Civ Vets, what do you think?

[Sprenk]

Although I too am heartily (and optimistically) anticipating release day, a poll among CivFanatic members who bother to look at the Civ 6 forum threads at all is likely to skew a bit . . . supportive

 

[lakerscats]

Addicted to Civ 1 at university. Something in the fundamental design/concept just appeals to me more than other military-only based strategy games. Have played all since and never disappointed, even Civ V vanilla did it for me (sad but true). Best indicator for me is the love Ed Beach shows when describing VI, I don't think this is just a job for these guys. Can't wait to get my hands on it. Goodbye productivity!

 

[spfun]

What a funny poll

 

[Old Git]

"Most people agree Civ IV was the best of the first four versions."

I'm not most people. I've played addictively since CivI (I was groping towards developing my own "god game" when it came out, whereupon I gave up forever!). Civ IV is my LEAST favourite. My personal order (best to worst) is II, III, V, I, IV.

 

[Lucius_]

I've played all the main Civ games, except IV, as I did not have a PC that could run it until after CiV came out. Civ III is really where I started though. Civ VI seems to be removing many mechanics from CiV that makes it seem reminiscent of earlier Civs to me. I hated global happiness, but loved 1UPT. I miss air units being able to bomb improvements. I hated maintenance cost for roads. I love CiV but I hated all the restrictions. It seems like many of these restrictions are being changed to less restrictive, so I'm very excited to build a sprawling empire again....and no Tradition, no NC by turn 100 or good luck catching up, hopefully no more pigeon-holed gameplay.

 

[dapperbandit]

I've played all the core titles (i.e, I to V) and I'm very interested in the changes being made this time around. It really does feel like the core of the game has been tweaked in an effort to create much more specialization. That each leader has multiple unique abilities, units, bonuses etc, and that this even extends to the city states and great people as well... it just feels like there's much more nuance this time around.

For me it's just a reality that I won't be fully able to grasp the impact of unstacking cities until I get my hands on the game and get stuck in but my impression is that it really will make a big difference. I just hope that it doesn't saddle me with the Min/Max anxiety of trying to optimize too much by chasing adjacency bonuses.

 

[Stringer1313]

"Most people agree Civ IV was the best of the first four versions."

I'm not most people. I've played addictively since CivI (I was groping towards developing my own "god game" when it came out, whereupon I gave up forever!). Civ IV is my LEAST favourite. My personal order (best to worst) is II, III, V, I, IV.

Why was IV your least favorite?

 

[Boom Shakazulu]

Started with CIV II and even got into modding it a bit, creating custom units in paint and notepad. It was sooooo easy back then

I am super excited for 6. I thought 4 was great and played 5 extensively. Loved the 1upt switch.

Only dislike so far is that the forests in 6 look weird and not dense enough and that there are too little civ diversity. All in all very minor things.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

lol @ the results

 

[Drakarska]

Considering the OP poll is definitely skewed, I'm with Bibor on his revised update. I'd probably vote 4 on his poll.

 

[stealth_nsk]

For Bibor's version of the poll, I'm strongly with option 1.

 

[Cilpot]

I've played Civ regularly since the first one and I have confidence that VI will be the best one yet.

 

[Nikae]

I started with civ2, extensively played civ3 and civ4, obsessively played civ5. Every new piece was an improvement above the preivous, in release forms 3 beat 2 by a mile but 5 was poor compared to 4.

Really composite and worked out pieces were 4 and 5, both had its pros and cons. 4 had a lot of easily exploitable and overpowered simple combinations (unit type rush, some wonders), horrible combat system, ugly as sin maps with obligatory roads everywhere, and the amount of random garbage. Other than that it promoted a real empire building game, local happiness and corporations were a definite incentive, health was a good concept as well (making the game a bit more realistic). The somewhat customizable governments were a plus, although everyone always chose the same ones, overused slavery for example.

Civ5 at start was terribly empty, but by the end I liked it more than 4, mostly because games felt much more an adaptive process and less a planned one. The much-debated 1 upt was problematic because the AI was never good at it and most scenarios along with multiplayer created overcrowded maps. Other than those the tourism and culture system was a huge improvement, customizable religions, and trade routes as well. City states added a very welcome variety to the whole series.

All in all it boils down to two things: number of cities and number of units per tile. People who like rexing will never like civ5, as it penalizes you for having a too wide empire (science, culture, happiness), 1upt is the same with size. The real question with 6 is whether the unstacking results in a strong enough 'empire' feeling, how much variety the card system with governments offers, and how good a hybrid the semi-stacking of units creates.

It appears to retain good parts of both 4 and 5. Housing and amenities are 2 growth regulating factors, governments are customizable and amenities are local again, like in 4. City states, religions and artifacts/tourism plus the combat system is largely reminiscent of 5. The congresses from 4 and 5 are not going to be implemented at start, understandable, but still sad. Overall, I'd say that it is much more of an improvement over 5 than 5 was over 4 (especially at start).

