Civ 6 is probably where I hop off the series

[thecrazyscot]

I like the way you think haha. Feel free to drop by the old Civilization 2 area of this forum should you wish to talk about your recent games further. Bit quieter these days but there's still a whole bunch of us making mods/scenarios and I'm also working on preserving thousands of lost scenarios made for it too.

Turns out I did want to talk about my current game, haha - doing my part to keep the Stories section active.

 

[Catalytic]

Considering I played 6 more than any other in the series (including 2- I was around back then too), I'm not likely to be "done". Though I do worry about some trends like "live service models". I wasn't impressed with the leaders pack (though it was free so it wasn't a big deal) or the Frontier Pack. Proper expansions is still the way to go.

Live service models work for some types of games, but not necessarily for others. For an RPG, they work great. You always give players new places to adventure and new loot to grind. For multiplayer combat games of various types, they can get away with seasonal battle passes for new maps, weapons, mutators, etc. But with a game like Civ, it doesn't quite fit. There just isn't that much you can add to be able to justify such a thing. Rather, you add new game systems to the rule set and that fits an expansion model much better. You really need to fully develop and play test that new rule set into the ground before you release it. Things like: new map features, new buildings/wonders, new civs/leaders/personas, etc can all be tacked on a la carte. Setting up the game to be highly customizable like this is really a great design choice and something I hope they do in a future Civ.

Just as a personal thing, I'd love to be able to turn off the climate change mechanic and the world congress since neither is really much fun. Being locked out of tier 3 IZ building and a modern military just sucks, and the world congress never actually seems to do anything meaningful other than enable the Nobel prizes. It's a concept that's interesting and potentially fun but fails because it's just not implemented well enough.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Live service models work for some types of games, but not necessarily for others. For an RPG, they work great. You always give players new places to adventure and new loot to grind. For multiplayer combat games of various types, they can get away with seasonal battle passes for new maps, weapons, mutators, etc. But with a game like Civ, it doesn't quite fit. There just isn't that much you can add to be able to justify such a thing. Rather, you add new game systems to the rule set and that fits an expansion model much better. You really need to fully develop and play test that new rule set into the ground before you release it. Things like: new map features, new buildings/wonders, new civs/leaders/personas, etc can all be tacked on a la carte. Setting up the game to be highly customizable like this is really a great design choice and something I hope they do in a future Civ.

Just as a personal thing, I'd love to be able to turn off the climate change mechanic and the world congress since neither is really much fun. Being locked out of tier 3 IZ building and a modern military just sucks, and the world congress never actually seems to do anything meaningful other than enable the Nobel prizes. It's a concept that's interesting and potentially fun but fails because it's just not implemented well enough.

The mod Customization VI allows you, among other things, to turn off the World Congress and Disasters

 

[CppMaster]

Too much money involved for anyone to dare to take a risk and try something really new or (Gasp!) Creative, so everybody churns out Pretty Graphics and SOT* Play

I disagree. There is plenty of indie games that try sth new.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I disagree. There is plenty of indie games that try sth new.

And so the comparison with Hollywood is complete: the only really creative work in movies is being done by small independent companies and directors while the major studios churn out one bloated CGI extravaganza after another using stock characters and backgrounds to avoid making anyone in the audience have to actually pay attention.
Syphilization is virtually a one-man show of an 'independent' game, but it has more creative use of the 4X genre than any other game produced for years. But, it also has, I suspect, a tiny fraction of a percentage of the sales that any rendition of Civ ever had: 'Independent' means both independent of major investment by the companies with the money and independent of major sales and exposure to the gaming (or movie-going) public

 

[CppMaster]

And so the comparison with Hollywood is complete: the only really creative work in movies is being done by small independent companies and directors while the major studios churn out one bloated CGI extravaganza after another using stock characters and backgrounds to avoid making anyone in the audience have to actually pay attention.
Syphilization is virtually a one-man show of an 'independent' game, but it has more creative use of the 4X genre than any other game produced for years. But, it also has, I suspect, a tiny fraction of a percentage of the sales that any rendition of Civ ever had: 'Independent' means both independent of major investment by the companies with the money and independent of major sales and exposure to the gaming (or movie-going) public

That's true. Although, I don't need a game to be popular, so I can enjoy it (unless multiplayer, of course)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That's true. Although, I don't need a game to be popular, so I can enjoy it (unless multiplayer, of course)

I quite agree, which is why I browze the Indie games as much as the 'Mass' games. Unfortunately, attention from me and thee doesn't do much for their effect on the overall direction of game design and sales.

