Got sick of Civ V, convince me to come back for Civ VI :)

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

...not even close. :/

Which is a good thing because we do not need to revive that souless game

Instead we get a game which takes the best part of the older civ games and make a good thing out of it

 

[MistyRonin]

Some elements are similar, but Civ VI seems to be closer to V than it is to IV.

I disagree. The only main feature it inherits from Civ V is the hex map and 1 UpT (then it also inherits lesser features like archaeology).

The diff govs, anarchy, happiness related to cities, more than one leader per civ, etc. makes VI closer to IV.

The design / art too is closer to IV, from the colors to the units.

And the music, well, Christopher Tin.

Instead we get a game which takes the best part of the older civ games and make a good thing out of it

I agree.

 

[Magean]

The OP can also try the Vox Populi (Community Patch Project) mod for Civ V that is reaching completion and see how it compares with Civ VI.

 

[Nefelia]

I disagree. The only main feature it inherits from Civ V is the hex map and 1 UpT (then it also inherits lesser features like archaeology).

The diff govs, anarchy, happiness related to cities, more than one leader per civ, etc. makes VI closer to IV.

The design / art too is closer to IV, from the colors to the units.

The difference between Civ 5's combat system (1 unit per tile) and that of Civ 4 (Stacks of Doom) is - by far - the largest play style difference between the two games. Features like governments, local/global happiness, and anarchy are minor considerations in comparison.

At best, I'd agree with Denkt: Civ 6 seems to be an intelligent fusion of some of the best features of 4 and 5, along with some really interesting innovations.

 

[drubell]

I haven't played it, so I don't know.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I haven't played it, so I don't know.

You can still learn alot by watching the LP videos and reading the information about the game

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I like this. But I wonder if we'll have city governors again. It killed me in Civ 5 to still have to manage production in my backwater cities.

I don't think there are governors per se. I have not seen anything to automate the build queue. But the UI does let you set the city priorities really well. You can set which yields to always focus on or never focus on and you can set multiple priorities. So for example, you could set a city to prioritize food and science and not culture.

 

[jmm]

It seems an improvement in many ways over V, but jury is still out. I'll wait, I got burned twice with pre-ordering Civ (V and BE). It is probably the smart choice.

 

[Mustakrakish]

"Got sick of Civ V, convince me to come back for Civ VI "

Naah, I'm good

 

[MistyRonin]

The difference between Civ 5's combat system (1 unit per tile) and that of Civ 4 (Stacks of Doom) is - by far - the largest play style difference between the two games. Features like governments, local/global happiness, and anarchy are minor considerations in comparison.

I think it's fair to assume that we have different tastes / priorities. In any case, I think the OP can now take his conclusions from our posts.

 

[Nefelia]

I think it's fair to assume that we have different tastes / priorities. In any case, I think the OP can now take his conclusions from our posts.

Meh. OP should just open up Youtube and type in 'Civ 6'. That will tell him more than our prattling ever could.

 

[dexters]

All the major mechanics are borrowed from Civ5. Civ6 is very much a direct sequel to Civ5, a refinement to the ideas in 5, the same way 4 refined a lot of 3's ideas, with a lot features out of the box in vanilla, which means it can go to new places later on in expansions.

I think balance will be Civ6's biggest issue in the long term given how many variables the devs have to contend with on each Civ now.

As suggested, watch some of the playthroughs and marketing videos and judge for yourself.

 

[Zenstrive]

It has Queen of Sparta who is blood-thirsty

 

[grant2004]

I'm also of the mindset that Civ IV was the best in the series. I see a lot of elements in Civ VI that look to be inspired from Civ IV, which is good news. Local happiness is back, and housing looks like a rough match to health from Civ IV. However, it's still 1UPT, which I don't believe the AI has ever been capable of understanding. The recent stream didn't do anything to change my opinion on it. Civ IV was certainly simpler in terms of combat mechanics, but it wins on the fact that the AI was capable of playing with those mechanics, not perfectly, but passably. I may still buy Civ VI, it won't have the same replay value without a functional AI, but it looks like an interesting puzzle from a peaceful development perspective. If multiplayer is functional (fingers crossed, I know that's not a guarantee) I can always play against some friends, they're better than a capable AI anyway.

