Initial Reactions

[Lord Tirian]

You should go back and play Civ5 with the expansions. It's a vastly different game.

Yeah, I'm also an old player, started with CivNet back then (because I couldn't get hold of Civ1 and CivNet was in a bundle!). 1UPT (which I conceptually like) still has issues with the AI and civilian units... but they "fixed" the knock-on effects on the production times and fleshed out culture and trade sooo much.

With the community patch, Civ5 is now my favourite incarnation of Civ. But I admit that I just grew bored of Stacks of Doom after one-and-a-half decades of SoDs, hence why I kind of like 1UPT (despite it issues).

 

[Whiterussian]

First reaction?
Oh no its just another browser game...

When i noticed it is the actual PC Version?
I actually litteraly checked the date to see if its a april fools prank.

Sure i take content over graphics. But this looks so much like a cheap ass pay2win tablet game, i would litterly be ashamed if anyone would see me play this. If it would have the CivI graphics i would have bought it immediately. But this Clash of clans style is obviously directed at the casual teenage player.

Firaxis you barely made CiV a "Good" Game, CivBE is a disaster and now this... You really lost it.

 

[ViterboKnight]

I've found some slightly detailed information on this page:
https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/4ivi8k/megathread_civilization_vi_info_and_articles/

Although the history (aka Civ5) has taught me to be careful and not to hope too much, I've tried to figure out if there is something good coming out.
I've read a lot of new features (expanding cities, active research, etc) that I cannot comment at this time for the lack of information we have (we just know the generic concept: it's too little to judge).

Graphics seem a bit cartoonish, I can't tell how the final effect will be. Maybe it might be good if they've tried a different approach to the game, to make it a bit less serious and a bit more funny.

In my opinion, the main point is the new approach for "1 unit per tile". I'm not stating that I like the new solution (again, too little information, and experience), but it at least means that Firaxis is perfectly aware of all the problems that the 1UPT feature caused to Civ5, and it's struggling to find a way around (in Italy we say: "To save goats and cabbages", but it's another story!!!!).

I want to think positive and hope that Firaxis will actually find a way to solve all the Civ5 problems that have been come out in these years, and that the new "unit per tile" mechanic will be fine, fair, and easy to go on with.

Civ 5 has been a "thumb down" for me. I am looking forward to see this new one!

 

[Falk]

X-Com has also had a mobile release - does that make it a bad game? I don't think so. Mobile doesn't necessarily mean dumbed down.

I find it funny how many people are still talking about CiV vanilla which really was pretty awful. With patches and expansions the game changed completely, and eventually offered more depth and strategy than its predecessors. While the AI can't play 1UPT, it's still better than SoD - the Civ4 SoD style of combat is pretty much the definition of dumbed down in my opinion. Doesn't get any more simple than that.

 

[Lord Tirian]

While the AI can't play 1UPT, it's still better than SoD - the Civ4 SoD style of combat is pretty much the definition of dumbed down in my opinion. Doesn't get any more simple than that.

I think they're two extremes. Civ4 SoD is all about strategy, i.e. how do you get the production to build up a large stack and have a sensible stack composition. Civ5 1UPT is all about tactics, with the blocking of times negating numeric advantage, giving you a lot of room to correct for strategic mistakes.

The new system with formations and support elements sounds like it brings back the reduced congestion of SoDs and the strategic element of stack composition while keeping lots of the tactics.

Very keen to see how it plays out. If they can teach the AI to use it sensibly, it's very possible that we'll think of Civ6 "why haven't they done 1UPT like this all along?".

 

[kaltorak]

All the features anounced sound awesome for me.

1. Cities. Terrain claiming and city building is the part I enjoy most about civ games, so this feature is a big plus for me
2. Research. In one article they explain it with an example. They say how a coastal civ that builds boats should get more sailing techs than an inland civ, and it makes totally sense. I like it
3. Unit semistacking. I love how combat in civ5 works instead of div4 stacks of doom. Yet I hate civ5 late game with so many units. So this is exactly whay we needed
4. Diplomacy:IF they manage to do it, great. I love diplomacy. I love civ leaders having personalities instad of just trying to win a game like they did in civ5. Im not sure if they will manage to do it
5. Multiplayer. I only play multiplayer with friends on teams against the AI. So coop games will be perfect for us

All awesome features

EDIT: there's one bad thing about it tho. Tourism stays ingame

 

[Akka]

I'm with you, except I don't think city states are the worst element, not by a long shot.

Worst things are:

I agree about that, but the 1upt and city states are things which are confirmed in Civ6, while the rest might still be changed (and actually global happiness is gone, so that's that).

