Inspiration for Civilization VI?

[coanda]

I don't really care whether they go with 1 UPT or stacks in Civ6, but I do hope the AI will do better at coping with whichever they chose. Civ4's AI had no idea how to deal with big stacks full of collateral damage; Civ5's AI is pretty lousy at using and defending against ranged units.

And no, I haven't tried BNW (yet). I'm sure I will at some point, and from what I've heard about it it will probably be great. Right now, though, I've still got about a dozen games I've hardly touched from the GOG and Steam summer sales.

 

[civvver]

I guess I don't care either, I just want less focus tactically and more on empire building and grand strategy with the option to micromanage. I thought civ4 accomplished this nicely, you can micomanage every citizen to maximize tile yields, share cottage squares to speed improvement, you can play tactically with your units using them to draw stacks away from certain cities if you want, but it's all optionally. You can ignore all that and focus on your empire as a whole and be fine. Civ5 pretty much requires good flanking and tactics at higher difficulties.

I'm not getting BNW either until it goes on sale. Probably christmas.

 

[Akka]

Could you elaborate on this? Specifics give a much better perception of the picture you're painting.

Hard to give specifics - it's the ENTIRE GAME that is a steaming pile of dung.
The only things I would salvage are the idea (not the implementation, but the concept) of social policies, and the limited resources.

The hex and the graphics are up for the jury to decide (I hated the lifeless, still graphics of Civ5 and their white clouds of undiscovered terrain, but that's just a question of taste here).

Everything else is simply crappy to the core, and far inferior to Civ4. The interface is consolish and ugly, the game has zero immersion and feel horribly artificial and gamey. And the worse is, even after slaughtering the whole rest of the game on the altar of gameplay, the gameplay itself is a borefest.

I won't even start on the force-feeded and totally useless Steam.
No really, Civ5 is so far the one and only Civ that not only didn't passionate me, but actually bored me to the core. That's a huge feat in itself, but not the kind you would really want to replicate.

Refocus? When was the series was ever focused on immersion, scale and feeling like you are actually leading a civilization instead of whatever t is that you control in the games is most like?

Civ3 definitely had this feel (though it was far inferior in gameplay to the 4). Civ4 was lower on immersion in general, but at least the map partially made up for it with lots of animations and sounds, and it definitely did feel more like civilization and not like a subpar wargame.
And anything is superior to Civ5 in immersion.

 

[Pikkis]

Hard to give specifics - it's the ENTIRE GAME that is a steaming pile of dung.

[...]

Everything else is simply crappy to the core, and far inferior to Civ4. The interface is consolish and ugly, the game has zero immersion and feel horribly artificial and gamey. And the worse is, even after slaughtering the whole rest of the game on the altar of gameplay, the gameplay itself is a borefest.

[...]

And anything is superior to Civ5 in immersion.

Though I agree with you to some extent, this seems a bit flame-y. I think whether or not Civ6 should be as gamey as Civ5 is a core issue here. In my opinion, it should be less gamey.

I won't even start on the force-feeded and totally useless Steam.

Not that it matters in a wider sense, I'm actually quite pleased with the decision to use Steam with Civ5. It's what got me to Steam in the first place and I've been a happy user of the service ever since.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Just a bit flame-y?

 

[civvver]

Don't even bother discussing steam with Akka. He hates it simply out of principle of being anti DRM.

Anyway, I do agree with a lot of those criticisms in vanilla but the expansions have been quite good. The sad part is, that's three years and a total of $110 later. I really hope that civ6 simply is more polished on release. I would prefer an expansion to add content not features that fix the base game.

 

[Akka]

Though I agree with you to some extent, this seems a bit flame-y.

Well, yeah, I like about nothing in the game and highly dislike about everything. It's hard NOT to be harsh in such a case.

I think whether or not Civ6 should be as gamey as Civ5 is a core issue here. In my opinion, it should be less gamey.

