Civ Vets, what do you think?

[Acken]

Civ6 has a lot of potential. Im not sure we ll be there at release. Especially considering how short the time between unfinished builds and release seems to be. But if the devs patch it up good andmaybe after an expansion it can certainly be better than civ5.

 

[dagriggstar]

The thing I hated most about II to IV was moving armies around, just too many units. I saw 1UPT as a positive change, however I do think there are better solutions....I actually think the corps thing is a step backwards but we'll see....

I dislike having 4 unique components to each playthrough (Civ UA, leader stuff, UU and UB/UI). I think this is too many and that (especially when new civilizations are added) we will get a lot of similar looking civs

I like the district system, a lot. I may actually not turn off espionage in games now (in previous titles I always have). Also love the eureka thing.

I think I will prefer social policies over the new gov system but again we'll see.

I've always wanted to play multiplayer mod-scenarios. How easy it is to put one together will probably determine how long I wait for the game...

 

[Martinus]

Civ 5 (with expansions) was likely my favourite Civ game to date (I got vanilla Civ 1 on its release and since then played all the games). I am looking forward to Civ 6 and so far like it a lot.

The one I disliked the most was Civ 3.

 

[MAHRana]

Tbh there haven't been that many changes, a CiV player can seamlessly get into the new iteration. It was kinda strange playing CiV from IV because they took so many things away! I'm glad they didn't do that in this case, so perhaps the significant changes can come with the expansions.

 

[agonistes]

Overall I'm very much looking forward to VI.

Civ, like most games, has distinguishing characteristics. Some of these characteristics are features of gameplay, some are just features, and some may be neither. I have the conviction that some of these characteristics shouldn't be changed if you are going to claim the game is an itineration of Civ.

That is not to say that change is bad. Every version has things that are great, things that are good but should be tweaked, and things that are bad and need to go. Additionally, each version introduced new things that msde me say "awesome, that idea is a keeper, why wasn't that already in the game." An obvious example of this last is borders. Imagine if Ed decided to get rid of borders.

For me/to me, III gave us too many great changes to list, but borders and moving units are two biggies. And much larger maps. IV went backwards with map size (a negative - like, why the heck would you take that option away), but allowed us to rez dead civs, have vassals, and even park our units in cities of other civs. V gave us increased tactics, but obliterated vast empires.

VI seems to be bringing back vast empires, but I am doubtful of this. I dont think the larger maps and localized happiness will make up for the space occupied by unstacked cities. What I see VI giving us is 'city planning' and more distinguishing civ attributes. All-in-all, I think Ed has tried to keep whst is good, bring back some of what was lost, improve a few things while not going too far afield into some sort of bizarro civ realm, and introduce a new concept that enhances Civ while keeping it Civ. And giving us ample freshness. So overall very commendable effort.

 

[Bibor]

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

 

[cazaderonus]

I'm super excited for CiVI. I very much liked CiV over Civ IV because 1UPT made things tremendously better in comparison to stacks of doom.

Dont get me wrong, the system in V had many flaws and will have some of them in VI despite the support\corp\army system : Scale, map surcharge, AI troubles dealing with the system.

That's why my main regret with CiVI at the moment is that Devs didnt decide to go for a massive scale change in the maps which would have been perfect especially with the city unstacking system. If cities were suddenly not limited to 3 rings, but say 6 and the rest of the map went along with this scaling, that would have solve the scaling of 1UPT and would have allowed for gigantic carpets of doom, much more room for strategy. Probably would have helped the AI as well. I pictured more flat lands, maybe 2/3/4 tiles size hills and forest. As in, it looks like one big freakin hill\forest not several hill\forest next to each other.

But i guess, it must still be too much for current engines to support as it would end up with a freakin huge amount of unit in the end game.

 

[BrokenBokken]

Overall I'm very much looking forward to VI.

Civ, like most games, has distinguishing characteristics. Some of these characteristics are features of gameplay, some are just features, and some may be neither. I have the conviction that some of these characteristics shouldn't be changed if you are going to claim the game is an itineration of Civ.

That is not to say that change is bad. Every version has things that are great, things that are good but should be tweaked, and things that are bad and need to go. Additionally, each version introduced new things that msde me say "awesome, that idea is a keeper, why wasn't that already in the game." An obvious example of this last is borders. Imagine if Ed decided to get rid of borders.

For me/to me, III gave us too many great changes to list, but borders and moving units are two biggies. And much larger maps. IV went backwards with map size (a negative - like, why the heck would you take that option away), but allowed us to rez dead civs, have vassals, and even park our units in cities of other civs. V gave us increased tactics, but obliterated vast empires.

VI seems to be bringing back vast empires, but I am doubtful of this. I dont think the larger maps and localized happiness will make up for the space occupied by unstacked cities. What I see VI giving us is 'city planning' and more distinguishing civ attributes. All-in-all, I think Ed has tried to keep whst is good, bring back some of what was lost, improve a few things while not going too far afield into some sort of bizarro civ realm, and introduce a new concept that enhances Civ while keeping it Civ. And giving us ample freshness. So overall very commendable effort.

There is some pretty good evidence that you'll want your cities closer together this time than in CiV

 

[stealth_nsk]

I really dislike the options I see in the poll. But I really like the term "civ vets" - it sounds so much like "civets"

 

[tedhebert]

Really looking forward to playing CIV 6...

