Fall of Civilization - golden and dark ages.

[Victoria]

What was the point of the picture anyway? Just to make the game look bad?

This happened before, the Anti 1UPT brigade were touting a screenshot of the AI having spammed 50 helicopters until I pointed out that they were playing as Gorgo and they were their own helicopters.... duh!
If someone is gonna lie and cheat they could at least use firetuner and make it look real.
All these people are just bitter because the game does not fit their dream. As Jesus said you cannot please everyone.

 

[Karpius]

I'm still waiting for the OP to tell us why they feel it is so important to 'educate' us all.

And I really DID love the screenshot! It looks like puppy heaven! And there was just soooooo much gold, faith, culture and science amassed by turn - what was it? - turn 311!

@IntoTheSky , I hope you release plenty of helpful youtube videos so that I too can learn how to play mindlessly.

 

[blackbutterfly]

I did worry at first that adding districts would make Civ just another Sim City game, but I think they've avoided that pretty.clearly...

No, it's not districts. Many things are better: traders, espionage, 1-tile wonders, many civs (Indonesia, The Mongols, The Aztecs, Brazil, Rome, China, India) are better than in Civ V, maps, etc.

It's like the Transformers movies. They improved the special effects/CGI, got better voice actors (like Ken Wantabe and John Goodman) to bring characters to life but IMO the films declined after series high Dark of The Moon. Somehow subsequent films were soulless and over ambitious, trying to pack too much into a single film like The Last Knight. They needed to take just one of those elements (like the 3-headed dragon combiner) and make it the main protagonist

Civ VI+R&F has too many systems competing for your attention and IMO many just interfere with gameplay. It's lost the plot somewhat. (Also AI gets dumber with more complexity).

 

[Victoria]

It's lost the plot somewhat.

The beginning of the game is not so dull but after T100 each turn just means so much work. I may start playing taller just to avoid it, ironically a good reason to play tall.

 

[Jackanape]

I'd like to hear how that works out for you. I recently played a game as Scotland with only six cities, and it wasn't as bad as it tends to be, because I could focus on development. I wonder just how few cities you can pull off in tall play...?

 

[Victoria]

I wonder just how few cities you can pull off in tall play...?

I have played a bit, certainly more in the early days.
There are people that beat deity with one city... a VC's have been done but that seems to be awesome start maps that have some nice happenings.
I certainly find 10 good enough and 4-5 insteresting. 3-2 is challengingand 1 is worth doing to understand its such a different style of playing and different civ's are top dog at it. Just play on prince and work up jumping levels if you find it too easy.
Its certainly a way to be challenged.
So I guess I've already done the style and just goin back to it because its a faster game too.

 

[earlc]

What are u talking about?
I never said I don't like "becouse it's not exactly like history"
What a foolish argument this is, dont put words in my mouth again.

I just pointed out, that it is anti-historical, i pointed on one single nonsence in this game.

You missed the point. Firaxis is making a game, not a documentary about the history of civilization. Know why your particular narrative of a "dark age" isn't in the game? Because it's a terrible gameplay concept. The loyalty loss and the policy cards are perfectly acceptable representations of various dark periods in various civ's histories. But apparently that's all "nonsense", because there isn't a policy card to have a bubonic plague released within your borders. Pure pedantic whinge.

Really, Im on your side and its strange that so many "fanatics" on this forum are just satisfied with very poor quality they recieved.

BASIC nonsences in this game make it poor. Ages are just 0,5 % of this problem.

It's not that other people are stupid and don't see any of the game's faults (real or imagined), it's that they find other things about the game enjoyable and more worthy of discussion than just rattling on about the same thing over and over.

"there are 1000 problems, but they are fixing it"
maybe, if this forum was more critical Firaxis would have fired bald guy , "cool girl" and AI guy?
O , they really deserve it.

First, this forum has seen more than its fair share of criticism, and it's all very repetitive aside from the small handful of insightful posts. And I'm not sure you understand how anything in the game industry works. People whining on a forum cuz a game "they love" isn't perfectly to their liking certainly isn't going to get people fired. But they actually have responded to various complaints with things that are actually doable, without thousands of hours of work.

Like you're apparently very upset over the game, yet you bought rise and fall anyway? Gee, that's teaching them...

 

[Jackanape]

I have played a bit, certainly more in the early days.
There are people that beat deity with one city... a VC's have been done but that seems to be awesome start maps that have some nice happenings.
I certainly find 10 good enough and 4-5 insteresting. 3-2 is challengingand 1 is worth doing to understand its such a different style of playing and different civ's are top dog at it. Just play on prince and work up jumping levels if you find it too easy.
Its certainly a way to be challenged.
So I guess I've already done the style and just goin back to it because its a faster game too.

That's some great food for thought. I always end up--well most always--getting fristrated with my.opponents and taking cities as a result. This one time, I didn't, and it was a fun exercise.

