1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

How do I get into this game?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by InDubioProReo, Dec 12, 2017.

  1. InDubioProReo

    InDubioProReo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    205
    Coming off from 1720 hours of Civ 5, I was extremely excited for Civ 6. I preordered it in fact. However, when it released it really failed to grab me as Civ 5 did.

    Mostly because for the past year I've been so into WoW Legion perhaps. On the other hand, there were immediately things that made it hard for me to get into the game. Firstly, the graphics. The game looks way too colourful and also somewhat like I'm looking at a watercolour painting. Everything looks blurry to me. This really made it difficult to get into the game. I still have difficulty telling apart fog of war and real map, cant distinguish anything in areas under fog of war.

    Secondly, the tech three, policy cards, all the mechanics seem entirely different to me. Now, I really enjoy that period where one discovers and learns a new game . However, I seem to have so much Civ V engrained to my brain that I cannot let go of the past. I still try to do 3-5 city setups, and I keep reading constant expansion is best in this game. I have nothing against expanding but I enjoyed the Tall v. Wide dynamic in V, although Tall was favored Wide could work really well in right circumstances. In this game it feels like going Tall is suicide. I really enjoyed playing Tall and not much Wide, so not sure how I'll get used to this.

    Still, I wanna get into this game because I love Civilization series since Civ 2. I would reall like general advice on how to approach this game, build orders or maybe quick tips? Thanks in advance.
     
    ZubieMaster likes this.
  2. Frostburn

    Frostburn Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    77
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NYC
    I agree with you on the art style, and I really don't like the fog of war, I much preferred V's. And while I think the graphics are generally nice, i would have preferred a bit more drab myself.
     
  3. Leyrann

    Leyrann Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    2,821
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    The graphics are something you very much get used to, and once you do, they're absolutely beautiful. I play with grid and resource icons off and the only thing that annoys me is that I can vaguely recognize that the map is divided in hexes. (which really is a good thing gameplay-wise)

    As for Tall vs Wide, your problems are solved once you look at this game like you look at Civ II, III and IV instead of V. The tech tree, policy cards etc will just take some getting used to.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  4. Mr Jon of Cheam

    Mr Jon of Cheam Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    182
    You just have to let go! :)

    Regarding the build order, personally I think you should still start with at least one scout, it's important to find good city locations for all that lovely expanding, more important than V. I normally build a slinger after that and a builder third if I'm not facing major barb issues.

    The graphics are beautiful, I can see they may not be to everyone's tastes but you shouldn't let them put you off.
     
  5. empresskiova

    empresskiova Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2017
    Messages:
    158
    Gender:
    Male
    I haven’t played Civ 5, so all I’ve seen are screenshots. I think that game is as ugly as sin, but I like colorful screens lol.

    Imo, the easiest way to get into the game is to turn down the difficulty, and do whatever you want. Push buttons, pull levers and just have fun with it. Don’t be afraid to expand early, even if you want to eat an AI. Once you’ve gotten the mechanics down, then you can try improving your game.
     
    nzcamel and CPWimmer like this.
  6. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,769
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    It seems those really into Civ5 don't really like Civ6. It's possible you may never get into the game. As a side note, I could never get into WOW legion, I felt it was the worst expansion pack for that game. Or maybe I'm just bored of all new content for that game, the game is getting bloated with too many things to do. So it's possible people just have different tastes. I absolutely love Civ6. I love that you can conquer the world, though it does make it too easy, but I like having that flexibility. It has the fun factor of Civ2 in that regard.

    There are a lot of interesting mechanics in this game, they don't always work as well as we could hope, but I like the mechanics regardless. It's possible this is the most complex Civ game, of course it's also the easiest as I think the complexity is too much for the AI. I would like to see more builder improvements though, but I doubt we'll ever get into Civ4 number if improvements.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  7. Sascha77

    Sascha77 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    306
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    I'll probably catch some flak for saying this, but:

    I hear you and my theory is that VI was so flawed upon release that, once the novelty wore off, it made me go back to the much more well-rounded game of Civ V. Or to the, IMO, more challenging Civ IV.