Also, these two are CONCEPTUAL problems which are 100 % gamey and stick like a sore thumb in the immersion factor, which is a big no-no for me, while the others are more an implementation problem.

but you're here. like I am

wondering if maybe... just maybe... strategy is not dead

Strategy is certainly not dead. But that's certainly not because of Civ5, and more because of Paradox. I actually didn't even notice Civ6 was announced here, it was someone from a completely different forum who told me so while I was speaking of Stellaris, in fact.
I still expected little from Civ6 to begin with, and the obvious "let's just tweak on Civ5 instead of going back to thinking through the basics which were completely f-ed up in this pile of refuse" take just doesn't give me a lot of hope they're going to do a real great game - more another spin on something gamey and un-immersive.

And learning that the game is just a few monthes ahead (for some reason, I thought it was still in the conceptual stage) and still feels like a Civ5 spin-off is rather a lot of nails in the coffin for me.
Blegh.

After seeing the trailer and screen shots and reading four articles my reaction comes down to this:
I love Civ 4 (and still play it).
Civ 5 was a bitter disappointment to me for numerous reasons.
It's early days, but Civ 6 seems very similar to Civ 5 and nothing like Civ 4.
I've been playing Civilization games since 1991, but Civ 6 may well be the first one I don't buy.

Basically exactly my feelings.

 

[darko82]

First reaction? It does not look like a Civilization game; and a game with this kind of graphics does not deserve to be called "Civilization VI".

 

[Jimdigriz]

Im just hoping those graphics get a rethink but there is plenty of time.

I also hope that they dont let the minimum spec go too high - perhaps thats why the graphics arent very good?! Anyway Ive been a Civ fanatic from the very start and each itineration has been better and better for me (with the exception of Civ 3 maybe and Im not including those Rev games which were a major disappointment!).

Dont forget the huge/marathon options 2K!

 

[SWY]

The graphics don't really bother me, although they could be better. I'm sure there will be a mod that fixes them for people who don't like it.

I'm really excited about the city management changes!

 

[Ikael]

This game seems to be everything I wanted for this series. The RPS interview have hyped TO THE MAX.

So let's discuss the specific selling points:

- Dynamic science & culture system. In-game player actions leading to shorter research / social policy times = WIN. Action shaping your bonuses rather than bonuses shaping your actions seems like a wonderful idea, and a very realistic one to boot

- Unique traits and abilities. Hell YES. People that wanted generic civilizations are out of their minds. Why making a history based game if you are then going to strip it out of its historical flavour? Good move Firaxis, and good equlibrium between flavour and customization

- Multiple city tiles. I haven't played Endless Legend, but if this is a good idea then I am glad that they have copied it. As a builder, this new system intrigues me greatly. But I do wonder about the possibility of many cities merging and if we will have enough space, and if we will be able to build upwards, and...

- Geography means destiny. I really love, love how the team has approached game design here. Yes, maps and location should greatly shape your civilization, and yes, historical logic (or "realism" if you want) should trump game-y logic as long as it doesn't create unbalances

- Improved diplomacy and AI. All my want. It would be good if some kind of BERT "political capital" system will be implemented too, let's wait and see what Firaxis comes with

- Limited 1UPT a la civ Revolutions / Alpha Centauri + hexes. Well, that the logical evolution of Civilization 5 system. Limited stacks is truthly the way to go, even if I would have rather my original idea of terrain types limiting stacking. Just give me a system where army composition and army position matters equally and I will be a very happy camper

- Religions, archeology, trade routes and Spyionage without expansions. I am really, really happy to know that I will buy a full flegded finished product rather than a capped off beta. Civilization 5 vainilla without patches was one of the most unpleasant "first day purchase" experiences that I have ever had, so I am very glad to know that Firaxis is learning from their past mistakes

- Visuals. This is a strategy game. That means that mechanics >>>>>> visuals. The game can look like dog poop (as it looks like now) and I won't care as long as that means that it runs big maps smoothly and that in-map information is easily readable.

 

[PhilBowles]

- What's the logic behind the adjacency bonuses such as science districts next to mountains/jungles? Harbors next to coasts make sense; science next to jungles not so much unless perhaps you're researching Ecology/Environmentalism.

