Game has no point

jjkrause84

King
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
959
Location
UK
Well, I'm about to finish my first game of Civ 6...a conquest victory with France. While many of the annoyances from Civ 5 are gone I feel like the ethos of the game is identical. You can do, or not do, whatever you want...lazily clicking enter for a few hundred turns and then you win. I was only on Prince, so I'll try harder difficulties next, but most of the CPU Civs founded no more than 2-3 cities, they didn't tech very well. No one ever seemed to build any wonders. Higher difficulties will help the cpu cheat better....but it is very unlikely to make them play the game better.

VI has that same thing V did where production times seem all over the shop. Some things are really fast (perhaps faster than they should be), while fairly routine buildings or districts take absolutely ages to complete. Wonders are deeply underwhelming (same as in Civ 5...perhaps worse), and the pointless lack of map trading (at least I couldn't find it anywhere) means you'll most often win without ever seeing the full map revealed. Why is that supposed to be fun? The tech and civics trees are both incredibly boring, just as they were in Civ 5. I never felt like I 'needed', or even 'wanted', the vast majority of techs. I was researching purely because the game forces you to do so. So radically different compared to the frenetic pace of Civ 4. Sure you could found cities or expand militarily....but you don't have to. It won't make any appreciable difference in the long run. Same thing with tech development, great people (who tend to be very under-powered), etc. I don't think I improved a single non-resource tile in the game. No need.

Overall I'm having fun (believe it or not), and I think the game has some really interesting ideas (districts, governments). On a fundamental level, however, the game remains shallow and far too easy. It's just like BNW: tonnes of fluff desperately trying to distract you from the fact that none of it really matters and you can win the game whenever you feel like it by building 3 siege units and 4-5 melee units and conquering the world.
 
New games shouldn't be compared to Civ4. It's an utterly unfair comparison. Like Enrico Caruso compared to Justin Bieber or something. :crazyeye: This feels more interesting than Civ5 thought.
 
I was only on Prince, so I'll try harder difficulties next, but most of the CPU Civs founded no more than 2-3 cities, they didn't tech very well. No one ever seemed to build any wonders. Higher difficulties will help the cpu cheat better....but it is very unlikely to make them play the game better.

That's weird. I played a game with Sumeria in a large continents map with prince difficulty and my experience is practically the opposite as yours.

AI Civs founding an average of 6-8 cities (except China that was invaded by Sparta...). Norway and Sparta behaved in a really expansionist manner.

India particularly created a lot of wonders. The others an average of 2-4.

And they all tech quite well (practically they are always in the same era as me, or a little behind, and with more or less the same techs).

My only concern is that seems that most AI never seem to be happy due to their agendas, and they don't seem to be as warmongers as in Civ V. As far as I remember there were only few wars Athens vs Scythia, Norway vs Rome, Egypt vs Scythia, Sparta vs China...
 
i'm definitely getting the same civ5 feeling of the map playing itself and nothing really mattering rather than civ4 where i felt like i chose how to grow my empire

like you could spend the entire civ6 game just following quests and boosts without making any decisions and it'll be fine
 
The AI did mess up my game a few times by making an early rush, with 6 or so Warriors... But I quit not because they could defeat me, but because their milling around my city with their clueless horde would deal a deadly blow to my economic development. You might call that a job well done, but you'd be neglecting the fact that those units were more than enough to take my lone city, had they been able to use them more proficiently.

I'm glad I created a multiplayer group in advance of the game's release. We'll have things up and running by the next weekend I'd hope... Even if the games are meant to be less cut-throat than regular mp, hopefully when war does occur, it will prove more interesting than battering the poor saps of the AI. I guess those Warriors clubbed each other over the head one too many times while they were drilling for the big invasion! :D
 
>You can do, or not do, whatever you want...lazily clicking enter for a few hundred turns and then you win. I was only on Prince

:stupid:

Noble in Civ 4 was the same level. You couldn't just turtle...the computer would over-run you and out-tech you if you tried. While obviously it was easier than other levels you still had to try to win.

