Civ4 Lovers/Civ5 Haters Level of Optimism for Civ6

[Quintillus]

I'm amazed how much some of you pay for haircuts. Civ 6 is a bit over 3 haircuts for me. I could get it cheaper elsewhere, but I've been going to the same neighborhood barber since before kindergarten, so we know each other to some degree after all that time.

Does Civ6 has pricing in the Croatian Kuna, or do you still have to pay Euro prices in Croatia? It seems like Firaxis/2K could price it in accordance with local incomes since Croatia has its own currency, although I don't know if they expect the market to be large enough for them to do so, and as the Aussies are keen to remind us, regional pricing doesn't always wind up being fair even when it does happen.

I'm also waiting to see what the Civ3/Civ4 players think of Civ6 post-release. I could pick it up at launch, but my expectations are fairly low after 5, and $60 would still be $20 more than I've ever paid for a game before. It just doesn't seem worth it when I could likely buy it for $30 in less than a year's time, have community-based reviews to read first (since the professional ones will likely be as positive as they were for Civ5), and it's not like there aren't other games I'd be happy playing in the meantime.

Although I'm hopeful that my skepticism is proved wrong, and there are some signs that may wind up being the case. I'd be happy to sign up before the year's end if the reception really is positive, just not pre-release or Week One.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I'm amazed how much some of you pay for haircuts. Civ 6 is a bit over 3 haircuts for me.

A decent haircut and tip is just a little over two copies of Civ6 for me. I'm jealous.

I'm also waiting to see what the Civ3/Civ4 players think of Civ6 post-release. I could pick it up at launch, but my expectations are fairly low after 5, and $60 would still be $20 more than I've ever paid for a game before. It just doesn't seem worth it when I could likely buy it for $30 in less than a year's time, have community-based reviews to read first (since the professional ones will likely be as positive as they were for Civ5), and it's not like there aren't other games I'd be happy playing in the meantime.

I waiting to see what Civ4 players think of it too. The professional reviews are so biased that I'm pretty sure that the reviewers are just shills for the game companies, or else on the company payroll. There is no way that anyone could have realistically or critically played Civ 5 at release and given it the scores that it got. I'm sorry, but it bordered on outright falsehood to give it the scores and reviews it received. It was evident just by playing the game (and I had to wait until the first patch, because Civ5 didn't play nice with dual graphics cards.)

<sigh> But if you ask anyone in the Civ5/Civ6 forums, I'm an idiot and a hater for even thinking that.

God, I miss intelligent discussion.

 

[Tatran]

I miss intelligent discussion.

What do the civ 4 players think of the civ 6 technology (68) + civics (50) trees in general and their boosts?
There are much more choices in delaying or totally skipping techs/civics. Faster paths to the next era. Not always good, btw. (Warmonger penalty increases with every new era.)

Tech tree :

Spoiler :

Civics tree :

Spoiler :

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Is that a quick speed game? It sure doesn't seem to take long to research some of those techs...

 

[salty mud]

The eurekas honestly seem pretty lame. They sound good in theory but most of them are so easy to attain (meet another civilisation? Kill a unit with a spearman?) and each tech only has one.

 

[ChaosSlayer]

What do the civ 4 players think of the civ 6 technology (68) + civics (50) trees in general and their boosts?
There are much more choices in delaying or totally skipping techs/civics. Faster paths to the next era. Not always good, btw. (Warmonger penalty increases with every new era.)

these tech trees are crap - they are too short. I don't get why people want to play a game of global civilization progress of 6,000 years in 2hours.

Even base Civ 4 is too short (and with many tech/unit gaps in Industrial era - you jump from primitive Ironclad right to WW2 Battleship skipping nearly 100 year of important innovations and entire WW1 period.). You should see tech from my mod - you will really feel that it takes a WHILE to get from Ancient to Classical to Medieval etc.

 

[Quintillus]

It's hard to really say much just from looking at a screenshot. When multiple previous techs lead to a tech, is that and and-requirement ("Construction requires Horseback Riding and Masonry") or an or-requirement ("Construction requires Horseback Riding or Masonry")? On the whole I liked that Civ4 allowed both (Rocketry requires Artillery or Flight; there also were and-requirements for some techs that showed up in the upper-right corner of the tech on the tree).

The boosts ("eurekas"? that's a synonym for it?) seem like a good idea, although I agree that most of them sound pretty easy. However, it's not clear from the screenshots what the effects of them are. I know they've talked about civilizations near the coast being better at sailing-related stuff, which makes sense and sounds fun, but how fun will depend on the effects.

Edit: As for length... I don't know what the tally is for Civ4 off the top of my head, but Civ3 has 83 techs with the latest patch. So while 68 is somewhat lower, if you count both, which seems fair since the civics effects would've been integrated in Civ3/Civ4, that's 118 and considerably more techs. Thus in number of techs, it seems like more than enough from vanilla. I know some people like mods with greatly expanded tech trees, but to be honest I've found the defaults in III and IV to be a pretty good starting place, and never do wind up finishing games with the larger mods enabled.

