Do we need Civ 6?

[Chris Hill]

There have been some comments and hints that BNW will be the last update to Civ V, especially since Firaxis usually only release 2 major updates to each version of the game.

On that basis, with BNW being released, their developers should now be starting on Civ 6. The problem is that the new version always starts as a more basic game than Civ V/G&K/BNW is. Do we, as its users, actually want that?

I think that we want Civ V developed more.

1. Fix the AI, especially diplomacy, problems
a. Provide more options to interact with them, both Civs and City States.
b. Make the AI Civs actually agree and behave to agreements they have made
c. Stop them becoming over-sensitive, especially if you are not putting any pressure on them
d. Get them to make sensible offers, not just ‘give me everything’ and no choice
e. Get them to deal with barbarians and (not) goody huts
f. Do not go overkill on units, unless needed. Difficult, since we can always step back and start building units because we know that there is an attack coming.
2. Updates to the units list. It does need some balancing as some units exist for too long before they get an upgrade, and there are some that need a later upgrade.
3. Updates to the technology list. Look at the effect in Civ IV BTS of adding multiple routes to the next technology, and the ability to completely skip out technologies that you do not need.
4. Updates to the building list. Add some new buildings, and the ability for them to be upgraded over time or technology.
5. Ensure that City expansion always grows towards a resource or allow us to specify where to grow in advance. Manually acquiring cells is useful where needed, but only works within the three cells range. Can a City get or use resources and add-ins outside of that area?
6. Ensure that Wonders which have the ability to be used by a City are actually placed where that can be done.
7. Add more functionality ideas – Commerce, Unions etc
8. More winning options – Religion (but that may be BNW through the World Conference), Commerce (based on amount of Trade), etc.
9. Rebalance the number of moves needed per technology or extend the 500 move end.
10. Make the maps larger and/or reduce the number of civs per map size (as an option?).

What do the rest of you think?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm fine with starting a more basic game. I wish Civ5 were a bit more moddable. That way, those who want to add more can do so. Civ5 is a great base for adding new stuff, but that doesn't mean I want to see them devoted to adding new stuff forever.

The point is Civ6 won't be Civ5 with more stuff, it'll be an entirely new game. I like to see each designer's take on the game and Ed Beach's attempt will be interesting too.

 

[awesome]

I don't exactly understand the question. While I agree that we may not need civ 6 right away, it will definitely be needed one day, if only because of new technology.
So, I guess my answer is "yes, but not necessarily right now."

 

[IkM]

I don't exactly understand the question. While I agree that we may not need civ 6 right away, it will definitely be needed one day, if only because of new technology.
So, I guess my answer is "yes, but not necessarily right now."

exactly this.

 

[Optional]

The Civ 5 game engine is excellent. Just look at an imitation like 'Warlock, master of the arcane' and you'll realize how good the Civ 5 engine is.
So for me the Firaxis team may keep this engine and do a few more projects with it.

Shelving it and starting on something new from scratch already at this point would be a waste in my opinion.

We've been told Brave New World will be the last big expansion, but the tweaks to Civ 5 that have been mentioned in the opening post are by no means impossible. The problem is that the current developers are making so many mistakes, and their attempts at fixes often leads to new mistakes (example: Composite Bow, meant to fill a gap in ranged, led to disbalance with mounted/melee).
Before Gods & Kings this forum was very critical of the game, but religion is the opium of the people, as Karl Marx already noted, so we're happy now, but many inadequacies of the game have not been addressed.
Maybe we're not interested in a decent Civ 5, we're just interested in whether Albrecht Dürer will be an artist included in Brave New World or not, so roll on the next featurette!
Hopefully some of us will keep reminding the developers where they went wrong, including posting bug reports; the Firaxis team does seem to appreciate that kind of feedback.

 

[Windsor]

Yes, we need Civ6. I'm tired of Civ4.

 

[Louis XXIV]

What makes you think you'll like Civ6 if you don't like Civ5?

 

[Windsor]

What makes you think you'll like Civ6 if you don't like Civ5?

