Anyone else quit playing?

[Plus Ultra]

I'm not enjoying this game as much as I expected.

Just in case someone is reading, my 2 cents:

-Tech tree is a barren wasteland: Few techs and few things to unblock on each tech.
I find myself, for the first time ever, just mindless researching whatever is shorter (below emperor) o beelining (above emperor) - no interesting decisions involved.

-The Eurekas/Inspirations are a cool concept, but poorly executed. 50% is too much and some boosts seem arbitrary (military science boosted by killing something with a knight?).
I either completly ignore them or go out of my way to achieve them, which forces me to do things (build slingers!) just for tech/civic boosts. It all seems very gamey and somehow disconnected from the strategic game.

-Production is king, all you need to do to win this game is grab a sizable pieze of land and optimize your production.
Districts are a fun concept, but their cost is basically unpredictable and ever increasing - unless you have high production you might not be able to pull off whatever strategy you are trying.
I end up always focusing on the same things: builders, settlers, city center buildings and industrial districts. I always win too, oh well.

-The AI is not a threat, just a predictable annoyance.
Early, unavoidable war with friends and enemies alike, and 2500 years of constant passive agressive "i denounce you", terrible trade and missionary/apostle spamming.

-A lot of small details that wont get fixed... like those horribly uninspired "speed googled" quotes, great lighthouse being built on the industrial era, no real sense of progressing through the history of mankind (you are now in the *insert name* era), the way the game feels rushed...

I hope DLC and expansions shake things up.

 

[IronfighterXXX]

I've already quit playing and deleted game from my laptop.


Main reasons - lack of challenge due to AI and lack of balance.


However that was also a case in Civ5, but then I concentrated on competitive games like GOTM, HOF, etc. Now even those games seem boring for me (spamming cities, early wars and later nothing, etc)


I also really don't like graphic (much prefer more realistic from Civ5) and while it's my personal preference, the dun, unreadable fog of war is objectively bad.

 

[Funababbitt]

Finally gave up - I want to play but almsot dread to start a game expecting another inept. performance from the AI. At first, I thought it was just "bad luck" that I was seeing AI civs clustering around my borders but never attacking.
From reading through the threads however, I have seen many others comment that the AI can't attack, won't attack, can't deal with forests, deserts, oceans, doesn' t build airplanes, can't mount a naval attack and a few hundred years after a DoW will send a single unit to mill around and when attacked, instead of counter attacking will shuffle its units pointlessly while they're being picked off..
I've been attacked in the very early stages - and even lost - but after the possible DoWs in the very early eras the best of the game warfare throughout the entire game is more likely to come from Barbarians -so really, what's the point?

It's started to look a lot like they don't care. They think they have a captive market - have become dependent on downloadable content. I've seen other franchises simply flame out with horrible final releases.
I read here that the devs pay no attention to this site - don't care what users have to say.
The devs here are going to learn (or suffer the consequences) that people are on to their game of releasing crap and will stop buying initial releases. There goes the franchise.

I checked the Steam graph a while ago, 12/30.
Civ 6 lost 53 percent of its players on peak/average from October to November and another 40 percent in December. Civ 5 still has marginally more players despite 6's record launch.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

sigh. This game sucks man. Not sure what else to say. Not going to sugar coat it anymore. I don't care if they ever make it better blah blah years down the road. They got paid, who gives a hoot anymore. I wish some other company would make civ games. Firaxis has lost its mojo.

This. It would be just awsome if somebody picked up the mantle and revived civ. It's probably my all time favorite game concept, but playing civ6 feels like eating a stale plastic wrapped bread, with the plastic still on! I need a whole New recipe!

 

[Krajzen]

When people compare with Paradox I get shivers down my spine because I hate EU and all those horrendously complicated spreadsheet games that take a math degree to figure out.

They are not horrendously complicated (I got to understand EU quickly as a newcomer and I am not genius, after my first game session in EU4 and Stellaris I could pretty much play the game freely), they are not spreadsheet (especially newer games in the series in 90% play on the beautiful 3D world maps, with very nice clear UI and very few "spreadsheets") and they mostly require less math to figure out than Civ games. I spent few hundred hours in EU4 and I don't ever recall stopping to do math in order to optimize anything, I have just been playing based on my intuition and guesses, while in Civ5 I occasionally had to number crunch production, food or other yields. Newer Paradox games have very detailed wikis, a lot of gameplay videos, helpful forums, good UI and are really way easier to understand than it may seem at the first glance.

EU4 actually requires very little micromanagment or number crunching and you can go entire game without ever seeing any graphs and spreadsheets (although stats are fun) and it's much more about macro strategy, long-term planning and general big scale vision "how do you want to expand your country" rather than any math, spreadsheets or nonsense like that.

So I really don't know why are you so hostile towards them, they may look 'hardcore' compared to civ but I wouldn't say they are much more difficult to grasp. I spent a lot more time on math calculations and optimizations in civ than in eu4 and stellaris.

