- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
Size always matter, but when did you last run out of good tiles to work... often
I must say I like Rise and Fall!
- Thread starter Larsenex
- Start date
criZp
Emperor
not really, no.
blackbutterfly
Emperor
I played my first truly enjoyable game of R&F as Genghis. IMO this is the best designed civ of R&F and improves considerably from the Civ V version. The Mongols were famous traders too and that is reflected in this iteration.
However, I'm still not 100% sold on Governors. Magnus is almost always my first choice for settler spam but IMO they add another layer of micromanagement. Micromanagement in Civ VI is my no.1 peeve.
I can see why folks like it, for sure. There are many improvements to the game. Personally I like
1) New civs (always like this)
2) Most of the new wonders
3) Most of the new graphics
4) TURTLES!!!
5) The *concepts* of loyalty, ages, a timeline, and governors
6) The *concept* of a government district
7) The boardwalk district (I refuse to call it a water-- whatever)
Why I am no longer playing for the present:
1) The implementation of loyalty, ages, timeline, and governors
2) Sound issues
Easy improvements they should have done:
1) Give capitals and city-states free ancient walls from turn 1.
2) Make capitals unflippable, and give a loyalty bonus to walls.
3) Minimum 1gpt maintenance for all units
4) About 20 new pantheons
- There are many more tiny improvements I think they could have done, but meh. To each his own.
Loyalty: Is almost acceptable, except capitals are too easy to flip, city's too often flip-flop-flip, and playing on any sort of TSL turns Europe into flip-cheese.
Governors: Waaaaaaay overpowered, its nauseating. And too few (or too many - could just have your leader as a 'governor'. ) Having each city have a governor if you build a government district there would be a nice idea, provided there is no picture, and the bonuses are much, much lower... maybe similar to what a weaker improvement would offer (like +2 faith or culture or gold, scaling up over time). But again, whatever, I'm sure everyone has ideas about it, for me its just too dang cheesy atm. The names and graphics for the governors are just over-the-top cartoony. And yet again, the lack of playtesting is glaring here. Or, if the devs intended the governors to be this strong, then Civ has pretty much died, and its no longer a strategy game at all, just a builder game. The game needs to get more difficult, not easier. I realize some people can't win on deity, but they can go to an easier setting. Far too many people find deity easy, and that is the most difficult setting... can't choose a harder one. Giving the ai bonuses doesn't mean squat... its a mechanics issue. And every time they add features that make the civilizations stronger yet involves some choice making, it makes the game easier. New mechanics should offer opportunities to challenge the player, not insta chop world wonders.
Ages: Another idea that I had high hopes for. I'm not going to go into my personal tastes on this one.
Timeline: Again, too cartoony. I was expecting maybe some sort of graph, fairly simple, that would show the timelines for all civs, so you could pop open the window and compare, and even maybe make some notes on it. Sigh. And it would show cities founded, wars started/ended, cities conquered, maybe a few choice techs... certainly not every damn goody hut and barb camp. Wth.
Government District: A chance to have a district that adds to your diplomatic CHOICES/OPTIONS, could give more favorable trades, could make other civs friendlier, could have a project for envoys... instead we got some sort of World of Warcraft aberration. *hangs head* Although I do miss the throne room. *hangs head further, this time in shame*
And STILL such a shortage of diplomatic options... for a game that heavily involves the interaction between civilizations, you would think diplomacy would be fairly broad. Nope. T'ain't. And this is the 6th version of the game for god's sake. You would think some good ideas about diplomacy would be floating around.
Also, when are we going to see the return of vassals?
But... maybe the game is just a result of cultural changes. The world is becoming an immediate satisfaction kind of place. Maybe there is no market for a strategy game, and everyone wants cartoony and cheesy godmode. Maybe there is no profit in play testing (I've seen enough of the videos to know that nobody at firaxis who is anywhere near decent at the game has made a video - so for now I'm going to assume that while the employees are great with graphics and builder ideas, they are horrid with mechanics, and just don't play the game all that often).
I guess the question is, whose Civ is it? Could I buy the rights to Civ, make a racing game or first person shooter, and slap the Civ VII lable on it? No harm no foul? Are most folks happy with it becoming more of a cartoony builder game?