 

[Jarms48]

I agree with a lot of this, I'll probably hold off on Civ 7 until all the DLC's are out. I'll just stick with the many other Civ games I currently have.



At least for Civ 6, there'd be a few simple things that could have been changed to make it less tedious. Such as:
- Trade routes: Just have a button that automatically repeats the route. If you want to move it, then uncheck the button and wait for the current route to end.

- Spy missions: Same as trade routes. If I'm doing a defensive mission, have a button that automatically repeats the mission. If I'm doing offensive missions, let me queue them. Let me go queue "Gain Sources" -> show updated mission success percentages -> queue "Steal Tech Boost" -> "Steal Tech Boost" again. The only thing that should cancel that queue is if I do it or I get caught. Also, let me gold buy them like archaeologists, sometimes I forget they exist.

- Military engineers: If I want to build a railroad just let me drag select a route. Alternatively, let me simply choose a destination like trade routes and the engineer will make the shortest route there.

- Building queue: When I queue districts and buildings, just let me chain higher tier buildings in that district if I have them unlocked.

- Nuclear plant: Get rid of the nuclear power melt down, you're already expected to do so much micro someone is going to forget.

- Renewables: Add some kind of building that spreads their excess power to other cities. Why should I have to constantly maintain power levels with renewables in every single city in order to stop global warming?

- Great works: Make great works automatically theme, and I don't mean in Kristina's sense. I mean if you have 3 unique great works/artefacts of the same era then the game should automatically shift them around to theme them.

- Builders: I don't mind the fact that they're limited charges, just let me queue their actions. Say there's several forests I want to chop, let me click a queue button, select forests limited by the amount of builder charges available, and then I click done. The builder would then take however many turns to do those queued actions. If I change my mind I can just click the builder and cancel their orders.

There's so many ways micro could be removed or improved. I could go on but this post would get massive.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Recently, I've been itching to play some Civilization again - but I found it interesting that I had no interest in returning to Civ 6. Rather, Civ 2 (the iteration I first hopped on board the series) that I returned to.

That got me thinking as to why that iteration is the one that has stuck with me, and realized that the trajectory of the series as a whole - and culminating in Civ 6 - has trended away from my own personal tastes. If Civ 7 is a continuation of the Civ 5/6 trajectory (and I see no reason to think it won't be) then it might be the first one I skip.

I recognize that they are indeed my own personal tastes, and don't begrudge anyone their continued enjoyment of Civ 6 (and Civ 7!) - but if the series continues this way, it is likely not for me any more, from a playing or modding perspective. I'll be comparing Civ 6 to Civ 2 in this post, mostly because that's the one I'm playing right now. I know for a lot of people Civ 4 is their high-water mark. That's the great thing about the series, isn't it? There are enough iterations that everyone can still play their favorite.

So, in too many words, here are my thoughts, most of which have probably been seen before.

[ SLOWED TO A CRAWL ]

Civ 6 late game is a tedious crawl towards the finish. This is not a surprise to anyone - everyone knows this is one of the biggest issues with the game.

Scientific and cultural victories pretty much come down to just clicking "End Turn" over and over again until the end.

So you can go full warmonger or proselytizer, which makes the late game more interesting simply because you interact with the game more. This has its own set of problems, though, which is that waging war in the late game is a logistical nightmare.

The bottom line is that once you hit the Industrial era, the game shifts gears down to first as the combined managerial weight of a large empire and lots of units makes each turn take forever, as you play shuffle with your army and curse as your building queues all empty at the same time so you have to go through each city again as you set up your queues.

OR

You have a tightly run, small empire pushing for science or culture and the managerial weight of each turn becomes an obstacle to simply clicking "End Turn" as you try to warp-speed your way to victory, but the game systems keep getting in the way.

-------------

Which is a giant shame, because Civ 6 does the early game so well. The game captures the sense of discovery better than any iteration in the series, and watching your humble tribe spread and fill the land with buildings and improvements is tremendously satisfying.

I'm tired of resigning myself to quitting each game half way through when the fun stops or gritting my teeth to actually finish.

[ A SHRINKING WORLD ]

I suspect, the game intentionally tries to slow you down due to its reduced map sizes and the increased importance of a single unit due to the combat system. It spawns a vicious cycle, though.