Not only much less gamey in the delivery, but even the part about gameplay should be entirely redone. It was a huge step down from Civ4 in so many ways - though yeah, it's hard to fills the shoes of Civ4 considering the extreme level of polish that went into the mechanics.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Some one has their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses on. Civ 4 wasn't perfect at release and it didn't even become the legend it is until BtS - yet everyone who hates Civ 5 loves to compare BtS to Vanilla Civ 5. Wonder why?

Anyway, I do agree with a lot of those criticisms in vanilla but the expansions have been quite good. The sad part is, that's three years and a total of $110 later. I really hope that civ6 simply is more polished on release. I would prefer an expansion to add content not features that fix the base game.

Oh yeah, good point. But like I said, Civ 4 vanilla had it's issues and usually people only reference BtS when they talk about how awesomesauce it is. But yeah, having to shell out so much money over so long to get a great game sucks. But I think that's the strategy they are going to stick with as long as people pay for it.

 

[Pikkis]

Just a bit flame-y?

Well, maybe a bit more than a bit.

Some one has their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses on. Civ 4 wasn't perfect at release and it didn't even become the legend it is until BtS - yet everyone who hates Civ 5 loves to compare BtS to Vanilla Civ 5. Wonder why?

Perhaps because they were adjacent releases in this realm (i.e. not counting Colonization remake or CivRev)? Might or might not be a proper excuse.

Oh yeah, good point. But like I said, Civ 4 vanilla had it's issues and usually people only reference BtS when they talk about how awesomesauce it is. But yeah, having to shell out so much money over so long to get a great game sucks. But I think that's the strategy they are going to stick with as long as people pay for it.

Well, as far as I remember the balance issues were pretty much solved by 1.74 at the very least. So even if someone had not wanted to buy the expansions, balance should be alright. (I'm not exactly sure what was the situation with Civ5 vanilla, since I took a long break around those times.) I still play Civ4 vanilla and Warlords alongside BTS.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

On release Civ 5 was a mess from balance issues to glitches to massive exploits. It was a hot mess.

 

[MkLh]

Some one has their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses on. Civ 4 wasn't perfect at release and it didn't even become the legend it is until BtS - yet everyone who hates Civ 5 loves to compare BtS to Vanilla Civ 5. Wonder why?

They could as well compare it to BNW as it's still vastly inferior to BtS - even to Civ4 vanilla. Yes, BNW improved some things, but it just can't fix the rotten core. Adding gazillions new things like multiple trees just don't fix the inferior game mechanics. In Civ4, the basic game mechanics were quite brilliant right from the start. BtS added some new stuff, it didn't need to fix the broken core like they were trying to do with G&K and BNW.

BNW also brought some new problems, like making conquering or expanding generally past 6 cities until late game nearly impossible. I partly understand this as in G&K and vanilla, the early war was pretty much an insta win thanks to AIs tactical inability. This just wasn't a satisfying solution as it removed an important part of the game making all the ancient/classical units pointless.

Here is a good BNW review from Tom Chick:

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2013/07/11/o-civilization-v-brave-new-world-that-has-such-stuff-stuffed-int/

 

[coanda]

I'm going to be honest - I'm looking forward to Civ6 quite a bit. They've established a pattern of introducing a very different style of gameplay in odd-numbered games, then refining and perfecting it in even-numbered games (ok, maybe 5 games isn't enough for a "pattern" yet, but I can hope).

 

[Akka]

Some one has their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses on.

Oh god, not the "rose-tinted" garbage again.
First, anyone using it is wrong by default.
Second, can we please make any use of it a bannable offense ? Please ?

You'd wonder why I would have "rose-tinted glasses" for Civ4, and not for Civ3, or Civ2, or Civ1.

