Are People already drifting away from Civ VI?
- Thread starter Zegangani
- Start date
0urBall
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,882
This doesn't bode well for people who are looking for bugs in Civ 6 to be fixed!!
Yes, but this is the truth.
Johann khan
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2019
- Messages
- 34
Civ 3 is charming and it has not failed its expectations that I had from it. I woke up today asking myself which combat system is more enjoyable and or better and why as Civ 3 does a lot better in combat than 4 in the early game. I have played 3 matches (lost 1 of them and suffered some setbacks on the other 2) on regent but the one that was the most frustrating was the fact that I did not have any strategic resource in a 8 civs continent match and everyone hated me for various reasons. As a 15 year old civ veteran, I could have won at least the last 2 but I did not feel committed enough to continue the matches.
So far my thoughts:
1. Better combat system than 4 in terms of bombardment, it makes perfect sense to have arty bombarding attacking parties and being affected by walls. It is idiotic sacrificing 10 catapults to kill 5 crossbowmen with 5 swordsmen like in civ 4. In my experience, 4 is the hardest game and the most means in terms of war. 5 is the easiest and 3 and 6 are in between.
2. Unit maintenance system intertwined with government type is overly simplistic and detrimental to a more holistic playstyle I hate deterministic traits. Hopefully this will not be the case in the later mechanics but it has been imo the biggest detriment to the civ series, and its deterministic approach to civs and traits. Civ games could be more interesting and a lot of useless civs would have been more popular if the system was not so fixated in categorizing civs in terms of victory conditions, rather on circumstances and to have those attached to social and government types. Civ could benefit (imo) from a more colorful experience (the easier way without touching the AI) with creating a more fluid game on which my decisions define my civ. What if my Khan gets a religious trait for my civ if my early playstyle defined it by building lots of shrines cus religion was more convenience than dowing due to my map circumstances?
3. Civ 3 values combat and unit producing more akin to 4 than to 5 and to a lesser extent 6. On civ 5 units are more expensive and less are required for anything. I prefer the 3 and 4 approach as games get boring relatively easy if you are not dowing cus min maxing citizens and trade is not fun enough. On 3 and 4 you need to pump 3 times the amount of units required in 5 which makes it fun scheming with units (isengard theme on background) while preparing for war.
4. Tile improvement on 3 is a disaster. Mining green cus of the penalty and irrigating brown for the food its the stupidiest thing. Also counterintuitive that one could get horses by just building a road to them is terribly confusing. Strategic resource scarcity is worse than surplus cus it destroys the state of the world in the match and makes it feel empty and hollow, like civ 5 and 6.
5. I adore the advisors even if they are wrong about what they say and the UI is marvelous, I think its more fitting to the nation building aspect of it than the fancy simplistic screens from later games. Demographics is here and that deserves a lot of praise.
6. Lots of cities required! The more cities one can govern the better, as opposed to the watered down Civilization ̶r̶e̶v̶o̶l̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ 5.
7. Citizen management in 3 is the best one hands down. Nothing beats converting individual citizens to scientists, entertainers and tax collectors. As a matter of fact, I was baffled why they did not double down on this and doubled the citizen and food yields to have a more active and dynamic flavor between cities and having them to adjust to budgets. Civ 4 is second best on the matter, 5 and 6 are just overly simplistic.
8. Enslaving enemies into workers is another flavor enhancer that bolsters someone's economy through war that is only brought up on 6 to just Monty.
9. Corruption is not a big problem on regent, I suspect it is on harder difficulties and its because one can do binary research on 3 like in 4 and get away with the expenses. Plus trading techs here is actually useful as opposed to 4 that it plays a bigger role. I think its a better and more fitting softcap than science penalty which is dumb and makes you dow more to compensate. On 6 its loyalty which is amazing and 4 had the distance to capital, which is a bit problematic but opened up the gates to wonderful game experiences so they made the best out of it.
10.This is tied to this other aspect of the game that I have not yet made my mind which one I value more, the bare difference between unit strength from distinct historical periods like in 3 or the hardcore punishment one gets from 6 which again, values tech advance a lot more. I think 3 has the edge, simply because 6 values more the tech advance on getting the biggest gun which is terrible bad habits transferred from MP into SP. In 6 your society could be the worst of the worst but if Ottomans beelined janissaries then everyone is gonna die period. That kills immersion a lot cus it diminishes the other 95% aspects of the game.
11. As for presentation 3 cannot be compared cus of the tech limitations of the time but 5 has Art Deco and a very polished art design as opposed to the cartonish action figures from 6.
