I was wrong about Civ6 - it's a reboot

[criZp]

In all civ games including civ 6 you have opponents, who will most likely kick a certain lower body part of yours if you play on a decent difficulty, I think this rules it out of the "god game" category completely.

/thread

 

[Fede1893]

Civ 6 is a 4x game and 4x games are strategy games.

They changed the movement System in civ 6 which will change the way you fight. You need all your movement points to cross a river and you need a certain amount of movement points to enter a tile depending of the terrain. Besides the opportunity to pillage districts is why faster units will probably become more important in civ 6.

As nemesis points out (and I would also mention the support units as mil. eng., medics, etc.) they also put effort in making combat more interesting than Civ V so no, in my opinion they are not going towards a building sim or god sim (SimCity and Populus are way different).

The districts being outside the city was somewhat already there with unique improvements of Great People in Civ V and with the buildings in Civ the board game.

 

[Elhoim]

I consider X-com to be a strategy game. It also has "builder" elements, but it's a strat. Now compare it to civ. It's different. Civ has much more "builder" elements. It is predominantly a builder game, even if its competitive.

Your definition of "strategy game" sounds more like "tactical game", with a focus on combat.

 

[Thormodr]

I see Civ VI as trying to distance itself from Civilization 5, which is a very good thing. It may have a few of the trappings but overall it has more of a cIV feeling to me.

 

[Drakarska]

Civ 6 is a 4x game and 4x games are strategy games.



As nemesis points out (and I would also mention the support units as mil. eng., medics, etc.) they also put effort in making combat more interesting than Civ V so no, in my opinion they are not going towards a building sim or god sim (SimCity and Populus are way different).

The districts being outside the city was somewhat already there with unique improvements of Great People in Civ V and with the buildings in Civ the board game.

One of the X's in the 4x is eXpansion ( which Civ V definitely didn't qualify as due to penalties and policy limitations) which we have yet to really see. Granted, this is all based off of beta video and what appears to be a standard size map ( 6-8 cities is actually decent) so we don't really have an idea how well expansion will affect the total game experience.
However, to be fair based on the info we have currently, there is valid reasons to be cautious in the strategy vs sim debate. A lot of focus appears to be on the city unstacking, minimal sea resources as well as the unimportance of city placement near a coast, lack of strategic choices with workers, and a host of other puzzling choices that will bear closer examination.

 

[Ryika]

One of the X's in the 4x is eXpansion ( which Civ V definitely didn't qualify as due to penalties and policy limitations)

You never expanded? You should try, the Happiness limits are harsh, but you should be able to maintain more than just one city.

 

[Lordkhan II.]

why i am hyped for Civ 6. Well, it looks like an improvement on all fronts.

For me it is obvious civ 5 was a marketing stunt. they "dumb down" to get the younger crowd. This is absoulut okay. we want a alive franchise. look at the countles youtuber playing civ 5. it worked.

so i was kinda underwhelmd first as a switched form civ 4 to civ 6.

now we get a "full" civ.

first all features from civ 5 are finally fleshed out. (for exeample City states are not interchangeable, religion, local happines and diplo)

second they steal from themselves. the whole unstacking looks like the civ board game. a litte puzzle feature which will keep you busy every turn. also the corp feature is probaly form civ revoultion. so it is not really new. these concepts are proven to work.

finally the also seem to go one step back from civ 5 to civ 4. more leaders, a complex spy system and maybe through the expansion something like founding stock corporation.

this is the stuff form a strategy game. you making decision, which hopefully pay off.

i get the feeling if someone use the word "reboot"

 

[player1 fanatic]

Every Civilization sequel, exempt Civ2 was a "reboot".

Each new game had more new and changed mechanics then those that stayed the same as in previous game.

 

[Karmah]

Yet another episode of *delusional naabanalysis*

 

[Acken]

What ? It's clearly as much a strategy game as civ5.

 

[Bibor]

If we are stuck on "definitions", some obviously consider reboot to be something really dramatic. It's not.
Civ5 was to be a "civ with even more tactics", in that sense it was a continuation of where 4 left off with warfare. I consider hexes to be a logical step in that direction, because of that direction.
Civ6 is re-thinking that approach, keeps the hexes, but puts strong emphasis on empire management instead. It's not "Civ5 with even stronger emphasis on combat tactics", which could've also been an approach they could've taken.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

I am not sure I understand the idea behind threads such as this, except perhaps boredom.

I think he just wants attention and also correct his image because of the mindless non-argued criticism he did earlier for the same reason he can now see is 95% wrong^^ so he just uses ambiguous words he can launch polemic on so people look at him and ask him what he meant exactly

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Why do we need to get into the motivations of someone for posting? Please discuss the topic and not the poster. If you think the thread is ridiculous, then ignore it and move on: let it die a natural death without getting into trolling or flaming. No one requires that you read or post in a thread, so please, if you feel like posting, at least keep it civil and on topic.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[darko82]

I do not understand the criticism of this thread. Though, I didn't read the whole thread.

Anyway, I think Civ games are a mixture of both. Each civ game gets modified in this respect. It's both a building game, a strategy or a war game as well as a sim game to some extent. To what extent, it depends on the natural evolution of the series and needs as each civ game seems to be an improvement of the previous one (with a few exceptions as far as Civ 5 is concerned). It is still a Civ game. If it puts strong emphasis on empire management, then it means this was something missing in the previous game. As for the possible approaches, there will be more in the expansions or Civ VII. You cannot have one cake and eat it. Other approaches may not fit the game or may be a bad idea (like policies in Civ 5, no governments etc.).