I am neutral on the new culture and worker system, time will tell. A definite improvement over both is the increased number of unique features per civilization, the new great people system, settlers not requiring growth pause, and that wonder hoarding requires valuable space. I hope map rng dependency will be better, and no longer an incentive to keep restarting the game because of poor start locations. I also want a quality huge TSL map in the long run. And a pony, while I am at it.

Civfanatics regardless is partially a place where people gather to sulk about civ5, never admitting what the game evolved into, and never accepting the loss of rexing and unit stacking, so do not be surprised when people charge you on the BtS horse the 1000th time. After all, a dissatisfied person is much more likely to get vocal than a satisfied one. No offense towards anyone, it is just a general observation, I am not going into any debate about it, arguing conviction is futile.

The poll is bad anyway, of course people are interested...

 

[GIO888]

Can't believe it but I've been a CivJunkie since 1993.

I didn't like Civ III much but IV was as good as II - (Gosh I miss the live action advisors!!)

Agree with Nikae mostly, and was very unimpressed with Panzer Commander - whoops, I mean Civ V - when it came out. Happily I think folks involved in the community got involved and the expansions to it made it ultimately as addictive as any other version, even the Holy Civ II.

Cartoon characters? No opinion, its fashion - the Art Deco styling of Civ V is ugly to those of us who are fast approaching dotage, but to folk of the Naughties they were "cool".

Mostly waiting for the multi-threaded AI here. If the AI can think about how to rather than just do it, well.....

 

[jihe]

Well... all Civ5 did was make the tiles hexagons and introduce 1UPT. I admit those are big changes, but then you could make the point that Civ5 was the biggest upset ever to Civilization.





But calling it Civ5.6 also seems disrespectful of the game designers, as if they are required to have revolutionary ideas. But once you've done hexagons and severe stack limits, what else is there to radically change about Civilization?

Allow civs to grow perhaps. The worst look of civ 5 was all the unclaimed land well into the game.

 

[CornPlanter]

I've been playing since the first one. I've played every single game in the series. The favourite one was Civ4 so far.

Eager to try out Civ 6, I have reasonably big hopes for it, and I have no doubts it's gonna be better than Civ 5.

 

[Thorburne]

My suggestions. Please take into consideration english is not my native language, so please ask if i messed up the definitions.

Civ Vets, what do you think about Civ VI?

1. I like the direction this franchise is taking and and is a huge leap from Civ 5.
2. I dislike the direction this franchise is taking, but is a huge leap from Civ 5 nonetheless.
3. I like the direction this franchise is taking, but too many issues from Civ 5 persist.
4. I dislike the direction the franchise is taking and too many issues from Civ 5 persist.
5. I was hoping for something completely new (like they did with Civ 5).
6. They should've gone back to Civ4:BTS, design from there, and forget this whole Civ5/BE thing.


Contrary to popular belief, I'd pick option 2 or 5

I'm going with option 1 here. I've made my peace with the changes that Civ V made like 1UPT, and I loved the additions brought in by the expansion. With Civ VI being built from the ground up, I am intrigued by the new changes and the seem to improve on Civ V in nearly every way.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[Mustakrakish]

I have to say poll options are just wrong.

"They changed it too much, I can't like the game anymore." You mean from V? I can't imagine any of V players choosing this. Because all the changes are safe and logical, nor it has anything "revolutionary & questionable" (like say 1upt change... or BE ) that would be so big it would make a V player dislike / hate it compared to V... that is except for fierce art style haters of course.

Or are you talking about "changed it too much from IV"?

 

[nukehumvee]

I have to say poll options are just wrong.

"They changed it too much, I can't like the game anymore." You mean from V? I can't imagine any of V players choosing this. Because all the changes are safe and logical, nor it has anything "revolutionary & questionable" (like say 1upt change... or BE ) that would be so big it would make a V player dislike / hate it compared to V... that is except for fierce art style haters of course.

Or are you talking about "changed it too much from IV"?

From any title you usually play, more specifically the older Civ games.

 

[isau]

I think I am going to love this game, but the one thing that continues to slightly annoy me about Civ V and now (seemingly) VI is that they put a lot of energy into making it a tactics game, and then left off obvious features that make tactical games interesting, like status effects, AoEs, ground placeables, and so on. The result is very little variation in units, with most "unique" units just being +5 to this or that. Seems like a huge lost opportunity. Age of Wonders 3 is a very different game, but managed to find a place for tons of units by getting creative with a huge variety of status effects, vulnerabilities, etc. It's annoying because it's not even very hard to do. It just seems like they are still stuck thinking of combat like Civ IV's "run into the enemy over and over" model instead of fully branching out in the tactical direction they've taken steps toward.