1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

All Quiet on the Civ Front

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Duuk, Jun 6, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    10,720
    I was watching a comedy from the 60’s last night, it was terrible but popular in its time. Your comment reminded me of this for some reason, I guess it was the old trade routes as lines with a picture of the goods moving along in... that was civ II I think, regardless, it was as good as the 60’s comedy.
     
  2. Duuk

    Duuk Doom-Sayer Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,912
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    Call to Power 2 had them as well if I recall. One of the most underrated of all the "Civ" games. Still my favorite in terms of "army" stack representation, slavery mechanics, trade, and public works in place of worker/builders.
     
    Rotomagus likes this.
  3. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,904
    @Trav'ling Canuck @graffen69 I don’t necessarily disagree with any of your points, particularly the point about integration. My point is just that I don’t think any of these sorts of issues require a new version. They’re all just, well, tweaks that FXS should be able to deal with via expansions, dlc and patches.
     
  4. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,899
    Gender:
    Male
    I speculated in a post earlier that Civ 7 may end up essentially being a third expansion to Civ 6 in all but name, but resetting the user base and giving them a chance to start afresh from a brand image perspective.

    The more I think about it, the less likely it seems to me that they will want to keep flogging product under the Civ 6 title. Get one more expansion out of the way as quick as possible, and then repackage everything that's working into a new Civ 7 title that has the chance to reset market perception.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  5. Siddorm

    Siddorm Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    I think the problem they have is that the base game is not good / popular enough to support good DLC / Expansion sales. We can dismiss Steam reviewers, but the fact remains that more people are buying and playing Civ V than Civ VI right now (based on "Steam Store > Global Top Sellers" and "Stats"). My own kids do not want to play Civ VI, they want to play Civ V instead. Firaxis should try to find out why people do not want to play Civ VI and try to do something about it.
    By improving the base game (e.g. AI, UI and so on) they can expand the player base, sell more units, make more money, and make more people happy.
     
    Kjimmet and RohirrimElf like this.
  6. Haig

    Haig Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,336
    Location:
    Finland
    Rise&Fall is named in the Steam database as 'Expansion1' so that gives a hint.. ;)
     
    RohirrimElf likes this.
  7. zonk

    zonk Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    572
    Oh, I do. I'm a Civ4 curmudgeon who hated civ5 - but has finally learned to at least "like" civ6 - but among the things they should look to-

    1) Naval/ocean play is complete crap. Yeah, I get it - nobody wants to go back to building transports (because most of you are lazy @#$@#s) - but there's got to be some better solution than GD ocean swimming. Movement 'penalties' - which are even nerfed as they are by harbors - is not a solution... and screwing over folks who build navies by making swimming units more hardened goes in the opposite direction. I think 5 & 6 have totally screwed the pooch on what is the massive epoch and challenge of traversing large seas - and it's very much to Civ's detriment. I have plenty of ideas - but the bottom line is to stop treating the seas like some kind of pangea map annoyance and actually create a game construct that respects what they have historically meant to a civilization construct. Maybe it's a paradox-style supply schema. Dealing with seas/oceans appropriately is a necessity. Not an annoying afterthought to be softened for the pleasure of friggin horseman rushers or whatever.

    2) Snowballing has gotten out of control. In particular, they need to look at some dynamic throttling of mid/late game. Yeah, I use a lot of mods that contribute to this... but I'm still of the opinion that a GOOD civilization game is more about the journey than it is the stupid 'target a victory condition and beeline'. Yes, some of this means introducing annoyances - but they should be more elegant than "OK, we'll just bump up your tech/culture/district costs". The unit cost inflation is another stupid hack that makes no sense - things do not get more expensive as you build more, they ought to get cheaper. Mallus should be more focused towards the real costs of 'wide' sprawls - revolutions, a better loyalty system, maybe something like defecting units, etc. Better cultural/scientific bleed, Etc. Snowballing has always been a Civ problem - but later iterations have made it worse. Prior iterations - you might at least end up with a superpower showdown mid/late game. Now? It's terrible.

    3) Similar/adjacent to 2 above - stop the damnable focus on victory conditions. Prior iterations were NEVER so focused on a "pick a condition and aim for it". Yeah, there was still Mars or conquest - but 5/6 are so focused on pick a condition and devote your efforts towards it that I think it deprecates the Civilization experience. Sure, certain Civs were also better plays for certain play styles, but now? Pick your civ and beeline for the civ-specific victory type. That's wrong. The beauty of civilization was always that you didn't necessarily know how you would win until one of the paths was in sight. Now? Pink, blue, conquest, religion, or whatever - it's far too pre-ordained. It ought to be a dynamic goal that only becomes clear near the end-game. The 'journey' has suffered under Civ5 and Civ6. Things that used to be a sort of epoch or interesting "game within a game" in Civ have turned into annoyances you try to brush aside to continue on your early/pre-ordained path and that's just wrong. A good Civ game should mean that the first half of the game - at least - should just be focused on general progression. Victory conditions shouldn't factor in until the last 3/4 or so. If you want a single sitting 'win' - go play angry birds or something. The true beauty of a well-done Civilization game is dozens of hours of careful, multi-pronged development culminating in a final sprint towards the best finish fine... not some rote, unwavering strategy in service of a goal that begins at Turn 1.