Enforcing 1 unit per tile makes moving a large army long distances incredibly tedious, so...
Make the maps smaller!
Smaller maps can fill up with units really quickly, so...
Make units take longer to build!
Units take a long time to build, but the player still wants to get them in the action, so...
Make the maps smaller!

I realize this is incredibly simplistic and the actual design considerations were carefully thought through by the team, but I think the end result is suboptimal. The tedium of large empire management also contributes to the decision to make maps smaller, I'm sure.

Previous versions of Civ allowed for huge, sprawling maps where enormous empires would span continents and there would still be room to expand. Things just felt more...epic, in a sense. You got this feeling of the actual clash of empires across the globe, while in Civ 6 it's like everything has been condensed down to a localized conflict area. Even the localized scale feels too big, sometimes, while simultaneously feeling very cramped.

[ ALL SYSTEMS GO ]

Lots of things which were previously "on-map units" have been abstracted. I'm sure in the interests of reducing unit clutter and trying to streamline things - and to be fair, Civ 6 didn't start the abstraction of several of these. But nonetheless, the abstraction of several game systems has made them far more passive and as a result vastly more uninteresting.

Airforce: I will never, for the life of me, understand why they've made aircraft so boring. As it's own self-contained system, first you have to figure out how to even use aircraft. It has its own rules for placement, unique commands that don't really correspond to existing units, and doesn't really live on the map.

Even if you do invest heavily in aircraft (which the AI can't really do effectively, since again - it's a different system from regular units) it becomes yet another thing that's tedious to manage as you have to constantly rebase your fleet as your front moves.

Espionage: The abstraction of espionage has made it super boring. Spies are super expensive to build and in fact hard-limited, so you never have that many of them. Then, as they're own abstracted system, they have their own "movement" rules, and every operation takes a long time to complete.

When spies were a unit that moved on the map, espionage was a dynamic and interesting system. You could send them to infiltrate enemy empires en masse, stealing technology, sabotaging production, inciting rebellion, or planting nukes. These all felt like really significant things you could do to level the playing field or weaken your enemy.

Now, everything just takes too dang long, and while you can occasionally pull off a super cool operation to flip an enemy city, it takes a massive investment in production (for the spy) and time (to level up your spy so he has a prayer of success). It can easily take several hundred in-game years to successfully pull of a single major operation.

Trade: I'm a little mixed on this one. Making trade a system rather than a unit has the potential for making it much cooler - but the implementation is once again...tedious. It's awesome to have a giant trade city with a zillion trade routes coming through it. It's cool to see the trade routes on the map - I even love the concept of trade routes creating roads. But you have to keep renewing them. You have to manage the most profitable destinations. It's more management. More levers to pull. More systems to manage.

[ YOU'RE NOT DONE COMPLAINING? ]

No, sorry. I have a few miscellaneous things that just bug me.

Forts: are. dumb. In Civ 2 they are absolutely critical - of course because the combat in Civ 2 is wildly imbalanced because if one unit in stack is destroyed...all of them are. But forts prevent that. They are literally game-changing and absolutely integral to protecting your supply lines. In Civ 6, they are...a stat boost. That's it.

Unique Civilizations: I just recently realized that this bugs me. But it does. I recognize how cool it is to play as different civilizations with their own unique flavor - but that's not my civilization. It's me playing as someone else, following abilities and strengths dictated to me, rather than creating my own civilization.

Minimum City Distance: C'mon. I think it's a rule just because the AI is dumb.

No Custom End Era: Ok, this isn't unique to Civ 6. It's been a regular complaint of mine since the beginning. Sometimes I just want an ancient game! Or musketeers and frigates! Let me!

[ A STATIC STORY ]

I guess at the end of the day, my personal bottom line is that the broad-strokes canvas provided by earlier versions of Civ gave me much more memorable games and stories than the hyper systems-focused, incremental lever-pushing direction that the series seems to be following.

----------------

Like my current game of Civ 2. A large map. My civilization, the Gauls (I modded away all the modern civs), shared a continent with the Parthians. A huge continent had almost everyone else. The Funan became a behemoth on that continent, snapping up smaller kingdoms left and right. As these fell, occasionally a new one would spawn.

Meanwhile, the Scythians were an island nation between these two continents. I encountered them when I loaded up a caravel with several caravans of goods and just set off into the unknown to establish trade routes with whoever I encountered. I used my trade relations and occasional gifts to be a technology and map broker. Business was brisk, and helped me stay current with the large empires as I traded for new technologies almost every other turn.