I'm in the middle of a laurato game now, so that's right out, but maybe that could work with my next game: the Netherlands? Will give it a try...

 

[Duuk]

You know, why is it always the people that think Civ5 was a great game that come here to bash 6? I can tell you that many, many people think 5 was a steaming pile of manure from an empire-building-game standpoint. "Build 4cities. Click buttons. Win." is boring. See, I, too can review a game. Your mileage may vary.

 

[PeterChu]

In one sense, I do think Empire: Total War (or perhaps HOI 3?) would be a better choice for domination-VC-only players than CIv 6. Still, even Total War veterans complained about the AI system too.

Otherwise, Civ 6 MP games among domination-VC-only players might be another alternative. I could imagine these players would agree with each other that things like CB, warmonger penalty, loyalty, Golden\Dark ages, emergency, governor and so on are stupid game designs, and are not essential for their competitive gaming experience. Even the districts system as a whole could simply be another 'micromanagement' diverted from the core of their gaming experience. Another stupid thing in short.

And I would be of interests to watch such game. How do the human players believing that you do not need to build anything other than military units (since other Civs would build for you) play with each other, in the context without any AI civ to exploit? That's a good fighting worthy of being watched I suppose.

After all, I would agree with the CIv 6 in-game text: the domination VC is the easiest one to get in the Civ game. For the single player Civ game this might indeed be the case.

 

[CivLuvah]

why is it always the people that think Civ5 was a great game that come here to bash 6?

They can't move on? I know I certainly did... from Civ4.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Then why does the game have different units and different buildings and different districts and different wonders if you are not supposed to build any of them?

The OP clearly has districts in his cities as per the picture.
He also states he only plays domination victory only, so of course there would be no need for him to collect great works, found a religion, or colonize mars in the first place which is why he thinks it is just a purely domination game.

OP you did not win a deity game with scouts, you posted a picture that shows you had knights and field cannon and filled in the gaps with scouts.

You forgot the one Winged Hussar in the picture.

 

[Victoria]

You forgot the one Winged Hussar in the picture.

Yeah, they will never get to heaven on that

 

[killmeplease]

Well, for example, we had a Plague in Europe DURING "Dark ages"

nope
the "black death" belongs to the late medieval period
while dark ages span from 5th to 10th centuries ad
they had their own plague though (justinian's plague of 541-542)

 

[Arent11]

21'th century is an age of stupidity so far.
Movies are boring, culture is ruined, art is dead.

Oh, come on, Satellite Reign is a very nice game. The "your Name" Anime movie was nice. The Lord of the Rings movies were fine as well. Deviantart & Artstation is brimming with cool art of freelance artists. The problem is the sheer flood of movies, art & culture, which means you have to search a little until you find the gems.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I know that Firaxis is hesitant to add negative gameplay mechanics that would punish the player, but I feel like dark ages are too nice. I would suggest Dark Ages give the player a 25% reduction in science and culture and Heroic Ages give a 50% boost in science and culture to compensate.

 

[Ozymandias9891]

You know, why is it always the people that think Civ5 was a great game that come here to bash 6?

I love Civ V and the expansions that were released for it. Add to that the different mods, especially Vox Populi, and to me, that was the peak of the Civ games. HOWEVER, I have not touched Civ V since VI came out, and I find myself loving VI even more than V with each game I play - and this is just through one expansion. Yes, there are some kinks that need ironing out (and that will come with time), but there is also so much untapped potential and depth with this game, and I'm looking forward to what's coming up in terms of patches, DLC, and further expansion. I find that VI is such a fresh take on the entire franchise - I could never imagine bashing it, even though I'm a huge V lover. I feel that once development on VI is complete and the modders have done their thing, VI will be the new peak. But that's just my two cents.

 

[pgm123]

I agree that the Dark Age in Civ is not a simulation of a real Dark age but I don't think it's meant to be, we are dealing with a game after all.

That's ok. The Dark Ages were a fake thing made up by Early Modern People anyway.

 

[racha]

I know that Firaxis is hesitant to add negative gameplay mechanics that would punish the player, but I feel like dark ages are too nice. I would suggest Dark Ages give the player a 25% reduction in science and culture and Heroic Ages give a 50% boost in science and culture to compensate.

That sounds good. TBH, I find that dark ages don't really affect me at all. I'd also like to figure out a way to mod golden ages to give 2 devotions as they feel underwhelming. Maybe Firaxis has plans for a future expansion in this regard.

 

[Disgustipated]

Wow, just noticed this thread. <snip> Civ1 and civ2 were stupidly simple games that lack the complexity of civ 4 and 6. Omg, just build howitzers and just faceroll on enemy railroads to victory. Anyone claiming civ1 was the golden age is full of it. If anything it was civ4 which came out in... Wait for it... The 21st century full of us dummies.

Moderator Action: Removed accusation of trolling. As a reminder, to accuse someone of trolling is itself trolling under our rules. -- Browd
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889