Civ VI reviews on Steam

[Uberfrog]

Whereas I think the religious game is the most interesting with a victory attached so far.

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but Religion certainly gets too bad of a rap in my opinion. Apostle spam is irritating because of the way civilian units are implemented on the map, but it's quite possible to deal with. The Religious side of the game could use more depth (formal State Religions and different ways of managing spread), but it's far from a total mess. I find it no more exhausting than Domination, which can get really tedious if you don't keep up momentum.

 

[Art Morte]

Whereas I think the religious game is the most interesting with a victory attached so far.

I find it no more exhausting than Domination, which can get really tedious if you don't keep up momentum.

The sheer number of religious units you have to build and send to every corner of the world during a game is too much work, imo. Plus it lacks almost all tactical excitement that you get at least some with military units. I also find religious combat too simple to be as potent as it is. That said, the concept of religious victory is perfectly fine, I just don't enjoy how you need to get there. Too much of doing the same thing with just two units from start to finish.

 

[Siptah]

I like to go for religious victory on 6 and 8 player maps. It doesn't feel tiresome to me then. And luring those 110+ CS Apostles into traps is always fun.
I wish for more pressure from cities and some additional conversion mechanics as well.

 

[bbbt]

I'm in the nice in theory, tedious in reality camp on religious victory. At least with dom you can beeline for the capitals when you've already snowballed.

I definitely vote for increased passive spread through religious pressure, and maybe bring back spread via trade routes as well (though that could be a religious tenant or a specific leader ability).

Increased diplo options: I.e. someone can trade 'Accept religion' (or be forced to trade it on surrender) and that doubles the spread rate of your religion in their civ.

But most of all, I'd like to see the Apostles/Missionaries/Inquistors get revamped to work in a different way than just a more basic version of the standard movement/combat model. Maybe make them move district to district ala spies. Or maybe them more expensive but give them a 'Deliver Sermon' ability that has an area of effect (all cities in a 6 tile radius? Inquisitors stationed near a city blunt the effect?). Something to make them feel more 'unique' as a mechanic/victory condition.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yeah, I got a game started as Arabia, built this pretty cool religion and amassed thousands of faith. Then realized that I owned my own continent and what I was going to have to do to get the other converted. I'm sure I was going to win that game but didn't really want to go through that process.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well, that's the other problem. It would generally be easy to just capture most of their cities and use inquisitors. Or simply burn them down.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

It was a very long ago I scored games, why? Because I must admit my score would only prove what I think of the game and unlikely to represent what someone else may think of it. Yes I may dislike aspects of it at the same time it have alot of great ideas

 

[nzcamel]

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but Religion certainly gets too bad of a rap in my opinion. Apostle spam is irritating because of the way civilian units are implemented on the map, but it's quite possible to deal with. The Religious side of the game could use more depth (formal State Religions and different ways of managing spread), but it's far from a total mess. I find it no more exhausting than Domination, which can get really tedious if you don't keep up momentum.

If nothing else I think that religious units should operate on their own layer. They most certainly should neither stop, nor be stopped by military units!

The sheer number of religious units you have to build and send to every corner of the world during a game is too much work, imo. Plus it lacks almost all tactical excitement that you get at least some with military units. I also find religious combat too simple to be as potent as it is. That said, the concept of religious victory is perfectly fine, I just don't enjoy how you need to get there. Too much of doing the same thing with just two units from start to finish.

I think it's good you have to convert more cities than you conquer in domination; as, once a religion, is strong it's even harder to protect against than a strong military. But yeah, as a victory path, it could do with a bit more variety of units etc.

 

[calad]

Having been playing Civ V a lot recently, I was thinking of trying Civ VI, but the player reviews on Steam are pretty damning, with many saying that the game is broken almost to unplayability at the moment. I assume people on this forum are playing it, so I wonder what the general opinion is here as to whether it is worth switching, or waiting until Firaxis fix things?

Of course, there are lots of enthusiastic reviews in the gaming press, but I tend to take the opinions of the Steam community seriously, since they are based on far more play time than the average journo will have put in.

Good luck finding non-biased opinions of CiV6 in fan forum.

Honestly steam reviews are more than enough to explain to me why not to play this game. If you have a strategy game where warfare, diplomacy and trade dont work I dont see much reason to play. There were also couple of gems, like AI says nukes are the future before iron is discovered and AI attacks you due to lack of navy yet you are land locked.

