SathingtonWaltz
Chieftain
Reminds me of a few of my friends and their Dungeons and Dragons games they play. Two of them want to play D&D 4E, while the rest just will not for any reason leave their precious 3.5E.
Civlization VI
- Thread starter jjake101
- Start date
Reminds me of a few of my friends and their Dungeons and Dragons games they play. Two of them want to play D&D 4E, while the rest just will not for any reason leave their precious 3.5E.
Reminds me of a few of my friends and their Dungeons and Dragons games they play. Two of them want to play D&D 4E, while the rest just will not for any reason leave their precious 3.5E.
To each their own. I myself could never get into Civ IV, I tried many times, but just never got get through it. So I played Civ III and other games until V, which I enjoy.
thegingerninja
Warlord
I think Civ V is way better than IV in many ways- for instance combat has way more strategy in it you don't just build a giant stack like in IV
I like:
Being able to kill with planes
Ranged attacks
Not having a fight to the death in every combat- if you lose a battle you have a chance to save your selves (I always kill defeated enemies if i can)
Overall Civ V is just better thought out in my opinion-I got V before IV and I was horrified when I found that archers couldn't bombard in IV, I thought this is nowhere near as good as V
No offense to IV fans
I like:
Being able to kill with planes
Ranged attacks
Not having a fight to the death in every combat- if you lose a battle you have a chance to save your selves (I always kill defeated enemies if i can)
Overall Civ V is just better thought out in my opinion-I got V before IV and I was horrified when I found that archers couldn't bombard in IV, I thought this is nowhere near as good as V
No offense to IV fans
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
If you're familiar with DLC generally, most of it tends to be about as game-changing as adding a new colour scheme for your units or a 'blood pack' (yes, a real DLC, for a Total War game), if you're lucky a few odd units here and there. Civ V has some of the only useable DLC content on the market, and it's still anything but game-changing - for that you still need a full expansion.
I've seen a poll somewhere that has rated the various Civs. I think the results pretty much agreed with how I feel on the subject, having played each one.
1. Civ II
2. Civ IV (with BTS)
3. Civ I
4. Civ V (with G&K, no rating out yet for BNW)
5. Civ III (with the various added packages)
Each game has obviously progressed in graphics and complexity. Even when though I liked Civ II better, I would tend to play Civ III more when it was current because I did like the look and feel of many new elements. But it's clear that some efforts to tweak game balance, among other things, were misguided.
Civ III introduced changes that created the Stacks of Doom issue that continued through IV. It also introduced a much more punitive system for wide vs. tall civs. In the name of game balance, it produced game play that was at once difficult and boring during much of the mid-history portion of the game.
Civ IV failed to correct some of these issues entirely, but was a huge advance with its specialist system and its intricate policies board. The resources system was also much-improved, and the religion system was at least interesting.
Civ V nixed the Stacks of Doom issue with the extreme innovation of one unit of a general type (one army, one boat, one worker/settler/general/religious unit) per hex. The new approach to the policy tree and culture is also interesting and creates new layers of strategy, but may result in a game that requires too much inside-game logic rather than real flexible strategy options. Much like Civ III, the mid-game often seems hard and boring. Certainly there are expert players who figure out how to master the system, but should one have to be a master player to succeed at and enjoy the game? It's still a fun game, but new thought is needed for Civ VI, which I predict we'll see by 2016 at the latest.
Take a look at years of game releases Civ I -- 1991, Civ II -- 1996, Civ III -- 2001, Civ IV, 2005, Civ V, 2010; that's 5 years for every game except Civ III, which was only out for 4 years. Why? Because marketers knew it sucked in comparison to the rest of the series and was damaging the overall brand!!! No word that Civ VI is in development, as they're still trying to salvage Civ V with the BNW expansion. But I wouldn't be shocked to see Civ VI as soon as late 2014 and most likely by sometime in 2015, certainly by sometime in 2016. You can tell something is different with Civ V when you compare strategy posts from Civ V to those for Civ IV. The volume is much lower, with a far smaller number of members participating. Civ V is successful by the conventions of most video game franchises and it's not a bad game. But it hasn't resulted in the passion and enthusiasm that the best games in the series -- Civ II, Civ IV and Civ I -- generated.