    The expansions for V were truly great and elevated that game to new levels. In comparison, Vanilla VI felt like taking a serious step back. Especially since the difference in look/presentation between V and VI isn't nearly as pronounced as the difference between IV and V.

    I also never quite got the same feeling from VI that I got from IV and V. In the two older games, making decisions re research, citiy-production-/building or government felt much more profound for some reason. In VI I more or less always feel like I'm simply rushing through the tech/-civics-tree. I never had these "this game is at a crossroads now and my decision(s) this turn will impact the future of my empire for a long time"-moments in VI, while they were pretty common in IV and V.

    I'm probably doing the developers a serious injustice, but VI strikes me as a game where too much emphasis was put on presentation, graphics and sound .- and not enough on gameplay and creating the proverbial "just ... one ... more ... turn"-feeling I expect from a Civ-game.
    It also didn't help that the AI seemed even dumber and more confused by 1UPT than it was in V.

    To answer your question though: I'm hoping for some significant changes with R&F that will turn this game around for me. I'll definitely buy the expansion. Like I said in another thread: I'm hoping that R&F will have as much of a positive impact on VI as G&K/BNW had on Civ V.
    Other than that: Perhaps watch some Let's Plays on YT for inspiration/general strategies/to get into the mood. I like quill18's streams, even though he sometimes sounds like an excommunicated Trapist-monk on coke ... :D


    E.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2017
  8. criZp

    criZp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    454
    Location:
    Nidaros, Norway
    The graphics are fine. Not realistic, but certainly clear, with exception of the "fog" areas. If you wanna go "tall" then go for a civ that has some improvement or building that gives more housing, that's the biggest limit to growth. Amenities matter, but not as much. If someone is overexpanding then you can always just band together a couple units and go raze some cities, as a city without a wall or garrison is ez pz.
     
    CPWimmer likes this.
  9. trev1972

    trev1972 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    154
    Civ IV was always my fave civ iteration and i didnt get into 5. I kind of stopped playing 5 before the expansions came out so dont know if i missed a fab finished product.

    So far ive found 6 decent enough, im not a fan of the graphics mostly because i really struggle to distinguish between terrain (has that rainforest got a hill or not!), and hate the 'fog'... also i dont like the compulsory animations from the ai chastising me constantly late game. The map generator seems limited too, and diplomacy seems a step back.

    However i do like districts etc, and ive clocked up a fair few hours and games. And the expansion ideas sound fun

    As to how to get into the game, id suggest picking a civ with a good early UU and having an early warmongering session. Everyone raves about scythia and sumeria etc but i found rome had an incredibly strong start as a civ with a great UU and found it very easy to get off to a flying start..
     
    ZubieMaster likes this.
  10. CPWimmer

    CPWimmer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    368
    What difficulty level do you mostly play in Civ 5?
    This would help answer some of your questions or concerns, or specific issues you will face.

    As others have said, you generally get used to the graphics. My one tip for Fog of War vs. Undiscovered Territory is to play with yields "ON". This makes it easy to see where you have been (it has a yeild value) and places you haven't been to at all (no yield value). It also helps you determine at a glance what terrain it is, once you understand which terrains provide what standard yields.

    Tall vs. Wide was a false choice in Civ V. Tall was always ideal. You could play Wide, but it wasn't "best". The reverse is mostly true in Civ VI. There is still a choice, except the optimal choice is now (almost?) always Wider vs. Tall. However, to play tall in Civ VI, which can 100% be done and win you games, you should (as others have pointed out) choose a Civ that excels at that. Housing bonuses are probably the biggest thing to factor into that decision. Tall in VI isn't any more suicide than wide was in V. You may need to play one or two levels of difficulty down from your normal sweet spot, to accommodate this, however. The one thing you probably can't do playing Tall in Civ VI is wonder grab. You do need to have available tile space to place your wonders.

