.

[DJ_Tanner]

According to this article, the median age of Civilization gamers is 31. So definitely not kids.

To be fair, that source has a very serious self-selection bias. They do not use a random sample but rather people must opt into taking their survey. To the extent that bias exists innwho is willing to take a survey or interested in their personal "gamer motivation profile" these results will be biased in the same direction.

 

[God of Kings]

There is absolutely no doubt the average Civ fan is older than the average Nintendo fan (even including those who grew up with the NES into the mix).

@Kimiimaro once stated that he's 15.5: https://forums.civfanatics.com/posts/14751503/

What are your thoughts about younger Civ fans?

Me, I believe that the likes of Kimiimaro are important for the future of the Civ series, as he represents a new generation of Civ fans.

By the way, I'm in my late 20s, which is still younger than the average Civ fan (and am also a Nintendo fan since the early SNES era).

 

[king of nowhere]

i expect that a complex game like civ will appeal to the more intellectual gamers, which generally are older and more mature.
as for the ganging up, maybe not the whole world declares war on the player, but stuff like making the AI more inclined to do research agreements and alliances with others who are lagging behind would not be bad

 

[Leyrann]

I'm 20 but I already knew the series around the time III came out (though I never played III myself; we always played II).

 

[shaglio]

i expect that a complex game like civ will appeal to the more intellectual gamers, which generally are older and more mature.
as for the ganging up, maybe not the whole world declares war on the player, but stuff like making the AI more inclined to do research agreements and alliances with others who are lagging behind would not be bad

I haven't paid too much attention to it in Civ 6, but one of my biggest gripes with Civ 5 was that, when an AI Civ wanted me to join them in a war, it was usually the Goliath asking me to gang up on the David, rather than the David asking for help. It'll have to investigate how this plays out in Civ 6.

 

[God of Kings]

It's great that there's quite a good number of younger Civ fans here in CFC.

Me, I began with Civ IV.

 

[Kimiimaro]

It's great that there's quite a good number of younger Civ fans here in CFC.

Me, I began with Civ IV.

I'm relatively new to Civ. I found some video on YouTube. It was leader defeats from Civ VI. It was interresting, so I was trying to find something more about it. I found out it's strategy game where you have empire, policies, technologies, etc. etc. And I like both strategy games and history, so I installed Civ VI in my computer. It was lagging... But it was working. I was playing the game and kinda getting bored of lagging with these cartoony graphics. One day, I was on YouTube, an I found Civ V leaders DoW and defeats. And then G&K. And BNW. And Sejong. And once again, I was searching about Civ V and installed it on my computer. It was running, it wasn't lagging, it had more nations and better graphics. And I liked it more than Civ VI. I'm currently thinking of getting Civ IV, since lot of people are saying it's the best Civ game...

 

[rschissler]

I'm relatively new to Civ. I found some video on YouTube. It was leader defeats from Civ VI. It was interresting, so I was trying to find something more about it. I found out it's strategy game where you have empire, policies, technologies, etc. etc. And I like both strategy games and history, so I installed Civ VI in my computer. It was lagging... But it was working. I was playing the game and kinda getting bored of lagging with these cartoony graphics. One day, I was on YouTube, an I found Civ V leaders DoW and defeats. And then G&K. And BNW. And Sejong. And once again, I was searching about Civ V and installed it on my computer. It was running, it wasn't lagging, it had more nations and better graphics. And I liked it more than Civ VI. I'm currently thinking of getting Civ IV, since lot of people are saying it's the best Civ game...

Civ IV is the best game, but with your emphasis on graphics, you probably won't like it.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Civ IV is the best game, but with your emphasis on graphics, you probably won't like it.

I don't care about graphics that much. I was upset with Civ VI it was lagging. If Civ IV has cartoony graphics, ok, I'll accept that, as long as it won't lag. Main is the gameplay for me.

 

[Leyrann]

Imo V is the worst game, at least out of the last three. Then again, I don't have lag with VI.

 

[king of nowhere]

things to do: get a job at NASA and hijack their supercomputer to play civilization. Enjoy fast turns until they find you and kick you out of the job.

Still, as slow as civ6 is, it's never as slow as the fall from heaven expansion could be. I got this huge map, deity marathon game, and it was doing all right, and then somebody declared war. nothing really happened cause everyone involved is on different islands and AI could never stage large scale naval invasions, but still, stacks of upwards to a thousand units were being moved roound and round every turn. it really took forever to pass a single turn, and unlike civ6, i couldn't even alt-tab to windows and do something else during the wait. So i tried opening the editor and deleting everyone's stacks, and it vastly improved things, but it's still terribly slow, especially considering that game is 13 years old.

