clapyourhands
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
- Messages
- 422
While Civ is definitely an open-ended sort of game where any path to victory is at least theoretically possible, each civilization tends to have a "gameplay fantasy" based on their historic context that their uniques are tailored to (ie: what their previews and First Looks might suggest as a way to play them). From V for instance, Spain is encouraged to explore the world for wonders and riches and then spread its religion overseas, while America leans towards early-game scouting and expansion, leading to late-game warfare. These certainly aren't the only ways to play them, but it seems to be the general idea their unique features seem to be pushing them towards.
For VI, the most obvious of these is Scythia--rush down your enemies with horse units. Rome also seems to fulfill the general idea of what the Roman empire entails as well, encouraging expansion while maintaining admirable city infrastructure. When comparing VI to V, for some civs the game seems to be opting to fulfill a different aspect of the civilization's historical significance than its predecessor. England, for instance, focuses on museums in it's civilization ability over naval warfare (though its units are still focused similarly). The Aztecs shifted from gaining Culture from war to gaining production indirectly via their Eagle Warriors (turning them into Builders, which can be expended). In both of these cases, I personally thought that the Civ V implementations better fit with the general idea of playing as the English or the Aztecs. It's not necessarily that the abilities in V were better for gameplay, just that they seemed to better capture the essence of the civs. This isn't to say that British archaeology or Aztec construction isn't interesting, but just that they don't hold up as well as the focal point for each civilization compared to naval supremacy for the British or sacrificial warfare for the Aztecs.
On the flip side, I thought Civ VI implemented Russia a lot better, at least on paper. Though both of them focus around grabbing large swathes of often-undesirable (until strategic resources are revealed) land and bolstering production in one way or another, I thought VI was more streamlined in how they did it. Instead of providing bonuses to the resources and nudging the player to settle barren terrain because of the resources to take advantage of them as in V, VI provides bonuses to the terrain itself, with the resources coming along with it. The extra land being bundled in with its UA and made immediate rather than gradual as a UB's passive effect also makes it seem more impactful. It's largely the same gameplay-wise, but the logic behind it is a lot more intuitive.
What civs do you guys think live up to their gameplay fantasies? Which improved on their implementations in previous games, and which didn't quite meet them as well?
For VI, the most obvious of these is Scythia--rush down your enemies with horse units. Rome also seems to fulfill the general idea of what the Roman empire entails as well, encouraging expansion while maintaining admirable city infrastructure. When comparing VI to V, for some civs the game seems to be opting to fulfill a different aspect of the civilization's historical significance than its predecessor. England, for instance, focuses on museums in it's civilization ability over naval warfare (though its units are still focused similarly). The Aztecs shifted from gaining Culture from war to gaining production indirectly via their Eagle Warriors (turning them into Builders, which can be expended). In both of these cases, I personally thought that the Civ V implementations better fit with the general idea of playing as the English or the Aztecs. It's not necessarily that the abilities in V were better for gameplay, just that they seemed to better capture the essence of the civs. This isn't to say that British archaeology or Aztec construction isn't interesting, but just that they don't hold up as well as the focal point for each civilization compared to naval supremacy for the British or sacrificial warfare for the Aztecs.
On the flip side, I thought Civ VI implemented Russia a lot better, at least on paper. Though both of them focus around grabbing large swathes of often-undesirable (until strategic resources are revealed) land and bolstering production in one way or another, I thought VI was more streamlined in how they did it. Instead of providing bonuses to the resources and nudging the player to settle barren terrain because of the resources to take advantage of them as in V, VI provides bonuses to the terrain itself, with the resources coming along with it. The extra land being bundled in with its UA and made immediate rather than gradual as a UB's passive effect also makes it seem more impactful. It's largely the same gameplay-wise, but the logic behind it is a lot more intuitive.
What civs do you guys think live up to their gameplay fantasies? Which improved on their implementations in previous games, and which didn't quite meet them as well?
