ThERat
Deity
Well said. It all boils down to 1upt and the need to make everything insanely expensive (just like in Civ5). This is NOT fun.
Let's not give them ideas1UPT could actually work if you made the maps, say, 3-4x as large, gave units actual movement points (5+), and let cities expand 7 tiles wide (obv with much faster city/border growth and reworked tile yields).
Got the game and had fun for a few days but today im playing civ IV again Therefore I'm pesimistic so far. Although most of the community like 1 upt i don't. I think it changed gameplay of the civ series negatively. I got bored so easily. In fact i couldn't get the feeling of managing an empire which civ IV always give. I'm sure there will be at least 2 big expansion packs and numerous patches. So it's better to wait for a while before playing.
Many peope who didn't like the game told their reasons here. Especially diplo is like random events taking place out of your control. Luck is more important than player's abilities. UI is a joke, AI is terrible, so on.
Something i also didn't like is civilizations and leader choices. I guess some of them will be added later with expansions. But i'd like to ask where is persia, portugal, alexander, mongols, huns, netherlands, ottomans, caesar, napoleon, etc. I think this was the last time i pre ordered a civ game before release.
I've heard it suggested that the resource requirement for upgrades is getting in the way -- e.g. you can't upgrade warriors if you don't have iron.
I believe upgrading also requires only one of the resource.Even worse. I had Iron. You have to have 2 iron resources to build "Iron age" units if you don't build a certain district in your city. The same goes for horses. The trouble is in the 8 games I played, Iron and horses are rare and in most games nonexistant.
I don't think Diplo is "very much under my control" when an AI attacks me on turn 9. Which attitude bonuses should I have racked up before then? Also, hidden agendas - not much you can do about it at the beginning. In VI I definitely need to maintain somewhat of an army because declarations of war will happen. What also bothers me is that I have no incentive at all to meet new AIs. With no tech trading, the only thing I can get from them is resource trades. On the other hand, if they know me they can attack me, so I don't bother getting to know them early. Since AIs also are not good at exploring far, in 500AD I still don't know all the civs on my continent, and am perfectly happy for it to remain so.
I'm still enjoying the game a lot so far. There's one massive bug which can definitely break the game: the AI doesn't upgrade its units. It does of course produce new units which are adequate for the era, but it also has a lot of slingers, chariots and even warriors running around in 1AD instead of archers/crossbows, knights and swordsmen. Doesn't exactly add to the challenge. I'm puzzled why this is still in this game, as the devs themselves noticed it before release and it should be really easy to fix.
Good UI makes a tremendous difference in regard to how tedious micromanagement feels. The Civ 4 UI (especially with BUG mod) is informative, quick, and responsive. The Civ 6 UI... is not.One thing that really baffles me over in the Civ VI forums is how lots of people are complaining about how much micro management is needed when wide empires are encouraged. One of the biggest surprises for me was how little there is to do. Even in the later eras of a space game, with a very wide empire, there's like 10 clicks/turn. Select a few builds, move a few builders, then the end turn button already comes up. I was just as surprised every time how fast the turns went. It actually didn't really even feel like I was managing the empire, more like watching it develop with minimum input from my part. I mean, if this is too much micro management, what was Civ 5 like? Press the "win game" button, then watch your empire win?
I didn't visit CFC when Civ4 came out, but I've just browsed through the early pages of this forum and the "Strategy & Tips" subforum. The game was released on Oct 25, 2005. The earliest mention of Deity that I've come across (Nov 1):After reading that some players were able to win their first deity game of Civ6, on the first day this game was available, I wonder... how long did it take for someone to claim that he/she won a deity game of CIV?
You'd be shouted down, flamed, tarred and feathered, and tied to a horse and dragged away.I'd love to see the responses if someone started threads with these titles in the Civ6 forums.
Well, no one's praising the Civ6 AI. Many say the issues don't bother them much, it has always been bad, will soon be fixed etc., but some are really upset. The first few pages of the thread about the "braindead" AI are too funny: "abysmal", "the worst", "pretty bad", "really terrible", "a disaster", "utter garbage" ...You'd be shouted down, flamed, tarred and feathered, and tied to a horse and dragged away.
But the really funny thing is that some of the people who are now complaining are the ones who were getting snarky about anyone saying that Civ6 might have problems on release. To the point of some serious vitriol. Those of us who pointed out that Civ does not have a good track record of bug free releases were shouted down and called "haters". The same thing happened with Civ5. The amount of pre-pubescent name calling over the most trivial criticism or suggestion was ridiculous. This is a the problem with gaming forums in general. There is too much fanboyism prior to release, and even after, and it stifles any serious or intelligent discussion of the issues of the upcoming or newly released game.Well, no one's praising the Civ6 AI. Many say the issues don't bother them much, it has always been bad, will soon be fixed etc., but some are really upset. The first few pages of the thread about the "braindead" AI are too funny: "abysmal", "the worst", "pretty bad", "really terrible", "a disaster", "utter garbage" ...