 

[Leyrann]

I wouldn't say I'm playing on a supercomputer - the best you can go is "high end laptop" but VI is working fine for me. And it also worked sorta-fine on my old laptop which was 5 years old and not high end. Sorta, because I had to disable leader animations.

 

[God of Kings]

There's also the option of building a top-of-the-line computer as well.

Supercomputers are great if you are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars/pounds/euros on a single machine.

 

[Kimiimaro]

There's also the option of building a top-of-the-line computer as well.

Supercomputers are great if you are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars/pounds/euros on a single machine.

Korunas, Dinars, Rubles, Pesos, Rupees, Reals, Francs, Yuans, Kunas, Krones, Forints, Yens, Shillings, Dirhams, Wons...

 

[Katakanja]

Also there's no telling what kind of side-effects running it on a supercomputer could have... what if it got so obsessed with winning Civ that it becomes self-aware and graduates from running the simulation to playing with real soldiers and nukes??

 

[shaglio]

Also there's no telling what kind of side-effects running it on a supercomputer could have... what if it got so obsessed with winning Civ that it becomes self-aware and graduates from running the simulation to playing with real soldiers and nukes??

Shall . . . we . . . play . . . a . . . game?

 

[steveg700]

,

I don't like that because it is too random. To win means to be the biggest baddest on the map; winning or losing based on some arbitrary condition that has little to do with power (one of the many ways that "power" can manifest in this game) is terribly unsatisfying to me. The way culture victory works is already borderline

I could be reading you wrong, but the impression is that you're reducing Civ to a war game. That's out-of-touch with what Civ is supposed to be about, which is many paths to victory based on various things that can earn a civilization a place in the history books.

It's not random to suggest that the greatest civilization in the world can excel at things other than viral expansion. It's a facile notion of history to idealize civ's based solely on how good they were at imperialism. Most collapsed from that very trait.

 

[king of nowhere]

,
I could be reading you wrong, but the impression is that you're reducing Civ to a war game. That's out-of-touch with what Civ is supposed to be about, which is many paths to victory based on various things that can earn a civilization a place in the history books.

It's not random to suggest that the greatest civilization in the world can excel at things other than viral expansion. It's a facile notion of history to idealize civ's based solely on how good they were at imperialism. Most collapsed from that very trait.

you are reading me wrong, and most of my games are peaceful. there are many different kinds of "power"; military power is one, but there is scientific power (taching stuff that your oppponents don't), and cultural power (make other people want to be like you), and economic power (can build a lot of stuff very quickly, which can be used ti achieve any of the other powers), diplomatic power (getting others to do as you wish), even religious power (getting others to pray to your god)...
well, if we must define power in some way, perhaps a fitting definition is "you can do something that others cannot". be that annihilating someone with your army or converting them to your religion, they ar types of power.
But that's the thing. If you win a scientific victory, then clearly you dominated the game with your scientific power. for military you dominated with military power. for religion, your religion dominated others. For tourism, I'm not really clear on how that works, and I noticed that at some point foreign tourists keep growing while domestic tourists don't, and well, maybe if I understood better how the tourists are calculated I would like that win condition more.
My post about wanting to win with "power" was in reply to some suggestions that victory points be awarded for some random achievements that didn't really require any kind of dominance.

 

[Leyrann]

you are reading me wrong, and most of my games are peaceful. there are many different kinds of "power"; military power is one, but there is scientific power (taching stuff that your oppponents don't), and cultural power (make other people want to be like you), and economic power (can build a lot of stuff very quickly, which can be used ti achieve any of the other powers), diplomatic power (getting others to do as you wish), even religious power (getting others to pray to your god)...
well, if we must define power in some way, perhaps a fitting definition is "you can do something that others cannot". be that annihilating someone with your army or converting them to your religion, they ar types of power.
But that's the thing. If you win a scientific victory, then clearly you dominated the game with your scientific power. for military you dominated with military power. for religion, your religion dominated others. For tourism, I'm not really clear on how that works, and I noticed that at some point foreign tourists keep growing while domestic tourists don't, and well, maybe if I understood better how the tourists are calculated I would like that win condition more.
My post about wanting to win with "power" was in reply to some suggestions that victory points be awarded for some random achievements that didn't really require any kind of dominance.

Victoria wrote quite an extensive cultural victory guide at the Strategy and Tips (?) forum.

 

[Browd]

Here is a link to the Culture and Tourism Guide: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/culture-and-tourism-guide.606389/