I am very much enjoying the experience of playing a match from beginning to end in all games (except this one yet) and then comparing myself the experiences. Like I said on previous forums, 6 is great, 5 the most beautiful yet the most simplistic, 4 is perfect all around and this one is not as good as 4 but a game mixing the best of 3, with 6 and a certain 4 mechanics will make a great game. These are just my impressions are thoughts and of course are limited and subject to change.
So far my thoughts:
1. Better combat system than 4 in terms of bombardment, it makes perfect sense to have arty bombarding attacking parties and being affected by walls. It is idiotic sacrificing 10 catapults to kill 5 crossbowmen with 5 swordsmen like in civ 4. In my experience, 4 is the hardest game and the most means in terms of war. 5 is the easiest and 3 and 6 are in between.
2. Unit maintenance system intertwined with government type is overly simplistic and detrimental to a more holistic playstyle I hate deterministic traits. Hopefully this will not be the case in the later mechanics but it has been imo the biggest detriment to the civ series, and its deterministic approach to civs and traits. Civ games could be more interesting and a lot of useless civs would have been more popular if the system was not so fixated in categorizing civs in terms of victory conditions, rather on circumstances and to have those attached to social and government types. Civ could benefit (imo) from a more colorful experience (the easier way without touching the AI) with creating a more fluid game on which my decisions define my civ. What if my Khan gets a religious trait for my civ if my early playstyle defined it by building lots of shrines cus religion was more convenience than dowing due to my map circumstances?
3. Civ 3 values combat and unit producing more akin to 4 than to 5 and to a lesser extent 6. On civ 5 units are more expensive and less are required for anything. I prefer the 3 and 4 approach as games get boring relatively easy if you are not dowing cus min maxing citizens and trade is not fun enough. On 3 and 4 you need to pump 3 times the amount of units required in 5 which makes it fun scheming with units (isengard theme on background) while preparing for war.
4. Tile improvement on 3 is a disaster. Mining green cus of the penalty and irrigating brown for the food its the stupidiest thing. Also counterintuitive that one could get horses by just building a road to them is terribly confusing. Strategic resource scarcity is worse than surplus cus it destroys the state of the world in the match and makes it feel empty and hollow, like civ 5 and 6.
5. I adore the advisors even if they are wrong about what they say and the UI is marvelous, I think its more fitting to the nation building aspect of it than the fancy simplistic screens from later games. Demographics is here and that deserves a lot of praise.
6. Lots of cities required! The more cities one can govern the better, as opposed to the watered down Civilization ̶r̶e̶v̶o̶l̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ 5.
7. Citizen management in 3 is the best one hands down. Nothing beats converting individual citizens to scientists, entertainers and tax collectors. As a matter of fact, I was baffled why they did not double down on this and doubled the citizen and food yields to have a more active and dynamic flavor between cities and having them to adjust to budgets. Civ 4 is second best on the matter, 5 and 6 are just overly simplistic.
8. Enslaving enemies into workers is another flavor enhancer that bolsters someone's economy through war that is only brought up on 6 to just Monty.
9. Corruption is not a big problem on regent, I suspect it is on harder difficulties and its because one can do binary research on 3 like in 4 and get away with the expenses. Plus trading techs here is actually useful as opposed to 4 that it plays a bigger role. I think its a better and more fitting softcap than science penalty which is dumb and makes you dow more to compensate. On 6 its loyalty which is amazing and 4 had the distance to capital, which is a bit problematic but opened up the gates to wonderful game experiences so they made the best out of it.
10.This is tied to this other aspect of the game that I have not yet made my mind which one I value more, the bare difference between unit strength from distinct historical periods like in 3 or the hardcore punishment one gets from 6 which again, values tech advance a lot more. I think 3 has the edge, simply because 6 values more the tech advance on getting the biggest gun which is terrible bad habits transferred from MP into SP. In 6 your society could be the worst of the worst but if Ottomans beelined janissaries then everyone is gonna die period. That kills immersion a lot cus it diminishes the other 95% aspects of the game.
11. As for presentation 3 cannot be compared cus of the tech limitations of the time but 5 has Art Deco and a very polished art design as opposed to the cartonish action figures from 6.
I am very much enjoying the experience of playing a match from beginning to end in all games (except this one yet) and then comparing myself the experiences. Like I said on previous forums, 6 is great, 5 the most beautiful yet the most simplistic, 4 is perfect all around and this one is not as good as 4 but a game mixing the best of 3, with 6 and a certain 4 mechanics will make a great game. These are just my impressions are thoughts and of course are limited and subject to change.
Last edited:
Johann khan
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2019
- Messages
- 34
Yeah, I changed my mind, the odds based system here is terrible!! The AI can take out walled cities with infantry defending them!! It is also jarring to see pikemen fall like flies against cavalry in a city!! Infantry losing to archery is terribly counterintuitive considering something called shields.
Similar threads
