Tom Chick's take on Civ 6

[footslogger]

Presumably Tom Chick had to pay for his own copy of Civ 6 because, based on his review of civ 5, he would never receive a freebie from Firaxis. But that's something I like about him - his independence of mind. I thought his score for Civ 6 a little harsh - 40%! - but his review is well written and insightful and he nails many of its problems, most notably the dreadful mistake of persevering with 1upt. He does accept that Civ 6 is better than its predecessor, which represents some small comfort for Firaxis.

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2016/11/02/civilization-vi-tries-make-best-civilization-v/

(I've posted this here rather than in the review section because it raises so many interesting and controversial points).

 

[Gorbles]

People are entirely capable of being honest regardless of whether or not they have to pay for a copy of the game. We're in an age where free copies (to the gaming press, at least) are getting less and less common (see: Bethesda). More places than you'd expect end up paying for their copies these days.

All this guy is, is shouty for the sake of shouty. Criticism of 1UPT has been done to absolute death and back, and yet he's hitched his wagon to it in order to gain support from likeminded individuals more than any actual decent critique of the mechanic as-implemented.

 

[jekke]

I do like the guy's suggestion to introduce random eurekas. They might be somewhat random and not completely random, so that you don't get a boost for rocketry by building a damn slinger, of course. I remember a while ago someone on this forum argued that randomizing yields from tiles (representing better and worse harvest years) would help to get rid of the tedious micromanagement. In a similar way, random eurekas will make progressing along the tech tree less boring from game to game.

Of course, those interested mostly in multiplayer will not like it, so this could realized as an option.

 

[Buccaneer]

I have longed had a formula for converting Chick's Civ ratings to reality. It goes something like this: the lower his score is, the higher my score will be, and vice-versa.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

People are entirely capable of being honest regardless of whether or not they have to pay for a copy of the game. We're in an age where free copies (to the gaming press, at least) are getting less and less common (see: Bethesda). More places than you'd expect end up paying for their copies these days.

All this guy is, is shouty for the sake of shouty. Criticism of 1UPT has been done to absolute death and back, and yet he's hitched his wagon to it in order to gain support from likeminded individuals more than any actual decent critique of the mechanic as-implemented.

I wonder, is there a name for this fallacy? 'Argumentum ad [insert 'aging' in Latin]'? Even if something is complained about a thousand times, it doesn't make the actual argument(s) any less sound, provided they're logical and clearly explained -- which Chick does do here, highlighting AI fighting issues and the horrendous Missionary spam while trying to move Great People around. If you were looking for something really specific like 'When I move this Archer here, why doesn't the AI attack it with unit X?', that's a fair complaint, but it is a short article.

I'm surprised he didn't mention the unit auto-cycling or the horrible new movements rules. Perhaps he hasn't played enough to appreciate just how many times one has to click 'skip turn' during the course of game where there's any significant wars.

Randomized eurekas (or randomized *anything*) are a terrible idea in a strategy game; that bit dropped Chick's clout in my eyes by a fair bit. But it remains high because this guy is not afraid to call things as he sees them. Let's face it, a lot of things *suck* about Civ VI. Some of them will likely be corrected (interface, bugs) and some won't (1fupft -- no, I didn't misspell it).

 

[Magil]

I don't agree with his overall assessment of the game because for me, the city management part of the game is interesting enough to carry it.

But he is 100% correct about one-unit-per-tile. Most of the other shortcomings of the game in terms of diplomacy, etc. have been covered elsewhere just as well.

 

[Roxlimn]

Eh. It's the usual 1UPT hate blown out of all proportion. It is entirely possible to kill Missionaries. Those things are just completely defenseless, and you get free religion on top of it. The fact that he can't figure that out on his own is his problem. It's a little weird to succumb to confirmation bias in reading the review of someone who obviously doesn't know extremely basic things about the game he's supposedly reviewing.

 

[0R4NG3]

Fair criticism imo. I like 1upt, but I can also see the many problems with it, like: the AI being crap at it or not being able to get to a place with my archaeologist because the AI has a bunch of units in one place for no apparent reason and doesn't want to move them.
I think this game has potential, but some changes are required.