So what should Civ VI do differently? A few suggestions (note that I'm saying this without having played BNW, but have read the material and early reviews) --
1. Bring back some policy tree elements similar to Civ IV's while retaining some of the cultural growth strategy of Civ V. In a real world, civilizations mix and match their policies, as in Civ IV. The 21st century American civilization, for instance, includes aspects of every single policy tree, including Autocracy and Order. Make it more viable to select items from each tree with less cost for simply opening the tree. Insteaad of making the tree's absolutely exclusive, perhaps just the final policies or finishers. So you can be moderately orderly, autocratic (wrong name -- call it "Security,") and free, but you have to pass up on some of your Freedom if you want to be a Police State or Communist.
2. We need a happy medium between stacks of doom and the 1-unit limit. A five-unit limit with clear rules about who defends during an attack would be appropriate.
3. The game is too biased in favor of tall empires. The happiness, culture and money systems need to be tweaked to adjust this. Simply introducing some key modifiers in the policy trees isn't adequate, as it rewards or punishes civs for these choices too much. All policy tree options should have their pros and cons.
4. At the higher difficulty levels, very aggressive NPC's tend to make less experienced players' miserable and/or dead very early. This has resulted in all but the best players hovering around the mid-level Prince and King settings. Tweak a few settings in the early game so that even at the highest levels the early game is mostly survivable and only becomes truly brutal once the player has gotten a clear foothold. This will encourage more players to tackle the higher levels and give them an overall better experience.
1. Civ II
2. Civ IV (with BTS)
3. Civ I
4. Civ V (with G&K, no rating out yet for BNW)
5. Civ III (with the various added packages)
Each game has obviously progressed in graphics and complexity. Even when though I liked Civ II better, I would tend to play Civ III more when it was current because I did like the look and feel of many new elements. But it's clear that some efforts to tweak game balance, among other things, were misguided.
Civ III introduced changes that created the Stacks of Doom issue that continued through IV. It also introduced a much more punitive system for wide vs. tall civs. In the name of game balance, it produced game play that was at once difficult and boring during much of the mid-history portion of the game.
Civ IV failed to correct some of these issues entirely, but was a huge advance with its specialist system and its intricate policies board. The resources system was also much-improved, and the religion system was at least interesting.
Civ V nixed the Stacks of Doom issue with the extreme innovation of one unit of a general type (one army, one boat, one worker/settler/general/religious unit) per hex. The new approach to the policy tree and culture is also interesting and creates new layers of strategy, but may result in a game that requires too much inside-game logic rather than real flexible strategy options. Much like Civ III, the mid-game often seems hard and boring. Certainly there are expert players who figure out how to master the system, but should one have to be a master player to succeed at and enjoy the game? It's still a fun game, but new thought is needed for Civ VI, which I predict we'll see by 2016 at the latest.
Take a look at years of game releases Civ I -- 1991, Civ II -- 1996, Civ III -- 2001, Civ IV, 2005, Civ V, 2010; that's 5 years for every game except Civ III, which was only out for 4 years. Why? Because marketers knew it sucked in comparison to the rest of the series and was damaging the overall brand!!! No word that Civ VI is in development, as they're still trying to salvage Civ V with the BNW expansion. But I wouldn't be shocked to see Civ VI as soon as late 2014 and most likely by sometime in 2015, certainly by sometime in 2016. You can tell something is different with Civ V when you compare strategy posts from Civ V to those for Civ IV. The volume is much lower, with a far smaller number of members participating. Civ V is successful by the conventions of most video game franchises and it's not a bad game. But it hasn't resulted in the passion and enthusiasm that the best games in the series -- Civ II, Civ IV and Civ I -- generated.