I end with, until the xpac hit, I was firmly in the camp of believing VI was the best version of them all, by far (III has better war).
1) New civs (always like this)
2) Most of the new wonders
3) Most of the new graphics
4) TURTLES!!!
5) The *concepts* of loyalty, ages, a timeline, and governors
6) The *concept* of a government district
7) The boardwalk district (I refuse to call it a water-- whatever)
Why I am no longer playing for the present:
1) The implementation of loyalty, ages, timeline, and governors
2) Sound issues
Easy improvements they should have done:
1) Give capitals and city-states free ancient walls from turn 1.
2) Make capitals unflippable, and give a loyalty bonus to walls.
3) Minimum 1gpt maintenance for all units
4) About 20 new pantheons
- There are many more tiny improvements I think they could have done, but meh. To each his own.
Loyalty: Is almost acceptable, except capitals are too easy to flip, city's too often flip-flop-flip, and playing on any sort of TSL turns Europe into flip-cheese.
Governors: Waaaaaaay overpowered, its nauseating. And too few (or too many - could just have your leader as a 'governor'. ) Having each city have a governor if you build a government district there would be a nice idea, provided there is no picture, and the bonuses are much, much lower... maybe similar to what a weaker improvement would offer (like +2 faith or culture or gold, scaling up over time). But again, whatever, I'm sure everyone has ideas about it, for me its just too dang cheesy atm. The names and graphics for the governors are just over-the-top cartoony. And yet again, the lack of playtesting is glaring here. Or, if the devs intended the governors to be this strong, then Civ has pretty much died, and its no longer a strategy game at all, just a builder game. The game needs to get more difficult, not easier. I realize some people can't win on deity, but they can go to an easier setting. Far too many people find deity easy, and that is the most difficult setting... can't choose a harder one. Giving the ai bonuses doesn't mean squat... its a mechanics issue. And every time they add features that make the civilizations stronger yet involves some choice making, it makes the game easier. New mechanics should offer opportunities to challenge the player, not insta chop world wonders.
Ages: Another idea that I had high hopes for. I'm not going to go into my personal tastes on this one.
Timeline: Again, too cartoony. I was expecting maybe some sort of graph, fairly simple, that would show the timelines for all civs, so you could pop open the window and compare, and even maybe make some notes on it. Sigh. And it would show cities founded, wars started/ended, cities conquered, maybe a few choice techs... certainly not every damn goody hut and barb camp. Wth.
Government District: A chance to have a district that adds to your diplomatic CHOICES/OPTIONS, could give more favorable trades, could make other civs friendlier, could have a project for envoys... instead we got some sort of World of Warcraft aberration. *hangs head* Although I do miss the throne room. *hangs head further, this time in shame*
And STILL such a shortage of diplomatic options... for a game that heavily involves the interaction between civilizations, you would think diplomacy would be fairly broad. Nope. T'ain't. And this is the 6th version of the game for god's sake. You would think some good ideas about diplomacy would be floating around.
Also, when are we going to see the return of vassals?
But... maybe the game is just a result of cultural changes. The world is becoming an immediate satisfaction kind of place. Maybe there is no market for a strategy game, and everyone wants cartoony and cheesy godmode. Maybe there is no profit in play testing (I've seen enough of the videos to know that nobody at firaxis who is anywhere near decent at the game has made a video - so for now I'm going to assume that while the employees are great with graphics and builder ideas, they are horrid with mechanics, and just don't play the game all that often).
I guess the question is, whose Civ is it? Could I buy the rights to Civ, make a racing game or first person shooter, and slap the Civ VII lable on it? No harm no foul? Are most folks happy with it becoming more of a cartoony builder game?
I end with, until the xpac hit, I was firmly in the camp of believing VI was the best version of them all, by far (III has better war).
My empires always have very high employment levels (I know its not a measurable value in the game, but thats how I look at it). I am always striving to get my cities to the third and work every tile for what its worth. I spawn builders like crazy! By the time I reach industrial/modern age, I am usually pushing culture very hard so 50 is not unknown. But I think that just becomes a matter of personal taste in gameplay.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
... Turtles on Coral!
Similar threads