Except from Civ1->Civ2 all Civ games have been quite different from each other. That gives me reason to believe that Civ6 will not be Civ5.5

 

[SnowKomodo]

BNW will ignite plenty of replay value for Civ 5 but other than that I think they should start fresh and begin planning Civ 6 whenever they are ready. I just think Civ 6 could be a home run based off of what they learned didn't work on 5. Love Civ 5 though. Haven't regularly played a video game in years till Civ 5

 

[Chris Hill]

Having looked through the latest videos for BNW, I would be concerned that a Civ 6 would step back too far. If it did, I would probably wait until the first expansion came out, as I did with Civ 3.

Effectively, Civ 5 + G&K + BNW is actually Civ 5.5, rather than 5.2.

 

[SnowKomodo]

Effectively, Civ 5 + G&K + BNW is actually Civ 5.5, rather than 5.2.

Pretty much this

 

[Irkalla]

The fact is, content has already made much progress in making the shift from being a product to a service. We pay 30 bucks every few months, and we get to partake in more of this service.

Making another foray into the series just doesn't make sense at this point. Not with where the industry is at the moment, anyway.

 

[Glassmage]

No more civ. Make Alpha Centauri.

 

[Babri]

I don't exactly understand the question. While I agree that we may not need civ 6 right away, it will definitely be needed one day, if only because of new technology.
So, I guess my answer is "yes, but not necessarily right now."

This.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I don't exactly understand the question. While I agree that we may not need civ 6 right away, it will definitely be needed one day, if only because of new technology.
So, I guess my answer is "yes, but not necessarily right now."

Precisely, I think this question is tied up to technology : for example, I had to buy a new computer for Civ5, I did it because my old one was 4 years old and that i wanted to be able to play other more modern games as well. My current computer is going towards its 3 years old now, no doubt that if Firaxis start to work on Civ6 right after the release of BNW, the key age of my computer will be reached before the release of Civ6, which would give me an appreciable gain of time /money.
However, for people that want to keep their machines longer, they surely want Civ5 to be continued.
Because, with the current generation consoles having their life greatly expanded lately, I see games still coming into PC (with average / low specs) next years. Not to mention the power of next gen consoles, setback. So I think top-end PC specs will less likely be a must have. Not to mention the low price of next gen consoles, far lower than a new average PC. So people will be less likely to buy a new PC for other games.
It comes to my mind that except Civ5, I played only console ports on PC with my PC. It is to say that I could have bought a console instead, or that i bought my PC only for Civ5. Yes, I bought my Pc only for Civ5. And I may buy another one only for Civ6 too. I believe it's not the case of everybody.

 

[phos_hilaron]

"4. Updates to the building list. Add some new buildings, and the ability for them to be upgraded over time or technology."

It's always bothered me that in 2000AD my citizens are using an ancient Shrine and Colosseum.

this in particular is fantastic...however, I would like to say that most (if not all) of the points listed as "reasons for civ 6" can either be fixed (BNW - diplomacy and culture overhaul).

Civ IV was entirely different after BtS. I expect Civ V will be entirely different as well.

 

[azzaman333]

We need Civ 6 as much as we needed Civ 5 after BtS, and as much as we needed Civ 4 after C3C.

 

[78stonewobble]

Well as others said. Maybe not right now, but "soon".

Personally I'd love to see a good diplomatic AI in a strategy game soon. Maybe that's not possible with civ5 and needs a new foundation? But what do I know.

Empire Total War received alot of upgrades to it's diplomatic AI, but it's still kind of meh and I kinda think the same of civ5's.

They're adequate enough to not totally ruin immersion, but they're not smart enough to help immerse yourself in the games. :S

PS: Obviously battle ai could improve as well, but it feels more adequate to me though.

 

[Agravesx]

Not right now, there is a lot that needs to be fixed, and there's a lot of room for improvement. Later down the road, sure, but not right away.

 

[civ54lyfe]

I want to see a developer get rights to Civilation6 at precisely this point: When someone figures out to either drastically improve turn times, and/or drastically improve AI to the point where "difficulty level" is no longer based solely on resource bonuses, but actually based on AI logic.


Until that time period, they might as well keep sprucing up Civ5.