So what should Civ VI do differently? A few suggestions (note that I'm saying this without having played BNW, but have read the material and early reviews) --
1. Bring back some policy tree elements similar to Civ IV's while retaining some of the cultural growth strategy of Civ V. In a real world, civilizations mix and match their policies, as in Civ IV. The 21st century American civilization, for instance, includes aspects of every single policy tree, including Autocracy and Order. Make it more viable to select items from each tree with less cost for simply opening the tree. Insteaad of making the tree's absolutely exclusive, perhaps just the final policies or finishers. So you can be moderately orderly, autocratic (wrong name -- call it "Security,") and free, but you have to pass up on some of your Freedom if you want to be a Police State or Communist.
2. We need a happy medium between stacks of doom and the 1-unit limit. A five-unit limit with clear rules about who defends during an attack would be appropriate.
3. The game is too biased in favor of tall empires. The happiness, culture and money systems need to be tweaked to adjust this. Simply introducing some key modifiers in the policy trees isn't adequate, as it rewards or punishes civs for these choices too much. All policy tree options should have their pros and cons.
4. At the higher difficulty levels, very aggressive NPC's tend to make less experienced players' miserable and/or dead very early. This has resulted in all but the best players hovering around the mid-level Prince and King settings. Tweak a few settings in the early game so that even at the highest levels the early game is mostly survivable and only becomes truly brutal once the player has gotten a clear foothold. This will encourage more players to tackle the higher levels and give them an overall better experience.
eric_
Emperor
If there is going to be a Civ VI, and if it's gonna be out in 2015, I almost guarantee you the requirements phase of development is under way.
I think you're right. In fact, I'd bet it has been under way, simultaneously with DLC development for V, since the day Civ V launched. Doesn't mean they say anything about it while they are still heavily marketing V.
How much time passed between some of the less successful iterations of this franchise and the next new thing?
Remember Civ IV Warlords? Seems like this lackluster set of patches was out less than a year before the very impressive BTS release. About the same time lapse between G&K and BNW, except that I think G&K was a much better improvement on a weak game than Warlords was on a good game.
Remember Civ III Conquests? It was out less than 2 years before Civ IV, assuredly already in development by 2003.
But look at the time between BTS, which was very successful, and Civ V. Just over 3 years.
And I would argue that releases like Civ V are essential, not just because new software drives up sales, but because the brand needs to take better advantage of advances in hardware.
So, yes, I'm sure Civ VI is under RAPID development. Don't get too used to BNW.
I posted a thread about Civ 6 over on the Ideas and Suggestions board just a few days ago asking for thoughts on changes that could be made to improve the game. Here are some of my ideas.
- Cities in Civ 6 are much more inward-focussed as the game progresses. Most mid-game buildings and almost all late-game buildings require a citizen to work them to get their full use (what we know as specialists in Civ 5). As the game goes on, the number of citizens working tiles outside the city walls goes down drastically. To compensate for this, we get villages. Villages work like mini-cities, complete with a population, but they can't build most buildings and are more focused on working tiles to get resources and food for the big cities. Villages are also much easier to capture, fixing the issue of cities being the only focus point of combat in Civ 5; now you actually have to defend the border if you don't want your land stolen out from under you.
- The world is now a much more open space. I think 1UPT was a good decision for the future of the series, but maps in Civ 5 are way too cramped. It's very easy to run out of space for your units, especially in a war, and units that are supposed to excel in open spaces (chariots, horsemen, tanks) have very limited usability with all the hills, forests, jungles, and rivers all over the place. Tiles should be smaller and tiles with flat terrain should be more abundant. Essentially, you have much more nothing in between the areas where you have something.