I doubt they gave it a great deal of thought - that's exactly the way jungle works in Civ V, so they just ported it over and made it an adjacency bonus rather than a blanket boost you get to working any jungle tile in a city with a university. The basic reasoning they gave in the RPS article was that a wider diversity of life to study accelerates research - and while this is true, and in more contexts than ecology (evolutionary theory has had applications far outside biology, medicinal research has benefitted etc.) it's no moreso than, e.g., a diversity of landforms promotes research into geology and evolution, access to copper accelerates advanced research due to the applications in electronics etc.

EDIT: In practical game terms, the reason jungle gives a science bonus in Civ V - and this is likely also true in Civ VI - is to present a tradeoff, rather than having jungle just being useless wasteland you either want to clear to improve production, as in all prior Civ games, or are actively incentivised to clear by a health penalty, as in Civ IV.

- How expansive will the maps be? Since Civ3, each version has tended more towards fewer cities, which has rather killed the empire-building feeling IMO. I like the idea of districts but don't want an endgame with 4 cities with a bunch of districts each - I'd like to, at least on larger maps, still have lots of cities, along with several districts per city.

I had a similar question, but as cities only get to expand into the same number of tiles they could before I'm not sure the district system will have an impact on the number of cities.

The graphics do look like Civ5, to me, perhaps a bit less realistic. Not too concerned though as (a) it's a strategy game, who cares about graphics?, (b) Civ4 wasn't great in that area either and no one really cared, and (c) I'm sure there will be a nice mod for that at some point. Oh, and (d) they're almost certainly still working on them.

(a) It's a strategy game that sells itself on immersion, and graphics have a greater effect on that than people realise. You can immerse yourself in a somewhat abstracted game (hey, I wasn't happy when Civ II shifted to using unit models over squares), and you can immerse yourself in a more realistically-modelled game. It's hard to immerse yourself in a cartoon. My first exposure to Civ V turned me off it for months due to what I took as the 'Facebook game' feel of the graphics.

(b) I've been back to play Civ IV fairly recently - the graphics aren't bad.

Not thrilled about city states since IMO they didn't add much in Civ5 and thus I tend to play with them off or mostly off when I do play 5, but there will likely be an option for that even without mods, so no big deal.

Their implementation in Civ V was a bit haphazard - while the ways players could interact with them improved through the expansions, they also became increasingly passive - in the halcyon days of late vanilla Civ V they'd be marching to war, protecting flanks, and happily annexing other city states (or in one memorable case Mecca). The idea is fine, but was never fully-realised. Of course it's awkward that they exist from day 1 - but arguably less so than the landscape being scattered with ancient stone ruins in 3000 BC.

 

[ferros]

Why couldn't they just do a new Civ4, upgraded the graphics, add some new stuff and some of the few good things from Civ5 and then released the game? It would have been awesome.

 

[gcm4738]

A CIV FOR ALL PLAYERS:
Civilization VI provides veteran players new ways to build and tune their civilization for the greatest chance of success.

The question is... will it provide enough new ways to build and tune.... so that us IV'ers will come back and crush the 5's.
















Tycoonist lives

 

[gcm4738]

.


some say Tycoonist was myth... or a legend maybe ...

I knew him. what he was actually was a man... a man who was able to figure out systems faster than anyone you ever knew. He was a Civ 4 guy.

Somehow he always knew how to hook up that iron with a road on turn 85.... on marathon.

He was a spice lord

I look around at these Civ5 people squabbling over their palm trees and I just say...

two fingers baby.

 

[RohirrimElf]

I`ve read about the unit per tile changes. I tend to aproach this in view of the effectiveness of the AI. If the developers think the AI will fight better with less units on the map. With access to formations and protected settlers/workers. I`m all for it. As it could not handle combat like a human could in civ 5. Or move a settler to its destination without getting destroyed by barbs or whatever treath every so often. I remember beating deity without losing a single military unit. Fighting countless wars. This is not fun.

So i`m somewhat optimistic that the game will become more challenging and therefore a better experience. I`ll say it is a good move.

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Merged with existing Initial Reactions thread.

 

[EulerMcE]

I keep reading and reading about the graphics... did it not occur to anyone that those might just be early, "conceptual art" versions?.

The game comes out in a few months and the thing they tease with is barebones looking concept art? I really doubt it.

 

[Ryuu Falconwing]

I saw the trailer and flipped. I knew it would be coming this year but it still surprised me to see for myself. And the screenshots didn't dampen my spirits at all. I like what I'm hearing about this game and I think it will address my personal issues with normal CiV.

Mostly my annoyance is focused at people threatening to pirate the game or bully Firaxis into changing the aesthetic because they feel immature.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I haven't posted on this forums in a couple years, yet as soon as I read the news I came rushing right back, so I'm pretty pumped.