They expanded hyper-aggressively in both directions, eventually meeting the Funan when the divvied up Rome. They also started expanding into the Parthians, with whom I'd had an uneasy peace since they couldn't push back a chokepoint I fortified heavily, leaving me half the continent. I focused on trade, my little Republic slowly expanding into my half while I sent out great navies filled with trade goods.

Multiple spaceships were launched to Alpha Centauri. I wasn't the first, and technically I didn't "win", but that barely mattered. The Funan conquered the Pyu capital, and their agents blew up the Pyu colony ship in deep space.

Eventually, it was these two giants - Funan and Scythia - ruling the world except for my independent republic. They were fighting each other, but vast navies were blockading my ports, and the former Parthian territories on my border were heavily militarized.

My Republic fell to Fundamentalist politics. Profits were cut, but survival was at stake. I had no hope of competing on the sea, but vast fleets of stealth fighters and bombers were built. Millions of paratroopers were trained. And transports with holds full of spies snuck past the enemy fleets while we were still at peace.

Their targets? The great empires' capitals. It took dozens of tries, but eventually a spy was able to plant a nuke in each of them. Then a single sacrificial unit paradropped in to capture the capital in a surprise attack.

Both empires experienced civil wars when their capitals fell. A huge chunk of the Funan split off into the Babylonian empire. A smaller chunk of the Scythians declared independence as the Greeks - including a significant part of the former Parthian lands on my borders. I quickly made friends with these two breakaway nations, and unleashed an enormous army on the remaining Scythians on my continent. I am now engaged in a war of aerial attrition and fire bombing of the Scythian homeland using vast fleets of stealth bombers as my paratroopers follow, then get killed - each battle reducing their homeland further to ash - there are now quite a few "former" city sites.

But I can't compete on the sea, my fleets are still too weak - and despite fielding AEGIS cruisers to protect my transports and aircraft carriers, virtually unlimited barrages of cruise missiles still overwhelm their defenses.

So I'm stuck fortifying my shores and trying to slowly chip away with my superior air force until I can get a strong enough foothold to start airlifting in howitzers and tanks. Maybe I'll be able to trigger another civil war in the Funan - they are still by far the biggest empire, even after their split.

----------------

Or a previous game, where my small Celtic civilization managed to outlast the rest of the world by triggering a continuous climate change feedback loop through never-ending nuclear holocaust. Eventually the rest of the world was so riven by starvation and disorder that I was able to raze multiple empires, and the barbarians captured the rest of the desertified and swamp-ridden world.

----------------

The Civ 6 games that have stuck with me are very few. They have occurred - I have a favorite memory of reducing almost an entire continent to near-permanent free city status. Overall, despite the dynamism of the map itself and the early game, each game starts to follow the same old story from the mid onwards. All the systems and tedium make me more relieved when the game is over than enjoying the ride throughout.

Earlier iterations felt like they had space for much more dynamic events - civilizations re-spawning, civil wars, barbarian cities off in the corners (because there was space for that!), flooding an opponent with trade caravans then buying a wonder outright, wonders lost to history when their city is razed, a transport running the gauntlet of enemy ships to drop a huge army off before getting blown up...etc etc etc.

But I guess it comes down to the late game - it always does, doesn't it? In Civ 2, I'm excited as the tech tree runs out because the sandbox toys have just gotten cooler - not more tedious.

[ WRAP UP ]

If you made it this far - wow, thanks for reading my ramblings!

I've played a ton of Civ 6, and tinkered with it even more. There's lots about it I think is cool, and honestly the early game is pretty unmatched. I don't begrudge anyone who loves it and wants more of it. I think there are quite a few things I've complained about here that many of you probably enjoy quite a lot - and that's great.

Maybe it's me, not Civ. But regardless, I'm less and less enamored with the trajectory of the series, and the only one I keep coming back to over the years is Civ 2. Thankfully, I can keep coming back to it.

And who am I kidding - I will follow the development and release of Civ 7 with great interest - I'll might buy it, too. Maybe not - I didn't get Diablo IV - maybe it really is just me.

Anyways, Civ has been great to me. But maybe it's time for me to step off. The rest of you, keep having fun.