    • First tip, play at a low level to begin with and just poke around at things. Have fun and relax!
    • Second tip, pay attention to the way movement and terrain has changed. Rivers, hills, etc, work very different in V vs. VI.
    • Third tip, beware early barbarians. Especially horses. If you are unprepared you can get impacted early on and play from behind (or simply loose outright) in the first 20 turns or so. I am often a slinger+slinger first build kind of player, but that's not always needed.
    • Fourth tip, religion is often a trap - unless you truly focus on a religious victory.
    • Fifth tip, if playing for a culture win - focus on Archaeology over Art
    • Sixth tip, you can build ships in a non-coast adjacent city if you have a harbor. In many cases this is better than settling directly on the coast, but it can depend on a lot of factors
    • Seventh tip, you need a lot of production for the "Science" victory - trade routes can really help spike production in a small number of your cities.
    • Final tip, Frigates can be super powerful vs. coastal cities and battleships are just broken against current AI.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2017
  11. bbbt

    bbbt Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,179
    Well Civ in general tends to significantly rework a lot of it's mechanics from version to version. It's one of the things that - imho - has kept it fresh and so long lasting (it's not just the same game with different graphics each time).

    But it basically means it's a new game that you have to relearn each time (something that's harder for me personally if I was playing the previous version right up until the new version). Especially if you are someone who wants to play with specific strategies.

    When people say 'tall' isn't viable to play in 6 like in 5, that basically just means tall isn't as easy at keeping up with the AI's bonuses on higher levels. I.e. You can win on prince with 3-5 cities no problem.
     
  12. agonistes

    agonistes wants his subs under ice!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,832
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vermont
    I had no problem getting into the game. I went back and forth between III and V quite a bit, but haven't played either since VI came out. 2 minutes in I knew it was the game for me. Ed and I are like this: "X".

    Those are fingers.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  13. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,586
    Gender:
    Male
    Civ 6's tech tree is actually pretty simple And in some ways this is a good thing. But you do have to contend with the civics tree.

    Tall vs Wide is pretty much exclusively a Civ 5 concept. Previous iterations were more about speed of expansion, where a small and compact empire would build up an edge to grow later somehow. Though admittingly, Civ 6 with its lack of brakes on expansion can lead to a lot of late game tedium.

    I also agree it's sometimes hard to tell stuff apart.

    For the most part though, the basics aren't that different. You want to focus on science and trade and form a strong base. The only thing you have to consider is just how to grow bigger (or maybe stop other people from growing bigger). Also upgrade units, they're not too expensive in this game.
     
  14. InDubioProReo

    InDubioProReo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    205
    I was playing at Deity level a couple years ago. Won on all victory conditions on Deity.
     
  15. Josephias

    Josephias Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    448
    To be sincere, I never got really into Civ V until Brave New World... after Civ IV, vanilla felt bland and G+K improved it a bit, but it still was missing a something. For Civ VI it feels the same after BNW: i enjoy the new game features, but at the same time, I think it is missing to be perfect.

    I am a "old" video gamer now, and I've accepted it takes me time to get used, and it takes time for the games to offer full potential, so I am not very much annoyed about this. I don't remember if the sensation was the same when switching Civ III to IV (and due to old-new computers in different houses it has been for a while that there is a 1-2 years interim in which I play both games since Civ III), in any case I think it took me time to get used to Civ IV "modern" interface and unit icons (and to the fact there was no city view)...

    So I'll go by Mr Jon advice: take small targets - test this feature, this other one,... do not feel obligued to end every game you start, start to get used to the new mechanics, then you may be caught up with more ambitious goals, or you whill have made time for new features to arrive that will complete the game.
     
    ChocolateShake likes this.
  16. CPWimmer

    CPWimmer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    368
    I'll be honest, you might not enjoy Civ 6 then, at least not yet. For most Civ V deity vets, 6 doesn't offer the same challenge level as V at this time. There are still expansions and other patches over the upcoming years that I feel will probably bring it up to that level - but be warned, if that challenge is what you are looking for, you might not get the same level of satisfaction (yet).