 

[Very Mad Max]

Just play what you want to play.

 

[Nefelia]

I'm also of the mindset that Civ IV was the best in the series

I can't speak for all play styles and preferences, but Civ IV's Stacks of Doom were atrocious for huge/giant maps. Build 200 units for your SoD, only to find that the leading opposition has 300. Build 150 more units to be able to compete (OMG tedious micromanagement hell)? No thanks. :/

This is the issue that allowed me to embrace Civ V with enthusiasm. I do understand that Civ V is probably more sparse for those who play on smaller maps.

 

[ptoss1]

EU4 has become pretty crap as well as of late. The expansions have no themes anymore and it's just the devs throwing whatever they can to keep milking the game.

 

[IMACIVFAN]

Whining about this and that of a game is, somehow, we gamers' general habitual behaviour, don't you?

Back to OP's original concern, what I say is, looking forward to the geographic factors and the day/night transitions are two major reasons I will consider CIV 6.

I have CIV IV and CIV V, but because of busying at work, I haven't really got the time to play them thoroughly and dedicatedly. But as luck could have it, I am now less busy, so in the last few months I have played numerous number of hours of CIV 5. And I love the game, though there are glitches in the AI even at KING difficulties. But then AI is never perfect.

Having said that, gaming experience is never unilateral. That's many many other things which all come together to give you a feeling of climax. CIV V does that. I didn't spend a great deal of time in CIV IV, because of CIV 5, so I can compare. But just from all the sources online mainly, CIV VI is going to be a blast.


I can wait for a few years until all the expansions come out and get the game just like I did to CIV V, and meanwhile play other titles, but I won't tell you here. If I like it, i ll share it on facebook.

 

[isau]

The way I'd compare it is that Civ V Vanilla came out during a terrible period of video gaming when "experts" were going to video game conferences and telling design teams to go simple, simple, simple to capture Farmville dollars that were big business at the time. A lot of games from that period fell apart under the weight of this advice (see also: Diablo 3). When that imploded for Civ V due to the samey-ness of the mechanics, new designers were brought in to re-up the complexity in (IMO a mostly successful) bid to save it. But the game that was there wouldn't have been what the designed from the ground up.

The Gods and Kings and BNW expansions really pushed the game into new territory. These expansions were deliberate attempts to move beyond the disastrous streamlining of Vanilla.

Civ 6 is the first attempt to build the game from the ground up with all of the major concepts from the Civ 5 expansions considered from the outset. In that sense, it is a direct sequel to Civ 5's expansions. And, in particular, a response to the Community Balance Patch/Vox Populi mod for Civ 5 BNW, which adjusted a number of parameters that frustrated Civ 5 players and made the individual leader abilities much more powerful and interesting.

CBP/Vox Populi was also very much inspired by Civ 4, so that is why you see a lot of Civ 4 stuff returning. The community wanted it back.

 

[jjkrause84]

I'm a Civ 4 guy and I eventually decided to pre-order Civ 6 after my closest Civ-playing buddy said he was going to pre-order. I didn't want to have to hear about Civ 6 from him but not play it! Peer pressure, man...peer pressure.

I think Civ 6 will be completely unremarkable. It'll be better than Civ 5, but that's really not saying much. They still need city maintenance (the Civ 4 system to slow expansion was great), and they need stacking, in one form or another, to give the game some sense of scale. Lastly, Civ 6 needs some sort of deep incentive to expand. The desperate need to expand in Civ 4 meant the pressure was always on....in Civ 5 it was the opposite. Plunk down 4 cities and hit 'enter' for 300 turns until you win. Right now I'm not convinced that Civ 6 will not just encourage, but effectively mandate expansion and competition.

So, in short: if you've got the spare cash I don't think Civ 6 will be horrible...just don't expect the second coming. Civ 6 has added a lot of complexity...but I'm not yet sure if that complexity will actually yield strategic depth.