However, each civ (including Civ VI) contains features that cannot be left out in the future. Each game adds new features that have to be pernament because they are so good. (Though, Civ V was dissapointing in some respects, Civ VI seems to fix it).

We also must remember that no game is perfect, and you cannot make everyone 100% happy. This is not possible.

To me, the worst Civ game is Civ V...

 

[Manetheren]

Construction and management simulation (CMS) is a type of simulation game in which players build, expand or manage fictional communities or projects with limited resources. Strategy video games sometimes incorporate CMS aspects into their game economy, as players must manage resources while expanding their project. But pure CMS games differ from strategy games in that "the player's goal is not to defeat an enemy, but to build something within the context of an ongoing process." Games in this category are sometimes also called "management games".

vs.

Strategy video games are a genre of video game that emphasize skillful thinking and planning to achieve victory. Specifically, a player must plan a series of actions against one or more opponents, and the reduction of enemy forces is usually a goal. Victory is achieved through superior planning, and the element of chance takes a smaller role. In most strategy video games, the player is given a godlike view of the game world, and indirectly controls game units under their command. Thus, most strategy games involve elements of warfare to varying degrees, and feature a combination of tactical and strategic considerations. In addition to combat, these games often challenge the player's ability to explore, or manage an economy.

I've been playing Cities: Skylines, and that is what I'd call a CMS. CivVI is nothing like that, nor are any other Civ games. You can manage your Civ cities and make them all great, but if you don't strategically plan your cities, techs, policies, etc with a mind to what the other Civs are doing then you will certainly lose.

 

[DWilson]

This, as all other mainline Civ games, is clearly a strategy game. It's not a CMS, it's 4X, as other users have stated. Regardless of whether you think it feels like a strategy game, words and phrases have generally agreed upon meanings, and strategy game is an apt description of both CiV and the coming CiVI.

 

[Bibor]

It was clearly a definition issue, cleared it up in the OP. I meant tactics where I wrote strategy.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Makes a lot more sense. I'm also glad they aren't dumbing civ6 down with tactics emphasis.

 

[ZTZaorish]

EDITED for clarification.
INB4 accusations of changing claims: Civ5 pre-launch was clearly advertising Civ5 as a movement towards tactical level combat "as seen in Panzer General" and they put great emphasis on that.


I watched several civ 6 videos, but the latest one, showing off religion was quite a revelation.

I don't think Civ 6 is an upgrade to 5. Yes, there are hexes, city states and other similarities, but I don't think its actually a polish of Civ5, Brave New World was a polish.

Even now, before launch in its pre-vanilla state, it looks much more detailed than civ5, with many more meaningful "levers" that can be pulled. Civ 6 truly feels more a reboot than an upgrade.

On one hand, it makes sense. They are introducing many, many new mechanics that will be polished through expansions. Interconnectedness of various game mechanics/levers will also make - if not for a better - at least for a more interesting AI. From a general gameplay perspective, this game even now looks like 10 times more fun than Civ 5.

However, I'm surprised they took this direction. In my opinion, the game looks more like a god game (Settlers, city builder), "Sim Civ" if you like, not as a strategy game tactical game that Civ5 was heading towards. Don't get me wrong, I love god games, loved them since Populous. But I'm not a big fan of mixing genres.

An old example would be HoMM IV where they tried to introduce "roleplaying elements". I wasn't a really big fan of that. The same is true for, say Fallout 4 vs Witcher. Where Fallout went "builder", Witcher went with more RPG. Compared to New Vegas, I consider Fallout 4 a sidestep, not a sequel.

And I guess I feel the same about Civilization 6. From what I've seen so far, it will be a great sim strategy game, just not a great strategy tactical game. I guess a re-clasification is in order.

I'm not sure what Sid Meier's original plan for Civ was, was it to be a god game CMS/strategy game or strategy/tactical game, but it sure looked till Civ 5 that the direction it was taking was towards "strategytactics first". Maybe I'm wrong and it was intended to be a "Sim Civ" all along (like RRT or Colonization).

If Civ was to be a god game CMS/strategy all along, then it's a reboot. If it was to be a strategy strategy/tactical game, it's a sidestep compared to Civ5.

I won't go into details on why I agree with you, but I will say this. The fact that they didn't make any major change to the map scripts, or how the game is layed out. What I mean by this is that they left the 1 city is hex system make it truly feel like a reboot, or better version of Civ V instead of just Civ VI. Not to say that I won't enjoy this.

I remember upon seeing Civ VI for the first time I was greatly disappointed by the fact that they were still using this map size, with these crowded maps. I was hoping for a bigger leap. For now, I"ll just wait on Civ VII for that hope. I think civ VI should be fun beside this lack of innovation on map size.

 

[Drakarska]

You never expanded? You should try, the Happiness limits are harsh, but you should be able to maintain more than just one city.

While I admire your sarcasm ( there is a sarcasm smiley, just for future reference ) focusing on that one specific line of my post, your response doesn't really invalidate my comment. Amusingly, a 4-5 city spread ( See bro, more than 1 city ) combined with Tradition was the optimal play.
It wasn't until after numerous patches, hot fixes, and modders ( ironically touted as "The most moddable Civ ever") got their hands on it that other policy trees became better in Civ V. Hopefully, Civ VI lives up to expectations.