    4) Fix the problems with single unit per tile issues... I liked the idea of stacks of doom going away - but Civ has stagnated in dealing with the problems this has introduced. The AI is completely awful at dealing with it. Things like pathing are just totally broken because of it. Hackneyed patches like "OK, these unit types can share a tile" have been just that: hackneyed patches. Rethink tile occupation, unit type and symbiosis, etc. It may be as simple as a class schema allowing one to send to a settler+worker+military unit... or ranged+infantry... whatever... on the same tile. Regardless - this was a good idea whose follow-through has been half-assed. Allowing/rethinking such stuff is probably ALSO a good path to resolving AI ineptitude.

    5) FFS, bring back a simplified world builder... Maybe I'm a niche audience, but as a general "turtler" - it's just hella annoying when a good starting position is screwed over by the lack of a resource or an annoying mountain the way or whatever. No, I'm not going to spend hours learning how to play with GD firetuner... and playing your custom maps is an exercise in futile hell. It really should not be as hard as it is to quickly edit yourself some silly stone or whatnot.
     
    Simo, ZubieMaster, MrRadar and 7 others like this.
  8. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,904
    @Trav'ling Canuck I’ve always assumed the “people like Civ V over Civ VI” thing was overblown, but maybe you’re right. If you are, then yes, a new version to relaunch Civ would make sense a lot of sense.

    Also, when I say I don’t know what Civ VII would do differently, it’s on the assumption FXS would not back away from the “boardgame” design of Civ. Once you’re locked into that design, then 1UPT and unpacking cities and some other mechanics just naturally flow from that, and some other mechanics (like more complex modelling of political factions in your empire) just aren’t consistent with that. I’m not sure there’s much left that’s big that you’d obviously want to add to a “historical boardgame”, and most of the other big things Civ could do wouldn't work as a boardgame.

    But there are two points I’d make.

    First, although I can’t see lots of change around the core mechanics, good grief the game needs a lot of tweaking. AI, Navy, Air Combat, Religion... Civ feels like this first draft of pretty good novel, but which some ruthless editor with thick ruby red glasses and too much coffee and gin needs to hack back to something amazing (“darling, we just have to lose the husband, he’s such a bore”). Better integration. Better balance. Better flavour and colour.

    (Two places to start. More than one science victory path and no religious victory. Going to Mars every time somehow makes “going to Mars” feel underwhelming. And religion is unnecessarily nerfed by the need to balance it against other victory conditions.)

    Second, while I think Civ VI has basically nailed the core Civ mechanics, in doing so it’s also made clear to me there is a real gap in the market. I really, really want to play a deep “simulation” empire game, taking my tribe from the ancient world to the near future. Something with a hard edge, including proper war, conquest, governance, and maybe even environment change. More sim city (with war, domestic politics, trade, and culture/ science / social stuff) than a civ like boardgame. Something with maybe much more simplified (even pixelated) graphics but much deeper game play. No “immortal rulers” etc. A proper sim.

    EU4 is sort of along these lines and is pretty close to what I mean. The problem with EU4 is just that it isn’t expansive enough in terms of history, and combat is a little too abstracted.

    I’m not sure this “gap” is very big - perhaps too few people would want to play something like this to justify the development cost. But as much as I love Civ VI and the franchise - and I really do - I think a much deeper game like I’m suggesting is totally out of scope. Indeed, I’m not even saying I’d like Civ to move in that direction. It would be a bit sad if it did, because equally I do like the more simple take Civ has on the historical strategy game thing.

    I do think the driving force of dissatisfaction here is, as someone else pointed out, how games are paid for. This is already a long post, and I can’t do this topic justice. But games just don’t seem to generate enough money. The result is either bland or derivative AAA or fantastic indie stuff that is often a little too niche or circumscribed because of limited funding (and often relies a bit too much on retro or nostalgia too). You see a similar pattern with movies, comics and roleplaying games (with the last two sort of not even having a AAA equivalent any more). Civ is actually pretty special, in that it’s a relatively big studio model, but still produces games with at least some character and ambition.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2018
    Trav'ling Canuck likes this.
  9. lordofcivs

    lordofcivs Lord of The Civilizations

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    167
    Location:
    Civland
    I think they should bring forth at least one more expansion to this, and then 2 separate games based on the Civilization VI engine (like they had Colonization after Civ IV, and Beyond the Earth after Civ V.) This game is good and they can use it to make more profits.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  10. CivLuvah

    CivLuvah Emperor

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,622
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    From Philippines, now Canada
    It's weird that with all this talk of Paradox Games and this silence from Firaxis that I feel like I want to go back to EU4, mostly because of said silence, but also because I want to keep my life interesting

    Maybe it's because we're so used to the barrage of announcements from Firaxis and the devs that the time between expansions feels so slow in comparison.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  11. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,904
    A bit off topic, but those of you who play a decent amount of both Civ and EU4, would you recommend EU4?