 

[Gub]

@Krajzen, They certainly have been doing some major streamlining and adding a lot of automation to make it more accessible (for better and worse), although their games are still have higher learning curve and are more complicated. The "hostility" comes for fanboys who make apples to oranges comparison making points using shipping goggles.. e.g. asserting that Paradox are some sort of holier than thou, making bugless games on release, don't DLC whore, etc.

Edit: speaking of Paradox I wish more publishers limit forum access to those without steam account and purchased game. I know its controversial, but I like the result.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I'm sure I'll be back but Shadow Tactics Blades of the Shogun has me hooked. I'm not just playing it because it's the latest in my favorite franchise, I'm playing it because it's a genuinely good game

 

[jollywonk]

After initially being amazed by this thread, I'm actually getting close to "quitting" myself, something I never imagined (particularly with 400+ hours and 60+ ranked/competitive multiplayer games on Civplayers). I've always thought that if the AI is no fun and no challenge to play against, people should play against humans.

But while multiplayer is relatively stable and fun to play, the devs are doing almost nothing of value to support the community, as far as I can tell right now. There is no communication of their thoughts and roadmap - observations of problems with balance, problems they are working on and trying to solve, etc. We have various modders doing fantastic work to try to improve the game but in different directions, without synergy or the benefit of knowing where Firaxis is going, and creating different factions and versions of the game. No team multiplayer support from Firaxis or word that it is coming. No SDK or help for modders. Public multiplayer games are still riddled with people who quit at the drop of a hat, and there's no word of any ranked multiplayer or DNF stat coming (which has obviously never been supported in Civ, just a pipe dream). If the game had amazing single player mode and that's what everyone wanted to play, great, but it's clearly not. The balance and uses of the 3 or 4 different military units you actually use in this game are so uninteresting and sub-optimal.

So where is this game going? It seems like a good game to play casually with friends or small groups of people you are familiar with, but that's about it. Firaxis built a nice shell and did a tremendous job marketing this game, but they under-invested in AI work and they under-invested and/or seem to lack vision (or recognize the need to communicate it) for what the multiplayer scene could be with some support. Civ will always be a first love, but I find myself looking at other games already, something I never imagined after only a couple of months.

 

[IronfighterXXX]

I've always thought that if the AI is no fun and no challenge to play against, people should play against humans.

True, but not everyone can (mostly due to lack of time ) or want to (due to various reasons) play multiplayer.

 

[greygamer]

If anything I'm playing more now than when it launched

 

[Packherd2]

The lack of national wonders combined with a linear culture tree (vs the non linear social policies of Civ V) didn't help either.

I hadn't thought of the linear culture tree. I, too, was excited by the "culture-as-tech" idea. The logic, I believe, was to break apart "government" from "culture." The two were basically linked in Civ V and, with the banishment of sliders, "government" became this inflexible constant. If you founded a monarchy in 400 B.C. (by focusing on culture and bee-lining to that policy) then you were a "monarchy" for the remainder of history. The Civ VI policy cards were meant to fix this. I get the sense that they were trying to embrace the card-based game idea which would provide some flexibility without having to go back to the hated sliders. But the policy cards feel like the most underdeveloped of the new systems. I don't know what's missing. Each card does not seem to carry as much impact on the game as, say, switching from "democracy" to "fascism" ought to. Perhaps they just need a little more flavor. (It wouldn't hurt to get rid of that terrible font...)

As I said above, I've been playing a lot more XCOM and my wife and I have taken up Twilight Struggle now that it's got a great digital adaptation. The thing I get from those games, and which I still get from Civ V, and which I did not feel I was getting from Civ VI, was this: fun defeat. Sid Meier's design mantra was about interesting decisions, and Civ VI does seem to feature a lot of decisions—but are they interesting? For a decision to be interesting, it has to have contained within in the possibility of loss. Build a military unit and keep Montezuma at bay or build a coliseum and keep up with Gandhi's growth? Take the 65% shot now, or give ADVENT one more shot and hope to flank them? Play all the influence in the Middle East and reveal your intentions, or do a coup in Central America and hope she thinks you have that scoring card? Offer my Knight up to draw out the Queen, or keep to my defensive posture and wait for her to initiate? The AI doesn't have to be "smart" to make these decisions interesting, but there does have to be a sense that, on this decision, I'm wagering success or failure. That's the feeling I just haven't gotten from Civ VI yet.

 

[Deaga]

I've also quit and, like many others, my number one complaint is the AI. It's just to immersion-breaking and, well, outright terrible. The fact it gets 3 settlers on Deity and you can still win (relatively easily too; I couldn't win consistently on CivV Immortal but I can on CivVI Deity) is very telling. It's a great shame too, as this game gets many interesting gameplay systems, such as the new districts, but you don't even have to engage into them too much because the competition is just terrible. I don't like Civ MP too much due to time constraints so, essentially, if there's not a usable AI, there's not even a game at all.