- The game now keeps track of your citizens and allows you to move them from one city to another. This is done via menu, much like espionage in Civ 5. Now you can evacuate citizens to keep them out of danger, or send them off to newly-founded or captured cities to begin working the new territory.
- Happiness now works on two levels: local and global. A city only maintains maximum productivity while it has positive local happiness, which decreases with population and can be increased through various means. Global happiness is the net sum of the local happiness of every city and other sources of global happiness, and effects civilization-wide functions such as military strength and ideological contentment. New ways to expend surplus happiness should be added beyond golden ages, though I'm not quite sure what.
Snes, I like some of your ideas, though I might disagree a bit with some others.
NATIONAL BOUNDARIES
The thing you mentioned about villages reminded me of something that I think has been needed for some time in Civ -- Just as spies only become a factor in later game play, I believe we need to introduce the concept of national, as opposed to city, boundaries in a new way at some point, perhaps when the first civ reaches the Industrial Era. This change would make suburbanization, a true modern phenomenon worldwide, actually doable. Violating a Civ's National Boundaries should have serious Diplomatic consequences. This would also reward civs who like to go wide with ample spaces that they consider their own, even if the cultural and territorial rules in various versions of the game don't always recognize them as such. None of the recent versions of Civ make much sense for vast empires of rural territory that we see across much of the globe today with civilizations like the US, Canada, Russia, Brazil and Australia.
Where I strongly disagree with Snes is on the open space issue. A little experimentation in both Civ V and Civ IV shows that you could fix this by changing the options in-game, such as map size, terrain type and number of Civs. Anything else is random. If you want to play as Attilla or Genghis Khan and get plopped down in the middle of the Alps, you my have to play more as Austria. Having said that, perhaps we need way for Civ selection to increase the liklihood of getting a certain type starting location. Hiawatha should always start in forested areas near rivers. Songhai and Ethiopia should have rivers with jungle, forest and desert. Egypt and Babylon should have desert river deltas. Austria should be hill country. Maya jungle. Sweden tundra. Arabia desert. England seaside. Not all of them should be as strong of preferences as others, and the player should have the option of turning this feature off.
NATIONAL BOUNDARIES
The thing you mentioned about villages reminded me of something that I think has been needed for some time in Civ -- Just as spies only become a factor in later game play, I believe we need to introduce the concept of national, as opposed to city, boundaries in a new way at some point, perhaps when the first civ reaches the Industrial Era. This change would make suburbanization, a true modern phenomenon worldwide, actually doable. Violating a Civ's National Boundaries should have serious Diplomatic consequences. This would also reward civs who like to go wide with ample spaces that they consider their own, even if the cultural and territorial rules in various versions of the game don't always recognize them as such. None of the recent versions of Civ make much sense for vast empires of rural territory that we see across much of the globe today with civilizations like the US, Canada, Russia, Brazil and Australia.
Where I strongly disagree with Snes is on the open space issue. A little experimentation in both Civ V and Civ IV shows that you could fix this by changing the options in-game, such as map size, terrain type and number of Civs. Anything else is random. If you want to play as Attilla or Genghis Khan and get plopped down in the middle of the Alps, you my have to play more as Austria. Having said that, perhaps we need way for Civ selection to increase the liklihood of getting a certain type starting location. Hiawatha should always start in forested areas near rivers. Songhai and Ethiopia should have rivers with jungle, forest and desert. Egypt and Babylon should have desert river deltas. Austria should be hill country. Maya jungle. Sweden tundra. Arabia desert. England seaside. Not all of them should be as strong of preferences as others, and the player should have the option of turning this feature off.
in the now
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 40
Heres a thought:
Next Civ game, no tiles. instead of an amount of tiles a unit can move over, it's a certain length of area, you click on the unit and drag to exactly where on the map it can go, and and precision in military tactics becomes a much bigger deal.
Next Civ game, no tiles. instead of an amount of tiles a unit can move over, it's a certain length of area, you click on the unit and drag to exactly where on the map it can go, and and precision in military tactics becomes a much bigger deal.
damnyankees
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 281
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.