The pacing could still be another issue. I think Lemon's right to call out that the number of turns seems low - even if in that screenshot the civ being played has very high science for that 4 turns for writing, Nuclear Fusion only takes 10 times as long to research as Archery. By comparison, in Civ III, Nuclear Fission costs 280 tech points (prior to adjustment for map size, etc.), versus 3 for Warrior Code (Archery) or 8 for Writing. Taking the closest case of flip-flopping archery and writing and taking Fission as being as complex as Fusion, we're looking at 3.5 times more difference in tech cost in CivIII... which suggests that the science rate will increase more slowly over time in Civ5. Part of this could be lower bonuses for buildings such as Libraries and Universities, but some of it could also be smaller maps/fewer cities. I'm hoping the latter is not the case as much as Civ5 in particular, as Civ5 lost that ruling-a-large-empire feeling that I enjoyed so much in Civ3 (and to a lesser but still acceptable extent in Civ4).

Alternately, the techs could fly by super-quickly towards the end, which would arguably be more of a pacing issue than having science increase more slowly. In the end though, it's hard to really tell without playing. I can compare numbers to earlier Civ versions, but I can't account for new features that could make the new numbers play out well (or not) in practice.

I don't have the tech cost numbers for Civ4 off the top of my head, but they felt largely similar to Civ3 when playing. Of course if they are widely different than Civ3 in practice, that would show even more that comparing them for Civ6 is an exercise in futility.

 

[fed1943]

Quintillus: I found (discovered) it.

 

[elitetroops]

The pacing could still be another issue. I think Lemon's right to call out that the number of turns seems low - even if in that screenshot the civ being played has very high science for that 4 turns for writing, Nuclear Fusion only takes 10 times as long to research as Archery.

Don't try to read too much in that picture. First of all it's from a very old build, changes are likely. It is also a composite of images taken at different times of the game (maybe even different games) with different beaker output. It shows Archery at 8 turns and Construction at 9 turns. According to current info Construction costs 3.3 times as many beakers as Archery.

Comparing pacing to earlier games can also be a bit tricky, since there are no % modifiers. All buildings give a flat yield. It's hard to estimate how your beaker output will develop over the course of the game before seeing the full system in action.

 

[Tatran]

Don't try to read too much in that picture. First of all it's from a very old build, changes are likely.

True. Those pics were posted in June as very small thumbnails, probably because some previewers stated they were "not allowed" to show the whole tech tree.

 

[MrGrandiose]

Wait what? Slavery is no longer a thing at all in the civic tree, or does it now have the politicaly correct name of "State Work force"?? Also, what is "recorded history" in the civic tree and why does is come after things like "Drama and Poetry"... all of this historically sound soooo shallow.

 

[lymond]

Slavery wasn't in V, so I doubt it is in VI

 

[ringwraith18]

I was cautiously optimistic at first, but having watched TB's preview of it I will probably not buy it. I don't like the spread-out cities...makes Civ look like a tile-based board game with gameplay about the placement of tiles rather than strategic decisions. There are some good ideas (Civic trees) but nothing that really inspires me.

 

[karadoc]

I'm confident it will be better than Civ 5; but that isn't saying much.

 

[Kjotleik]

From watching a couple of YouTube videos of gameplay, I think Civ VI is just an improved version of Civ V.

And the problem with Civ V and VI is not that they are bad games.
The problem is that Civ IV is way better.

I'd label Civ V as a good game. And Civ VI is probably better.
But as long as Civ IV is excellent, that really doesn't matter too much.

The worst part of Civ VI (this far) seems to be the tech-boosts. You get 50% progress towards a tech for what? Using a worker (builder in Civ VI) to make three farms? How lame. And the others are not any better, as far as I can understand. Having a game-mechanic that "forces" players to NOT research a tech because it will be cheaper to go for another (that the player doesn't even need this early) is clearly bad game-design.

And, of course, the one-unit-per-tile is still in the game. Modified a bit, by having support-classes, but the basic problem is still there.

The graphics is a little too much "plastic" for my taste. Nice and clean. But too unnaturally-looking for a game simulating a planet/world.

 

[MyOtherName]

The worst part of Civ VI (this far) seems to be the tech-boosts. You get 50% progress towards a tech for what? Using a worker (builder in Civ VI) to make three farms? How lame.

I'm pretty sure the actual intent is "this tech costs you twice as much if you aren't building farms", and that it's phrased in the contrapositive for a combination of mechanical and psychological reasons. (i.e. people like getting bonuses and don't like getting penalties)

 

[Staler87]

I was cautiously optimistic at first, but having watched TB's preview of it I will probably not buy it. I don't like the spread-out cities...makes Civ look like a tile-based board game with gameplay about the placement of tiles rather than strategic decisions. There are some good ideas (Civic trees) but nothing that really inspires me.

I don't know what you consider to be strategic choices, but in my books, strategic placement of tiles is definitely one of them.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

(i.e. people like getting bonuses and don't like getting penalties)

If people can't deal with adverse effects in the game, they should either not play it, or suck it up and stop being such princesses. Adverse effects are a part of life. How you deal with them makes your life a richer experience. It's the same in-game. Dealing with adverse effects or penalties makes the game richer and makes you more involved in the outcome of your empire.

 

[MyOtherName]

I don't disagree; but given A is better than B, I don't begrudge them for presenting A as a bonus rather than presenting B as a penalty.

 

[Staler87]

I don't disagree; but given A is better than B, I don't begrudge them for presenting A as a bonus rather than presenting B as a penalty.

I've got to agree that when the gameplay effect is identical bonuses are just more fun than penalties.