 

[Siptah]

nothing new. I'd say this belongs in the review section and not here. there are enough threads on all topics he raises.

why do you still read reviews if you already have and play the game?

 

[Gorbles]

I wonder, is there a name for this fallacy? 'Argumentum ad [insert 'aging' in Latin]'? Even if something is complained about a thousand times, it doesn't make the actual argument(s) any less sound, provided they're logical and clearly explained -- which Chick does do here, highlighting AI fighting issues and the horrendous Missionary spam while trying to move Great People around. If you were looking for something really specific like 'When I move this Archer here, why doesn't the AI attack it with unit X?', that's a fair complaint, but it is a short article.

I'm surprised he didn't mention the unit auto-cycling or the horrible new movements rules. Perhaps he hasn't played enough to appreciate just how many times one has to click 'skip turn' during the course of game where there's any significant wars.

Randomized eurekas (or randomized *anything*) are a terrible idea in a strategy game; that bit dropped Chick's clout in my eyes by a fair bit. But it remains high because this guy is not afraid to call things as he sees them. Let's face it, a lot of things *suck* about Civ VI. Some of them will likely be corrected (interface, bugs) and some won't (1fupft -- no, I didn't misspell it).

And your logical fallacy is . . . the fallacy fallacy! I mean, you also misrepresented my position (and opinions).

I didn't say he was wrong because the arguments against 1UPT had been made a thousand times before. I implied he was wrong because he used existing criticism of 1UPT (that has been countered by advocates of 1UPT, over and over again) to criticise the game purely because 1UPT exists within it, more than any particular issue with 1UPT (and for the last time, issues with the AI are issues with the AI, not 1UPT).

You think a lot of things suck about Civilisation 6. I don't have to "face" anything; that's a poor attempt at positioning your argument as a fact that has to be agreed with, rather than an opinion to be defended. Cycle back to my first post where agreement is made on emotive arguments, rather than substance.

 

[Ricci]

... ...

Randomized eurekas (or randomized *anything*) are a terrible idea in a strategy game; that bit dropped Chick's clout in my eyes by a fair bit. But it remains high because this guy is not afraid to call things as he sees them. Let's face it, a lot of things *suck* about Civ VI. Some of them will likely be corrected (interface, bugs) and some won't (1fupft -- no, I didn't misspell it).

I can wholeheartedly say randomness is what makes a good game great. I would't like to play chess with a civ skin. Of course, ramdomness should come in due meassure. Given you need to make the best of the good events, if you choose, and try to minimize the bad; Only very rarely you will have the dice rolling entirely on your side. That would be a lucky day. Or viceversa, clearly.

 

[Ricci]

And your logical fallacy is . . . the fallacy fallacy! I mean, you also misrepresented my position (and opinions).

I didn't say he was wrong because the arguments against 1UPT had been made a thousand times before. I implied he was wrong because he used existing criticism of 1UPT (that has been countered by advocates of 1UPT, over and over again) to criticise the game purely because 1UPT exists within it, more than any particular issue with 1UPT
...

¿Countered? - This should be beyond fallacious.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

And your logical fallacy is . . . the fallacy fallacy! I mean, you also misrepresented my position (and opinions).

I didn't say he was wrong because the arguments against 1UPT had been made a thousand times before. I implied he was wrong because he used existing criticism of 1UPT (that has been countered by advocates of 1UPT, over and over again) to criticise the game purely because 1UPT exists within it, more than any particular issue with 1UPT (and for the last time, issues with the AI are issues with the AI, not 1UPT).

You think a lot of things suck about Civilisation 6. I don't have to "face" anything; that's a poor attempt at positioning your argument as a fact that has to be agreed with, rather than an opinion to be defended. Cycle back to my first post where agreement is made on emotive arguments, rather than substance.

Let's hear those counter-arguments then.