Thanks @thecrazyscot for the great post/thread. I agree with most of what you are saying, especially about espionage... I really miss the spy unit and the espionage system from Civ 4. I guess my main diffuculty is with the 1UPT system. I tried to like it, I really did, but I just don't. In Civ 5 it was just completely unbearable and although they improved it in Civ 6, I just... can't get into the 1UPT. Give me back my SODs. I know that you lose some of the tactical fun in battles, but I think that loss is worth it to get rid of 1UPT. On top of every other reason I hate 1UPT, is that one of the joys of Civ for me was looking at the beautiful map and with 1UPT the maps are just so ridiculously cluttered.

Another thing I wish they'd bring back is leaderheads/backgrounds/music that advance as the Civilization advances.

In any case will probably end up trying Civ 7 regardless, end up tiring of it because of what I'm assuming will again be a 1UPT system, and setting the game aside for other more enjoyable games. Its a shame because I really love so many things that are unique/special to Civ 6, but the 1UPT thing I just can't get over.

 

[Mahi]

I have friends that played since Civ 2 and they also completely dropped Civ 6 because they "don't like it as much as the other iterations". Personally I still think Civ 4 with the expansions was the best iteration of them all but I rarely go back and play Civ 4 because Civ 6 just have much more to offer in the end. I feel a bid sad for all the classic civ gamers that never got into Civ 6 because it's honestly the game I've had the most value out of by miles ever since I bought it when it came out. I have +1800 hours on Civ 6 and still enjoy the game. Civ 6 plays differently than the other iterations, which throws some people off if they were used to the older games.
I understand people who play earlier versions of Civ 6 have difficulties in getting used to Civ 6 but honestly, if you are still stuck in Civ 2 and never seriously moved to other versions you can't tell me it's not about the comfort zone of knowing it's a game you know how to play.. perhaps even nostaliga.

Also 1UPT is a strength and a weakness of the game. Strenghten the strategic movement of the game but weakens the AI capabilities.

My main annoyance with Civ 6 is air combat (and naval), weak AI once you break down their main force, late game where victory is only a matter of turns and generally AI combat


I considered writing a post about how I almost felt scammed when I first bought Civ 6 when it came out (including the future DLCs) but looking back now I got my money's worth, and as mentioned it's probably the modern game where I feel like I got the most value and replayability out of the price I payed for the game.

 

[pokiehl]

Another thing I wish they'd bring back is leaderheads/backgrounds/music that advance as the Civilization advances.

Civ 6 is the only game in which music advances through the ages, so not sure what you mean by bringing that back.

But I think a ton of people, myself included, want "evolving leader outfits" to stay dead

 

[aieeegrunt]

I have friends that played since Civ 2 and they also completely dropped Civ 6 because they "don't like it as much as the other iterations". Personally I still think Civ 4 with the expansions was the best iteration of them all but I rarely go back and play Civ 4 because Civ 6 just have much more to offer in the end. I feel a bid sad for all the classic civ gamers that never got into Civ 6 because it's honestly the game I've had the most value out of by miles ever since I bought it when it came out. I have +1800 hours on Civ 6 and still enjoy the game. Civ 6 plays differently than the other iterations, which throws some people off if they were used to the older games.
I understand people who play earlier versions of Civ 6 have difficulties in getting used to Civ 6 but honestly, if you are still stuck in Civ 2 and never seriously moved to other versions you can't tell me it's not about the comfort zone of knowing it's a game you know how to play.. perhaps even nostaliga.

Also 1UPT is a strength and a weakness of the game. Strenghten the strategic movement of the game but weakens the AI capabilities.

My main annoyance with Civ 6 is air combat (and naval), weak AI once you break down their main force, late game where victory is only a matter of turns and generally AI combat


I considered writing a post about how I almost felt scammed when I first bought Civ 6 when it came out (including the future DLCs) but looking back now I got my money's worth, and as mentioned it's probably the modern game where I feel like I got the most value and replayability out of the price I payed for the game.

What saved Civ6 for me was undoubtedtly mods. It allowed me to take the basic structure and mechanics of Civ6 (which I liked) and tweak the implementation of them (a lot of which I really did not like).

It also allowed me to outright delete the mechanics that were deal breakers for me (1 UPT, World Congress). Natural Disasters is in that list till I find the right mod for it

Civ 6 is the only game in which music advances through the ages, so not sure what you mean by bringing that back.

But I think a ton of people, myself included, want "evolving leader outfits" to stay dead

Oh come on, who didn’t love Abraham Lincoln In A Loin Cloth

 

[Patine]

Oh come on, who didn’t love Abraham Lincoln In A Loin Cloth

And Alexander in a Mafia-cut power suit?