    This question gets asked a lot, I know. And I don’t really want to be one of those “is this right for me?” posters. But since England got nerfed, and with the silly Government Plaza and Governors, Civ is just not doing a good job of scratching the “Civ” itch. Is EU4 a good substitute?

    My guess is you lose out on the exploration, more tactical combat elements and city building, but get more trade, governance and economic development. There’s obviously the smaller time frame too and it’s not turned based. But I thought the base game with some key expansions and the England pack might be fun... Bit more depth to diplomacy and governance, and more scope for playing out naval and colonial focused games.
     
  12. CivLuvah

    CivLuvah Emperor

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,622
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    From Philippines, now Canada
    Personally, having played EU4 before, and until I basically went into a hiatus because I couldn't keep up with the flood of DLCs (which I still have a problem), it was a good substitute - to Civ5. It is a very in-depth game, and if you want to play reality-based alternative history and paint the world map with Irish green then EU4 is for you. But I have several problems with it:
    1. The large number of DLCs you have to buy. Not necessarily that you should buy them all, but this leads me to...
    2. Feeling that the game is always unfinished because of said large number of DLCs. Some EU4 players do recommend "essential" "expansions" (which aren't really expansions at all), but even then you're left feeling that the game isn't in its final state, which leads me to...
    3. The game is hard to follow and hard to re-learn. I first played EU4 when it came out on a small netbook where it could run at the minimum requirements. Now the game at present is unrecognizable. There are too many bells and whistles in the game for someone like me who wants to return to it to learn each and every new mechanic. I bet it's a hard learning curve.

    I was able to relax when Civ6 came along because it stuck with the "traditional model" that allows people who want to return to it to re-learn the mechanics. I have no problem with governors. They were easy to learn and I like them because they help me boost areas in which I fall behind when I try to focus on a victory (like production or culture). Meanwhile, I don't even know how trade works in EU4 both in the original game and the current one.
     
  13. AvianBritish

    AvianBritish King

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2017
    Messages:
    636
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kepler-22b
  14. EditorRex

    EditorRex Master of Allusion

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    359
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NC
    I understand why you say this, but I think this is just perception based on the order in which we experienced these releases. To me, Civ IV BTS had some elements that are missing from V and VI and were far more advanced. I recognize there were some game balance issues with IV, especially the stacks of doom. But is it clear that what we've seen is progress as opposed to something different? Certainly technology allows for more sophisticated graphics, animation and audio as we move forward, but has the game really gotten better with time? If the order had been VI, V and IV and the sophistication of the programming and design work had been consistent, I guarantee that people would be talking about V resolving all the problems with VI and IV fixing all the problems with V as a total revamp, while introducing some new challenges to game play.
     
  15. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,904
    @EditorRex

    I have only ever played Civ VI (and don’t really play other video games), although I have followed the series for a long time. I’m sure how I see things is very much shaped by that!

    Whether the game is better or not is certainly subjective. But from Civ IV to VI the game has very much leaned into being more “boardgame like” and more driven by the map. If you like that design premise, then yes it’s probably got better. If you don’t, say because you want the game to be more simulationalist or more sandbox, then maybe not.

    Graphics is a funny one. I think Civ would really benefit going back to more retro / pixel style graphics. To me, Civ 4 looks the best, it’s just that it doesn’t have hexes or 1UPT or districts.

    A bit of it is that I like retro. But also, I think the more abstracted graphics get actually the more “immersive” the game is because there’s more room for roleplaying.
     
  16. Leyrann

    Leyrann Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    4,015
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Maybe if it had been V > VI > IV, but there is no way V is even remotely close to either IV or VI in quality.
     
    CivLuvah likes this.
  17. Rotomagus

    Rotomagus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Messages:
    22
    Gender:
    Male
    make a call to power 3 instead
     
    Duuk likes this.
  18. Wielki Hegemon

    Wielki Hegemon Prince

    Joined:
    May 27, 2013
    Messages:
    475
    Location:
    Warsaw
    This is not true. https://store.steampowered.com/search/?filter=globaltopsellers&page=3 Besides you have 20% promotion for Civ V now.
    True problem of Civ VI now is lack of new content and old fashioned expansion model. They should make more cheaper and smaller content packs rather than one big expansion once a year. Just follow the market...
     
  19. Siddorm

    Siddorm Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    It was true when I wrote my message. Moreover, player stats for Civ V are still higher in both "current" and "peak" columns. My original point still stands that they need to focus on boosting the Civ VI player base because if people are not playing, they are not going to buy DLC etc.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2018
  20. Wielki Hegemon

    Wielki Hegemon Prince

    Joined:
    May 27, 2013
    Messages:
    475
    Location:
    Warsaw
    Or it is their strategy. Low budget previous Civ (V) for one target of players. And high budget current Civ (VI) for another target of players. Pretty smart ;) Besides we dont have any data confirming that people who bought Civ VI now are playing Civ V. I think we rather have two separate groups with a narrow intersection group.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page