Several posts have talked about the tiles, size of tiles and the limits of units to one tile (or hex). At least one poster suggests getting rid of tiles altogether. I question the workability of this concept as tiles are so integral to the way the cities work. I think there are a lot of advantages to tiles and killing them off would have negative game-play consequences. However, I've previously suggested a different solution, one that I'd hoped might be considered for Civ V, as a better answer to the Stacks of Doom problem from Civs IV and III.
That solution is ZOOMED IN COMBAT. This has been seen in a range of turn-based strategy games for some time. It's a hall-mark of the Total War series and before that was seen in games like the Castles series. ZOOMED IN COMBAT in Civ could work very similarly to how it does in Total War:
When combat is initiated by the player or an NPC, the player has the option to go into ZOOMED COMBAT mode. For players who have no interest in managing any battle or this battle in particular, just say no. But for players who savor the clash of mighty armies and the attending strategy, a detailed player-controlled combat takes place. In the case of Stacks of Doom vs. one another, cities or individual units or small groups of units, you get more realistic results. A battle would take place in which the fate of the defending stack on its tile would be decided. Units with adequate speed in battle could retreat, but they would emerge after the battle in adjacent locations. Only if the attacker withdraws or is defeated would remaining defenders control the tile. With such a system, the idea of ranged artillery units would be incorporated in this portion of the game and they would no longer work as they have in recent emendations of the game. However, long-range bombardment by bombers or seacraft would continue to function as it does now, just not in direct relation to this combat feature. So, for instance, to attack a stack of doom in a modern era game, you might bombard it repeatedly with your bombers and battleships, then bring in a few special units for ZOOMED COMBAT to engage in limited initiatives (Marines, SEALS) to pick off the specific types of defenders in the stack, especially artillery and machine gun nests. Surviving special ops in this raid then retreat (having helicopters as part of your raid group would make this easier). Finally you would send in your main stack of your own, likely with some combination of infantry, tanks and artillery. If successful, you either destroy the entire defending army or drive it to retreat, assuming it has a place to retreat to. Terrain would play a more interactive role in battlefield performance in conjunction with your tactical choices, so that it would be far more than just an influencer on your die-roll.
This would significantly alter aspects of gameplay, though in some of the same ways that new elements in Civ V did so. I think it would add significant realism that was lost with Civ V, while overcoming, in a better way, the shortcomings of earlier game tactics.
That solution is ZOOMED IN COMBAT. This has been seen in a range of turn-based strategy games for some time. It's a hall-mark of the Total War series and before that was seen in games like the Castles series. ZOOMED IN COMBAT in Civ could work very similarly to how it does in Total War:
When combat is initiated by the player or an NPC, the player has the option to go into ZOOMED COMBAT mode. For players who have no interest in managing any battle or this battle in particular, just say no. But for players who savor the clash of mighty armies and the attending strategy, a detailed player-controlled combat takes place. In the case of Stacks of Doom vs. one another, cities or individual units or small groups of units, you get more realistic results. A battle would take place in which the fate of the defending stack on its tile would be decided. Units with adequate speed in battle could retreat, but they would emerge after the battle in adjacent locations. Only if the attacker withdraws or is defeated would remaining defenders control the tile. With such a system, the idea of ranged artillery units would be incorporated in this portion of the game and they would no longer work as they have in recent emendations of the game. However, long-range bombardment by bombers or seacraft would continue to function as it does now, just not in direct relation to this combat feature. So, for instance, to attack a stack of doom in a modern era game, you might bombard it repeatedly with your bombers and battleships, then bring in a few special units for ZOOMED COMBAT to engage in limited initiatives (Marines, SEALS) to pick off the specific types of defenders in the stack, especially artillery and machine gun nests. Surviving special ops in this raid then retreat (having helicopters as part of your raid group would make this easier). Finally you would send in your main stack of your own, likely with some combination of infantry, tanks and artillery. If successful, you either destroy the entire defending army or drive it to retreat, assuming it has a place to retreat to. Terrain would play a more interactive role in battlefield performance in conjunction with your tactical choices, so that it would be far more than just an influencer on your die-roll.