Harder difficulty levels will help the computer cheat better, but that won't make up for fundamentally poor play.
 
Try King. I'm playing on this difficulty and AI is quite on par with my progress. Kongo has conquested La-Venta and founded another 3 or even 4 cities + capital. AI is building wonders, but not too agressively, so I have appropriate competition. They grab great people I didn't acquired yet and build units. So far I'm not disappointed. My main issues are UI, city&info screens and animations. I think next time I turn fast movement and combat on.
 
It also seems as if there's a bug with the AI where they sometimes build next to no units, no matter the difficulty. Other times they will spam War Carts or Chariots like there's no tomorrow. Could explain the disparate reports we're hearing about AI performance from different people.
 
The AI did mess up my game a few times by making an early rush, with 6 or so Warriors... But I quit not because they could defeat me, but because their milling around my city with their clueless horde would deal a deadly blow to my economic development. You might call that a job well done, but you'd be neglecting the fact that those units were more than enough to take my lone city, had they been able to use them more proficiently.

Perhaps you did quit too soon. I had a similar situation (a mindless warrior rush) and they didn't even try to pillage my improvements. Two archers was enough to kili every attacker with zero losses.
 
i'm definitely getting the same civ5 feeling of the map playing itself and nothing really mattering rather than civ4 where i felt like i chose how to grow my empire

like you could spend the entire civ6 game just following quests and boosts without making any decisions and it'll be fine

I've only just started but this is my big concern from what I've seen so far - the map tells you what to do. While you say that feels like Civ V to you, I never had that sense at all from that game. The boosts you got from quests were resource boosts you could plow into anything you need to fit what you're already doing, and if one city state quest didn't fit what you were doing (such as wanting you to attack a civ you weren't at war with or building a wonder you didn't want), you could choose a different quest, choose a different city state (as they didn't have state-specific bonuses, except for some militaristic states), or gain influence through espionage.

Civ VI from the little I've seen so far (though I have yet to get to systems like espionage) only gives you one way to achieve each of its bonuses - city-states give one quest at a time, there's a single specific way to get each eureka etc. - which seems the antithesis of strategic diversity.
 
how is this a troll topic? I am very discouraged by this OP, and annoyed by someones response "you cant compare this to civ 4" NO??? WHY NOT? lol, its freagin civilization, I thought it would be better than 4...
 
On a fundamental level, however, the game remains shallow and far too easy. It's just like BNW: tonnes of fluff desperately trying to distract you from the fact that none of it really matters and you can win the game whenever you feel like it by building 3 siege units and 4-5 melee units and conquering the world.

Unsure if serious. If the game is too easy, play on a higher difficulty. That is the reason there are different difficulty levels.
 
LOL.

On Noble in Civ4, I literally turtle up and win, every single time. AI's so bad that you can get nearly every Wonder and every tech ahead of everyone. And then choose how to win at any time. Noble? Really?
 
I sincerely believe that Civ4 fanatics should just stick with Civ4 despite how flawed and boring that was to play. Let the rest enjoy, learn and improve the much better Civ5 and Civ6 versions.
 
I started a game on King, got off to a good start, felt like things were coming a little too easy. So, I started a game on Emperor and I definitely noted a difference. Lots more aggression and early expansion from the AI.

India conquered a city state right next to me while I was still researching bronze working. A few turns later I got a message that a far away civilization had been destroyed. France and Rome (my other neighbors) already had their second city planted. And there were 3 barbarian villages with troops wandering around causing me problems.

Not sure if I just got lucky on the first start and unlucky on the second start, but it seemed like a big difference in terms of game play. I'm looking forward to getting some more play time in tonight, perhaps I'll have more to say.
 
I sincerely believe that Civ4 fanatics should just stick with Civ4 despite how flawed and boring that was to play. Let the rest enjoy, learn and improve the much better Civ5 and Civ6 versions.

Boring? This is what Civ was, 2-4 for me... 5 was a watered down version of the old ones IMO, focused on pretty graphics, but no depth
 
game is amazing however diplomacy is just awefull gets angry at everything. and warmonger penalty is way to high.
 
Top Bottom