According 30 day average number of players in steam charts are 14k on CiV6 and 25k on CiV5. If you really really want to have an excuse to play CiV6 you are in right place, because here even if Firaxis says CiV6 was a flop fans would do some mental gymnastics to explain why this is not a case and how they enjoy playing CiV6.

 

[Art Morte]

There were also couple of gems, like AI says nukes are the future before iron is discovered and AI attacks you due to lack of navy yet you are land locked.

Yeah, the AI diplomacy agendas are some quite irrational. Germany's standard agenda is the worst, imo. Frederick hates civs who ally with city-states, but it's completely inevitable that most / all civs will be allying city-states... It's one step away from hating you just for existing. And pretty much every time you send envoys to city-states he pops up saying how he disapproves of your actions :facepalm:
I'm pretty much excluding him from my games just for that.

 

[Archon_Wing]

The worst is probably Victoria's. Not only is it annoying, her AI seems to always fail miserably and never be a threat.

Montezuma seems to be the best as it actually can involve active gameplay (trade your surplus to him) and makes him a powerful force in addition to Aztecs' natural strength.

 

[Guandao]

Yeah, the AI diplomacy agendas are some quite irrational. Germany's standard agenda is the worst, imo. Frederick hates civs who ally with city-states, but it's completely inevitable that most / all civs will be allying city-states... It's one step away from hating you just for existing. And pretty much every time you send envoys to city-states he pops up saying how he disapproves of your actions :facepalm:
I'm pretty much excluding him from my games just for that.

I dislike Qin Shi Huang's wonder one and Pedro's Great People one. I always get denounced by them once I build more wonders/gain more great people than them.
I'm able to stay friendly with Frederick in my recent game, despite becoming CS suzerain.
I think Pericles' agenda should be annoying as well, but I don't remember getting denounced by him that often.
Alexander's Agenda pretty much made him denounce everyone in my game. He's the only Civ to lose his capital.

 

[Rosty K]

I think Pericles' agenda should be annoying as well, but I don't remember getting denounced by him that often.

Unlike Freddie he only cares when you actually compete with him, so that is a bit easier.

 

[God of Kings]

The r/civ subreddit has more recent discussions about Civ V than Civ VI, despite Civ VI approaching its one-year anniversary.

 

[calad]

Yeah, the AI diplomacy agendas are some quite irrational. Germany's standard agenda is the worst, imo. Frederick hates civs who ally with city-states, but it's completely inevitable that most / all civs will be allying city-states... It's one step away from hating you just for existing. And pretty much every time you send envoys to city-states he pops up saying how he disapproves of your actions :facepalm:
I'm pretty much excluding him from my games just for that.

Wait how does that correspond historical Germany at all? Fredericks Prussia was pretty much surrounded by small HRE minors and he was war against France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, Spain... oh I guess it makes sense

The r/civ subreddit has more recent discussions about Civ V than Civ VI, despite Civ VI approaching its one-year anniversary.

Because CiV5 has almost double number of players: 14k on CiV6 and 25k on CiV5.

 

[Siptah]

Wait how does that correspond historical Germany at all? Fredericks Prussia was pretty much surrounded by small HRE minors and he was war against France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, Spain... oh I guess it makes sense

Because CiV5 has almost double number of players: 14k on CiV6 and 25k on CiV5.

Wrong Frederick. Barbarossa fought mainly against Italian City States and tried to keep them in the HRE and in order. The leader agenda makes sense historically.

 

[Victoria]

fans would do some mental gymnastics to explain why this is not a case and how they enjoy playing CiV6.

The last thing is irrefutable, and un-quantifiable.
Mental gymnastics sounds like a critics words, there is unbiased views here and in an electronic world where vitriol is king, getting a view from a positive site has more credence than you are willing to give IMO.

 

[calad]

Wrong Frederick. Barbarossa fought mainly against Italian City States and tried to keep them in the HRE and in order. The leader agenda makes sense historically.

Then it should be citystates only next to him.

 

[calad]

The last thing is irrefutable, and unquantifiable.
Mental gymnastics sounds like a critics words, there is unbiased views here but in an electronic world where vitriol is king, getting a view from a positive site has more credence than you are willing to give IMO.

I absolutely had no idea what you said, but mental gymnastics means self manipulating and deception. Like a Bible researcher can do mental gymnastics to convince himself the timbers he found in a snowy Russian mountain were remains of Noah's Ark.

 

[Siptah]

Then it should be citystates only next to him.

I think that is indeed how it works. Just that 'next' is defined differently for some people. I think the code can help here.
Or is it just more total envoys sent?