Anyway, the difference is that Civ4 CORE mechanisms were good - brillant, even -, while Civ5 aren't - there has been extensive explanations about that, I'd refer you to Sulla's analysis or even, heck, Shafer's own admissions on his kickstarter.
On top of that, half of the mechanisms in Civ5 are just not logical/making sense/pseudo-realistic and have been shoe-horned just to add artificial gameplay that doesn't mesh well into the game's background nor reflect a reality of history.

It's not "nostalgia" or other same kind of canned answer, it's an opinion rooted in the design of each game.

 

[Red Key]

I sometimes need to vent my Civ5 frustrations too, but please just get it out and return to topic. I don't like Civ5 either and find Civ4 vastly superior, but I think there are a few good things in Civ5 that could be used in Civ6. I listed those few good things earlier in this thread.

I think the diplomatic victory needs fixing in both Civ4 and Civ5. In Civ4 it makes no sense for you or the AIs to vote for anyone other than yourself. In Civ5 they took a step in the right direction by introducing city states so it isn't just players voting, but it still has a problem because you can spam gold and buy the votes of the city states.

 

[Pikkis]

I think the diplomatic victory needs fixing in both Civ4 and Civ5. In Civ4 it makes no sense for you or the AIs to vote for anyone other than yourself. In Civ5 they took a step in the right direction by introducing city states so it isn't just players voting, but it still has a problem because you can spam gold and buy the votes of the city states.

The underlying idea would probably be something along the lines that the other civs would be somehow better off with X winning instead of Y, but then again they could just all abstain from voting and no one would win diplomatically (of course they might be "sure" that Y, or even Z, is going to win some other way). Moreover the game design doesn't explain at all what that better off being would be like etc. I agree, both games do a terrible job explaining the diplomatic victory.

 

[civvver]

Oh yeah, good point. But like I said, Civ 4 vanilla had it's issues and usually people only reference BtS when they talk about how awesomesauce it is. But yeah, having to shell out so much money over so long to get a great game sucks. But I think that's the strategy they are going to stick with as long as people pay for it.

Civ4 vanilla was still pretty awesome and I skipped the warlords expansion. Total cost was much less and civ4 stood on its own just fine.

Anyway, the difference is that Civ4 CORE mechanisms were good - brillant, even -, while Civ5 aren't - there has been extensive explanations about that, I'd refer you to Sulla's analysis or even, heck, Shafer's own admissions on his kickstarter.
On top of that, half of the mechanisms in Civ5 are just not logical/making sense/pseudo-realistic and have been shoe-horned just to add artificial gameplay that doesn't mesh well into the game's background nor reflect a reality of history.

It's not "nostalgia" or other same kind of canned answer, it's an opinion rooted in the design of each game.

Sulla's review is so old it's hardly relevant. I don't follow Jon Shafer any more but he hasn't been involved with civ5 in quite a while. Civ5 is a very different game now with both expansions. My criticism is it took both expansions to get there.

 

[caketastydelish]

Haven't read previous comments so sorry if this is spam (a.k.a somebody already said this) but I would strongly prefer another expansion pack for Civ V and/or a mod based of the Civ V engine (like they did for Civ IV with Colonization). Seriously, Civ VI should not be coming within the next 2 years from now as I post this, at the very least.

 

[coanda]

Haven't read previous comments so sorry if this is spam (a.k.a somebody already said this) but I would strongly prefer another expansion pack for Civ V and/or a mod based of the Civ V engine (like they did for Civ IV with Colonization). Seriously, Civ VI should not be coming within the next 2 years from now as I post this, at the very least.

If you want Civ6 in 2-4 years, now is the time they ought to be starting development on it. Which means now is also a good time for people to be bouncing around ideas on what would be good or bad in it, on the off chance that some of those ideas trickle up to the devs.

 

[Nintz]

I would be surprised if Civ VI is not out by the start of 2016. Most civ games are 5 years apart, almost exactly. Given that Civ V launched in 2010, 2015 would be the logical release year.

 

[caketastydelish]

2016 would actually be the perfect time I'd want it to be. Not a year later, not a year earlier.