]

I'm guessing that CIv6 players have some of the strongest, fittest index fingers in the game community.

And just whom are you calling elitist? Exactly where did I claim that I was superior to Civ5 and Civ6 players? I criticized the game and I'm entitled to my opinion about it, so don't come off all holier than thou at me for disliking a product and voicing my opinion in a thread in which many others have voiced theirs. The only time that I actually mention Civ6 players is when I suggested that they have all well developed index fingers from clicking "next turn" until they win out of sheer perseverance.

Be careful whom you quote when accusing people of bragging or feeling superior and elitist.

"I'm guessing that CIv6 players have some of the strongest, fittest index fingers in the game community."

That right there is very heavily veiled but still pretty apparent insult. And I was using "you" as a general way to address anyone listening, not directed at you specifically.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

That right there is very heavily veiled but still pretty apparent insult.

Rubbish. That was a direct point made on what I see is a very boring game that has so little to do in-game that the player has nothing to do but click next turn. It could have just as easily been a Candy Crush player. It has nothing to do with the player of the game, it has to do with the game itself. If I'm insulting anything, it's the game. Or am I not allowed to do that? Is the game that precious that it can't be criticized?

If I may go out on a limb here and demonstrate actually insulting players of Civ6 this time (and you can quote me on this): Some players that I have run into on the CIv6 forum seem to think that the game was ordained by God, and delivered to the masses by angels from on high, when in fact the game is a mess and several patches have failed to fix glaring flaws that still exist from release day. Players have been duped out of their money by a greedy, unethical company, but are stupid enough to still fork out good money for DLC for a game that is not only boring, but doesn't work to its full potential. Then they rabidly shout down anyone who has the audacity to point out any errors or flaws that the game has in order to justify their purchase. Full stop.

See the difference? The first one was directed at the game itself. The second one was directed at the players. And for bonus points, can you spot the sarcasm in the first example?

And I was using "you" as a general way to address anyone listening, not directed at you specifically.

Again, this is BS. You directly quoted me, therefore by inference alone, you are accusing me of elitism, bragging and asserting my superiority. In truth, you are directly accusing me of possessing those attributes. Considering that you were the one bellyaching in another thread about the sad state of Civ4 play outside these forums, I find your position lacking just a little bit of credibility. If you want to criticize other players or another game, that's fine, but don't turn into PollyAnna when someone else does it. If you want to have a negative opinion, great, I respect that, but getting all Molly about someone having a similar opinion displays a sense of self-righteousness that I'm not sure you were trying to project. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

 

[noto2]

The thing is, there are all kinds of games out there that people like, from Sorry, to Snakes and Ladders, to...Civ 6. It's a free country and people can like and buy and play Civ 6 and Snakes and Ladders to their heart's content. I'm happy for them. But I hate those games. There is no thinking involved, no decision making. I like games like chess.

Most people are not like me, most people are not like Lemon Merchant. Most people prefer Snakes and Ladders, which is why most video games are the equivalent of that board game. People who like Sorry outnumber people who like Chess probably 10 to 1, or 25 to 1. So, obviously most video games are going to appeal to that kind of gamer.

What's sad is that Firaxis/2k/Microprose used to make games that appeal to me, and to other gamers like me. As there are so few of these companies and so few of these games, it really hurts when one of the leading companies abandoned me/us.

Perhaps we can take a little of the blame here. How many of you paid money to watch "Independence Day 2"? Did you enjoy it? What if "Ace Ventura Pet Detective 15" came out tomorrow, would you watch it? The Civ series is dying, it's time to find something better.