This would significantly alter aspects of gameplay, though in some of the same ways that new elements in Civ V did so. I think it would add significant realism that was lost with Civ V, while overcoming, in a better way, the shortcomings of earlier game tactics.
VainoValkea
Emperor
I for one dislike zoomed-in combat. I find playing Total War games annoying because having to switch to tactical warfare breaks focus from the grand strategy.
damnyankees
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 281
Exactly this. I don't want to play a war game. If I did, I'd play Total War. But that's not what Civ is.
Understand your objections. Which is why I noted that you can opt out. Turn it on for those who like this system. Turn it off for those who don't. The gameplay result would be the same, with the Stack of Doom killed, reatreated or intact, with various possibilities for damage. (This actually is also true in Total War). You would NEVER HAVE TO PLAY ZOOMED IN.
VainoValkea
Emperor
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.
Most of Sweden have a temperate climate, only the northest tip of Sweden is considered sub-arctic. There is no tundra as tundra have no trees (although you can argue that the "trees on tundra" terrain is Civ V version of sub-arctic). Sorry for going a little offtopic, I got your point though.
The main thing I miss about Civ IV in Civ V is some of the economy aspects. The whole specialists vs cottage economies, and the growth of cottages into hamlets, villages then towns. It was a nice investment aspect of the game (it took time for it to pay off) but also risk, towns are easy and profitable to pillage by your enemies.
Admittedly BNW kinda brought back the risk aspect with the trade routes, since trade routes can be pillaged by enemies or barbarians so you need to safeguard the routes.
Hello Fellow Die Hard Civ Fans,
I feel like I just got a whole new Civ game from upgrading from the Civ V base game to Gold Edition with all the DLC's and Maps and Civs etc. Even more when I purchase Brave New Wolrd. With all of the new concepts etc. I feel like I already have Civ VI. Radical changes and the thread about Civ V surpassing Civ 4. It sure does. Civ 4 is not much of an option where after installing Civ V I still played 4 for a year. With the latest patch for V the game speed and flow is much much better.
What have they ... Firaxis... not done yet to improve the game for Civ VI. But these people are very smart and have an abundancy of imagination.
Who else agrees or not?
Brew God
I feel like I just got a whole new Civ game from upgrading from the Civ V base game to Gold Edition with all the DLC's and Maps and Civs etc. Even more when I purchase Brave New Wolrd. With all of the new concepts etc. I feel like I already have Civ VI. Radical changes and the thread about Civ V surpassing Civ 4. It sure does. Civ 4 is not much of an option where after installing Civ V I still played 4 for a year. With the latest patch for V the game speed and flow is much much better.
What have they ... Firaxis... not done yet to improve the game for Civ VI. But these people are very smart and have an abundancy of imagination.
Who else agrees or not?
Brew God
Falconiano
Prince
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.
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.
If a mechanic as system-intensive as a short film with dozens of soldiers fighting each other every turn can be completely avoided with no impact on gameplay, then I think it's fair to say that it shouldn't be in the game in any case.
Your idea for combat seems sorely devoid of strategic depth. Unless you bring in the rock-paper-scisors style of combat bonuses from Civ 4, the bigger stack will always win. I would prefer if combat in Civ was more like Chess. You don't put two pawns, a bishop, and a knight on one tile and have them try to move onto a tile occupied by a pawn, a rook, and a queen. Just like in real-world military strategy, positioning is key. Flanking, protecting your ranged line with your melee line, breaking past the enemy's defenses with fast units; all of these strategies are effectively lost if you just build stacks.
Similar threads