I think it'll be another 1000+ hours playtime refresh, and it's more than welcome

 

[KingMackem]

super excited - when it comes to Civ games, the even editions always perform better. not very scientific, I know, but true!

 

[ehecatzin]

back when we where throwing ideas about civ6 before they announced it, I wanted to spread cities, diferent coastal terrain, and giving certain tech edges to certain playstyles (as in a civ that wars a lot should get bonuses to get military tech fast, or unlockable techs).

So civ6 has actually been really surprising with the new map features, eurekas and multi-tile cities. After that it really has been refreshing, cultural tech tree, more dinamic barbarians, unique cs, and more uniques per civ.

I'm looking forward to the game.

 

[Disgustipated]

Yay, I'm a civ vet.

I still think my "first" Civ which was Civ2 will always be the best. With the exception of Test of Time expansion which I hated. But I have many hours with Civ4 and Civ5. Civ5 only became playable for me after the first expansion.

I just want to give a shout out and honorable mention to Civ3. Poor Civ3 always gets dissed. I did like the army system of Civ3, and was sad to see it go in Civ5 (Civ4 you could group units together, it was sort of like the Civ3 army system).

I still have many issues with 1 UPT. Moving an army across the map is a huge pita compare to just grouping them together in Civ4 and moving them as a stack.

Very much looking forward to this game. I'm still not sold on the forest icons yet, but I do love the brighter colors. After dark games such as Civ5 and SMAC (BE as well), a lighter tone is much appreciated.

 

[jimbobduggar]

I started with civ 3 and can honestly say im very excited about the direction there taking civ 6 in. I do hate that I found out about the game coming out the wait is killing me I got lucky with civ 5 I didn't know it was coming out and was walking by the electronics section in target and saw it on the shelf.

 

[ferros]

Been playing since the orginal Civ.

I think Civ VI looks interesting as a game but I also feel like the Civ-franchise has drifted away from many of the things I liked in the older Civ-games, Civ5 was the first (huge) step and Civ VI hasn't shown me enough to get my "Civ hype" back.

I will try the game, eventually. I will certainly not pre-order and I don't want to pay as much as they are asking me to do to get the game, I have no problems with waiting a year (or more) to try the game once it is way cheaper and got some expansions/DLC. Until then I'd rather just stick to CivII and CivIV.

 

[Mustakrakish]

I did read your post in its entirety. I was not attacking you per say. I concur with most of your post. I just take issue with referring to Civ6 as Civ5.6, even if you meant no offence. That's all. I suppose, I should have made it clear that it was more the fact that you brought this trend up, because I've seen seen it elsewhere, and not in particular your usage of it.

I am very excited about Civilization VI.

It suits the purpose. I don't see X.5 or X.6 or whatever as a bad thing at all in this context. I'm buffled how those who are dissing the game use it as if it's a bad thing and even more buffled by those offended by this. I used it for the sole purpose of pointing out as to why it can't be worse than V. Because it doesn't make any drastic revolutionary changes (that may be a catastrophe or a major deal breaker for some, 1upt for example, pop based science etc.), but solid good changes / improvements across the board that are all based on V.

The game (VI) has many good changes, in fact it seems everything from V ha been changed in some manner. I would like someone to point out a thing that was not changed in any way.
BUT it does keep the gameplay style and overall direction of V. Despite all the changes and as big as they might be, they are true to V style and design (the only absolute change that has nothing in common with V is art style). It really is an overall improved V and that is a good thing and it IS a solid 6. I really don't see how 5.6 is an insult to anyone. It's not about it "not being worth itself, looks like an expansion" nonsense. It's about pointing out the direction the new game takes.

 

[LDiCesare]

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

These choices are better. I'd vote 4.
I like hexes, I'm ok with 1 upt but it's inferior to Ctp2 model, builders are a half-baked idea, they should have gone the public works way, the civics cards look great, I hate city states and they still look like I'll keep hating them.

 

[nitedemon]

First glanced I thought this poll it about that civet on the blurry leaders leak pic...

 

[Jeckel]

I've played Civ since the original was released, own 1 through 4 as well as both incarnations of Colonization and the original Alpha Centauri, and I was a fairly active Civ 4 modder on this very site for a few years.

I hated Civ 5 mainly because of 1UPT. I got super excited today when I heard that Civ 6 was coming out and I think several of the new features such as the districts and the way the AIs work sounds very interesting. However, it still has 1UPT, is going to again be a steam game, and I'm guessing is going to again use Lua as its scripting language, so I'm noping out now.

When I was modding Civ 4, with barely over a year coding experience and less experience than that with C++, I was able to implement a much more context appropriate system that limited the number of units per tile which took terrain and unit type into account, but after two games with the money, man power, and backing of Firaxis they are still going with the ridiculously simplistic 1UPT mechanic. That is just sad.

So, long story short, no, I'm not excited for Civ 6 and I won't be buying it just like I didn't buy Civ 5 or Beyond Earth. When they drop 1UPT I'll be excited and start buying their games again.

 

[MIS]

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

It seems to me VI will be better than V, certainly after a patch or two.

The "I love IV, hate V" brigade will probably still like IV more.