    Personally, I do enjoy Civ 6, a lot, but I only dabbled at Deity in 5. I won comfortably at other levels, and don't mind that the AI still has some idiot moments in 6. The AI is better than it was at launch, but still has a lot of work left to be performed on it. While the gameplay and various system concepts are more advanced in 6 than they are in Civ V (excluding diplomacy) Civ V was a more "complete" and "polished" finished product.
     
  17. Usama84

    Usama84 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    80
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mississauga, Ontario
    I keep trying to play this game, but I just can't enjoy it. I played 2, 3 and 4 for thousands of hours, but skipped 5 because of the 1UPT. I am willing to look past the 1UPT, but the game is just so boring compared to the older ones. Sure, the wonders are pretty, but overall graphics are not very good, still too cartoonish for my liking. I miss the random events, I miss building roads, I miss building transports, I miss the logical AI, I miss corporations, I miss state religions, but most of all, I MISS STACKS OF DOOM! The game has little depth, thousands of years pass by and what do you get? A map full of districts so clogged up that you can't even see the terrain? Carpets of doom where you spend more time shuffling units than attacking with them? I am sorry, I can go on and on about how much I hate this game.... I feel that it killed this franchise. Unless they bring back the stacks (or at least limited stacks) I will never spend another dollar to this company.
     
  18. Quueg

    Quueg Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    158
    I've come to the same conclusion on 1UPT vs. Stacks of Doom.

    I really like what they've done in Civ VI at the city level - districts are great and wonders on a single tile give each city real personality. So on the city level, the map works great.

    That is until you see the dozens of AI units just sitting on the map doing nothing but taking up space. I understand that the AI needs the units to defend itself, but they end up just undermining the other positive additions to the game.

    Add in the fact that the AI has no idea how to play the 1UPT game. I think they either need to add a separate tactical map for combat (like AoW and Endless Legends) or go back to stacks.
     
  19. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,423
    I had a lot of trouble getting into Civ VI, and was also a Civ V fan. I've warmed to it a lot as I've got more used to the graphics (though I wish resources were easier to identify so that I could play without the icons as I always did in past games) and more familiar with the strategic choices in the district and policy systems. I also like the Great People system more than that in other games.

    The combat AI takes a lot of deserved criticism, but it's improved a lot with the current patch - I find the big gamebreaking issue that, unless the player is inattentive, it is simply not possible for the AI to win unless you die to an early rush. Domination and religious victories are simply off the table for the AI, and a longstanding bug that prevents the AI from repairing pillaged spaceports makes it unable to win a science game even if well ahead - a flaw exacerbated by the fact that the AI itself now uses spies better than it did, and will usually sabotage a science leader's primary spaceports if you don't manage to get there first. That leaves it nominally able to win a culture victory, but in practice it turns out to be easy enough to accumulate tourism in the late game that this can be delayed more or less indefinitely. Nevertheless, it is at least at a level where it forces the player to interact with it in order to win, and to pay attention even though you don't need to play particularly optimally to win yourself.

    The biggest issue I'm finding as I play more is simply that nearly every game plays out more-or-less identically, and the AI civs lack discernible personalities that helps with 'storytelling'. There will usually be one civ that's the science leader of the session that's twice or more science ahead of its closest rival, there will be a civ aiming for a culture victory, and they'll all go about it in much the same way. Civs declare war on one another more or less unendingly but territory rarely changes hands past an early game bloodbath that tends to see a lot of city-states wiped out (and very rarely whole civs - I think I've seen that twice). At least on Emperor you can more or less random walk through the tech tree to some success - you do need a handle on the eureka system and some idea of the tech progression, but to this day I haven't memorised either the prerequisites for key techs or a specific tech plan to follow. Some might hail that as an example of the game allowing flexibility in how you progress, but in practice it doesn't make any real difference to the outcome and when your strategy can be summarised as "anything goes" it's questionable whether you're a strategy game.
     
    ChocolateShake likes this.
  20. InDubioProReo

    InDubioProReo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    205
    I had a general idea about how Civ V played out (growth, focus on science etc.) With this one, I have absolutely 0 idea. I wish there was a quick guide to science, growth, how many cities to build, tech path etc.
     

Share This Page