*shudders*

Not one of the better features of Civ3.

 

[leif erikson]

Civ 6 is the only game in which music advances through the ages, so not sure what you mean by bringing that back.

Music advances through the ages in Civ IV as well.

 

[Naokaukodem]

But I think a ton of people, myself included, want "evolving leader outfits" to stay dead

I never really understood this complaint. Civ is a fantasy game with historical flavour, that we can play with History is some spice for it. And leaders are really about humour, even if some times they feel unpleasant. (but with say, realistic leaders you wouldn't have the humour anymore, only the unpleasant part)

Music advances through the ages in Civ IV as well.

Wait, doesn't music advance through the ages in all Civs ?

 

[pokiehl]

Music advances through the ages in Civ IV as well.

Wait, doesn't music advance through the ages in all Civs ?

Oh, I interpreted that comment to mean the evolving renditions of the same theme from Civ 6. But I agree with Naukaukodem above that, interpreted otherwise, basically all Civ games have evolving music, right?

I never really understood this complaint. Civ is a fantasy game with historical flavour, that we can play with History is some spice for it. And leaders are really about humour, even if some times they feel unpleasant. (but with say, realistic leaders you wouldn't have the humour anymore, only the unpleasant part)

I agree that leaders in Civ can be very humorous, but I don't attribute that to changing costumes over time...after all, there's much comedy to be had in Civs 4-6 from leaders.

I think most people don't like the idea because it's just goofy in execution and concept, and can be perceived as offensive or insensitive in different contexts. Moreover, with the high quality of leaderheads and how much work and money go into making them (vs what we had in Civ 3), my guess is that it's unfeasible for the devs to execute this concept anymore.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I agree that leaders in Civ can be very humorous, but I don't attribute that to changing costumes over time...after all, there's much comedy to be had in Civs 4-6 from leaders.

Well, it can add up as a "part" of their humour.

I think most people don't like the idea because it's just goofy in execution and concept, and can be perceived as offensive or insensitive in different contexts. Moreover, with the high quality of leaderheads and how much work and money go into making them (vs what we had in Civ 3), my guess is that it's unfeasible for the devs to execute this concept anymore.

Personnally I never felt offended by such things. On contrary, the strangeness of some dressings was what I felt was original, unexpected, surprising and fun. The more out-in-place but maybe-not in an alternate history was questionning and again, fun to me. On the other hand, I happened to think that the exact same dressing during all the course of the game was what was strange and out-of-place. So, after all I'm on this board too in some way I guess, but in a completely different and opposite way.

 

[UWHabs]

Oh, I interpreted that comment to mean the evolving renditions of the same theme from Civ 6. But I agree with Naukaukodem above that, interpreted otherwise, basically all Civ games have evolving music, right?


I agree that leaders in Civ can be very humorous, but I don't attribute that to changing costumes over time...after all, there's much comedy to be had in Civs 4-6 from leaders.

I think most people don't like the idea because it's just goofy in execution and concept, and can be perceived as offensive or insensitive in different contexts. Moreover, with the high quality of leaderheads and how much work and money go into making them (vs what we had in Civ 3), my guess is that it's unfeasible for the devs to execute this concept anymore.

Yeah, instead of just having one Montezuma model, you'd need all the versions for each era. If it was just changing textures and they wore the same outfit each era, that would be one thing. But to animate loin cloth vs armor vs suit vs whatever, that's a lot of extra effort to go through. I'm not necessarily sure I want it for the leaders, it still feels weird seeing Montezuma in a power suit.

That being said, I miss the Elvis advisor from each era. That was dope.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Yeah, instead of just having one Montezuma model, you'd need all the versions for each era. If it was just changing textures and they wore the same outfit each era, that would be one thing. But to animate loin cloth vs armor vs suit vs whatever, that's a lot of extra effort to go through. I'm not necessarily sure I want it for the leaders, it still feels weird seeing Montezuma in a power suit.

That being said, I miss the Elvis advisor from each era. That was dope.

The Civ2 advisors was the high water mark for models in this franchise, no question

Especially during Anarchy

 

[Patine]

The Civ2 advisors was the high water mark for models in this franchise, no question

Especially during Anarchy

They were cute. But when you started with scenarios and mods in specific ages, epochs, and wars, and specially fantasy and sci-fi (and weirder) ones, and were renaming, repurposing, and shuffling on the tech tree the advances that triggered their costume and line changes, it did become nonsensical, at that point.