EDIT: If they cannot make an AI that can use 1upt properly (and it sure seems like they couldn't in Civ VI), then wouldn't it make sense to relinquish it? (Although I've never played it, the guys who made the Community Balance Patch for Civ V supposedly managed this, so I'll concede that it may be possible. But Firaxis doesn't seem to be anywhere near their level when it comes to AI, so why not return to stacks instead?)

 

[Kruos]

Thanks for the OP link, very interesting review. I share the 1UPT criticism, and really wonder why Firaxis decided to keep it, as everyone know today all the negatives impacts it has on the grandstrategy layer&scope of the game.

No matter what, I like this Civ6, with all his defaults, but still think Civ4 is way above.

 

[beorn]

I'm enjoying this game a lot, but Chick has done a great job of outlining the problems. Even the one-unit-per-tile bit, he emphasizes the right thing -- that it is absurd to extend the concept to units like missionaries. I disagree with his bottom line (2 out of 5 stars) but Firaxis ought to give some real thought to the many good points he makes.

 

[Haggbart]

He puts Civ6 on par with Beyond Earth in terms of rating, so I'm not really taking that guy very seriously.

Sure, he has some valid points, but other stuff seems like random complaints just to dislike the game. He actually want eureka boosts to be completely random instead of tied to known actions. Yeah that sounds like an awesome idea for a strategy game - let's just give a massive tech bonus for random stuff you have no chance to plan for because realism. That's awesome strategy game design, dunno why Firaxis didn't hire this guy years ago

 

[Stringer1313]

Very thoughtful review. I disagree with his proposal for random Eurekas, and I love 1UPT but this gave me food for thought.

 

[Gorbles]

Let's hear those counter-arguments then.

EDIT: If they cannot make an AI that can use 1upt properly (and it sure seems like they couldn't in Civ VI), then wouldn't it make sense to relinquish it? (Although I've never played it, the guys who made the Community Balance Patch for Civ V supposedly managed this, so I'll concede that it may be possible. But Firaxis doesn't seem to be anywhere near their level when it comes to AI, so why not return to stacks instead?)

This is not a thread about 1UPT. I was criticising the review itself.

I appreciate you conceding the rest of the points, though. Threads get dragged down way too quickly with claims of "fallacy" these days.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

This is not a thread about 1UPT. I was criticising the review itself.

I appreciate you conceding the rest of the points, though. Threads get dragged down way too quickly with claims of "fallacy" these days.

I never said I conceded those points -- I just don't think they're worth the back-and-forth. And I am a fairly non-logical person (if that makes sense), so I may well be wrong but am just not seeing it.

Anyway, it seems there is no reconciliation between people who like 1upt and those who do not. It's like morning/evening persons, or which way to put the toiler paper roll, etc. Let's just agree to disagree and move on to more productive efforts.

I'm pretty sure even you agree, though, that there'd be no harm in giving religious and civilian units their own unit layers between two different civs (and why not unlimited stacking for your own civilian units as well). That's really a problem that's so easily fixed, with no foreseeable downside, that it shouldn't exist in the first place. In Civ V they never changed this, but I'm hoping good sense will prevail this time.

 

[UWHabs]

I never said I conceded those points -- I just don't think they're worth the back-and-forth. And I am a fairly non-logical person (if that makes sense), so I may well be wrong but am just not seeing it.

Anyway, it seems there is no reconciliation between people who like 1upt and those who do not. It's like morning/evening persons, or which way to put the toiler paper roll, etc. Let's just agree to disagree and move on to more productive efforts.

I'm pretty sure even you agree, though, that there'd be no harm in giving religious and civilian units their own unit layers between two different civs (and why not unlimited stacking for your own civilian units as well). That's really a problem that's so easily fixed, with no foreseeable downside, that it shouldn't exist in the first place. In Civ V they never changed this, but I'm hoping good sense will prevail this time.

Religious units feel like they should simply be set out like spies are. So you get a missionary, you can assign him to a city, and then at the end of his mission, he converts a certain amount to your religion. You would also be able to set apostles on a "counter-religion" mission to prevent a foreign religion from taking over your city (as opposed to the current system where cities keep flipping back and forth). It gets them off the main map, but still keeps the basics of the functionality of being able to go out and convert cities.