Following this, the massive unbalance of yields favoring production also detracts from my fun playing the game and the vast majority of policy cards being useless or close to useless, which means the civics tree is pretty underwhelming... But those are just really balance issues. The AI is the core problem, because it means there's barely a game at all. Unfortunately, Fireaxis isn't adressing the game at the "Civfanatics playerbase" at all... See the game winning "Strategy game of the year" awards when you can face Slingers and Warriors at the Information Era rather consistently.

 

[c4c6]

Each card does not seem to carry as much impact on the game [...] Sid Meier's design mantra was about interesting decisions, and Civ VI does seem to feature a lot of decisions—but are they interesting?

What about 'significant less' (i.e. relatively 'more different') cards?

 

[Acken]

Been 1 month I havent played and dont feel the need to. Probably will wait for an expansion.

 

[Jabulani]

I think I'll quit playing it sooner rather than later, I always play alone and that's not funny in a civ game. AI doen't exist so this game will cease to exist for me within few days.

 

[WorldWarIV]

Been 1 month I havent played and dont feel the need to. Probably will wait for an expansion.

I will wait for all DLCs to be released and for the last patch before the expansion and then start a new game, if it feels as empty and boring as before I will not buy an expansion hoping the developers have finally built a decent game. I was burnt for life after preordering the 25th anniversary edition.

 

[Civ6PF]

I played CIV II a lot. Have played CIV V a bunch over last 2 years. Even with the bad AI, I enjoyed the tension of settling that city, building that wonder, getting that pantheon on so on. It took me a while to understand which wonders, policies, pantheons etc.. are critical/essential for a victory. With CIV VI that tension is gone. No point in pushing for a religion because AI will spam prophets. No penalty for having average military because AI not good at fighting. Can easily spam cities so no pressure to find just the right city spot. The game just muddles forward, no real consequences for bad or risky moves. I have not played in 6 weeks. Like other responders, before i start a game, I need to set personal "sandbox/sim city" goals because game providing none of the challenge/tension by itself.
Playing Panzer Corps for last 2 weeks. I googled "Alternatives to CIV IV" and found this update of the great Panzer General series from late 1990's. It's a much simpler game than CIV VI. However, the AI really challenges the casual player. Should I go with towed artillery or self propelled, should I go with an 88 flak/AT gun or buy a fighter, I have 5 turns left to win a decisive victory, should i overstrength units or purchase new ones? Each choice has real consequences. Its simple rock/scissors/paper stuff, solving a puzzle. Not getting any of that from CIV VI. Hopefully next few years will bring improved AI and interesting expansions because I really want to like the game.

 

[Zuizgond]

Been 1 month I havent played and dont feel the need to. Probably will wait for an expansion.

Same here. But I am waiting for a free patch. No way I pay extra to get a decent game.

 

[White Out]

got to wonder why people upset over the ai aren't trying AI+ and smoother difficulty.

the game can be very hard, very challenging with these 2 mods.

ive logged over 100 hours already and look to beat my total played hours i had with civ V

 

[c4c6]

[...] the great Panzer General series from late 1990's. It's a much simpler game than CIV VI. However, the AI really challenges the casual player. [...] Each choice has real consequences. Its simple rock/scissors/paper stuff, solving a puzzle. Not getting any of that from CIV VI.

I suppose, it was this fascination, which generated the idea to include 'that' in CIV.
But it barely can't be compared: PzGeneral is played on fix maps. The starting position of every AI (and most human) unit is exact the same tile, when you replay it. So for every scenario the whole AI unit deployment as well as even every tile type are playtested and carefully optimized. Every "puzzle" is handmade. How shall this quality be achieved in CIV?

Should I go with towed artillery or self propelled, should I go with an 88 flak/AT gun or buy a fighter, I have 5 turns left to win a decisive victory, should i overstrength units or purchase new ones?

Both, towed artillery is very vulnerable in Trsp, so without air protection (quite common on the german side) self propelled in general is better, but these have weak fire power or VERY low fuel&ammunition capacity ... so a mix of both works best.

Always fighter. On paper 'fighter' and 'AirDefense' may be balanced. The 8,8Flak has range 3, which is ok, but has nevertheless often no target. If used efficiently, the fighter is much more versatile and gets experience (nearly) every turn, except on refueling. On the ground the (towed) 8,8 can only attack adjacent tiles, so there tanks are favourite. The same (often no target) is true for the self propelled (& weaker) AirDefense and also the more mobile AntiAir units.
On the other hand I modded then all scenarios for a MUCH smaller core and also included rules for usage of "weak" unit types. Normally I would use no AirDefense, AntiAir, range 2 artillery, standard infantry etc. and just 1 unit of AntiTank, Recon ...

Overstrength units are GREAT. So much, that I then applied the house rule to win ASAP, i.e. not delaying the wanted victory type and gaining artificial experience with some needing units e.g. '8,8Flak in their SPW-Transports' moved more than 1 tile against very weakened infantry and overstrengthening units to the max.