Is Civ6 for me?

[need my speed]

It's been some time since the game came out; have patches come out that have addressed any of the issues anyone had?

Nope.

Well, allegedly, you can now change the time it takes for tile information to pop up when you hover your cursor over it.

Really, don't bother waiting for the game to improve; it won't. I mean, sure, Civilization V became better, in the end, for a given meaning of 'better' - but the underlying flaws all remained, and were even so very much worsened by the ludicrous idea of increasing technology costs in such a way that the optimum nation would have three or four or so paltry cities.

 

[LDiCesare]

I have Civ VI and currently am having a blast paying Civ IV.
VI is so ridiculously easy it's not really fun. There's just no challenge past the early turns.
Here are a few differences for me:

Terrain does not matter at all despite what the developpers wanted to achieve:
When I run civ IV, I want to found a city, I have to make tradeoffs. So, do I found my capital here, inland, or do I lose 2 turns to go on the coast where my scout shows me some nice whales? Do I found here where I can mine iron immediately but can't grow, or do I found one square further where I'll have to wait for the borders to expand in order to mine the iron?
Civ VI: I can build anywhere, preferably near some river or lake or coast, but I can expand anywhere by buying tiles up to very far away. I'll try to optimise terrain for building districts, but since I'm always going to build the same districts no matter what, it's just a very slight micro management thingy, there's no choice involved in where to pluck your city.

ICS:
Civ IV: Ooops. I overextended, there's that 'STRIKE' label which causes my units to disband...
Civ VI: One more city means zero penalty, it will generate more science and culture freely even if you forget it for the rest of the game.

AI:
Civ IV: I'm being attacked by units near my city. They lower the defense of my city, damage the defenders, and take it.
Civ VI: Units run around my city in circles while I shoot them down with the city and the crossbow inside until they are all dead without ever attacking despite a 6 vs 1 ratio.

Also, the UI sucks.

 

[elmurcis]

about civ4 wars... Damm.. after many yrs in civ4 Ragnar still can surprise - ~1400 BC 16 units (8 galleys, ~half swords, half axes) attack directly from sea

 

[rschissler]

I loved IV and have played tons of hours with it. When V came out, I tried it for a couple games, but grew bored and went back to IV, and have played only IV in the last five years. I just got VI and am really trying to make a go of it. There are some things I really like, but other things I don't like. I haven't played VI enough to give my ultimate opinion, but I'm trying to make the best of it. From the IV perspective:

Movement seems really slow, and it can be frustrating to have a movement point left, but because of the terrain you have to wait until next turn. To help somewhat, I'm using a mod that increases movement by one. This mod has been a big help, but it still can take an eternity to move great distances. Also, roads have been nerfed, and the roads that route Traders make don't increase speed much, so that is frustrating. Still I like the Traders idea, but they take to long to make a route. I wish this could be buffed a bit and have the ability to make more roads more easily.

1UPT. In concept I'm OK with it, but the AI can't handle it, and it is very frustrating when there are blocking units which can stop you. So, to me some stacking is required. In response, I've been using a mod to allow multiple units per tile, but the problem is that the AI doesn't know how to use it and I don't know if it can be programed to do so. Because of that unfairness, I've been limiting myself to 2UPT, though I'd really like to increase it to 3-4. I used to have huge stacks with IV, but we don't need to go back to that extreme.

War weariness and warmonger hating is too extreme. I'm also using a mod to even this out.

Production is way too slow, and can create some boredom waiting for things to build. This is one reason you will only have a fraction of the units you have with IV. I think this can be fixed though.

I really like the districts and different buildings for them. It's amazing to use different tiles around your city to create them.

Health is back after missing from V, in the form of housing. It is an interesting and different concept on it. However, the bonus resources for them don't have the same effect on buildings like IV had. They are basically all the same, but different names, so that is a little boring.

The amenities from luxury resources is interesting too. You really need to focus on getting as many as you can. I do a lot of trades with the AI for gold on this, because they don't like to trade them 1 for 1.

Builders are a totally different concept, and I kind of like it, but you need a lot of them. I think this should be buffed.

Graphics: I really like them, especially when zooming in. However, without the icons, it is very hard to tell what is what, unless really zoomed in, which is not how you would play IV. The unit size is much smaller than IV, which is bad for gameplay but looks really good.

Embarkation: Transports with IV gave a lot of strategy, I thought. However, I'm not disliking embarkation as much as I thought I would. One downside is that I hardly build any naval units.

There are a lot more different features that VI has, that I haven't talked about. I'm still very new to the game though.

 

[DrCron]

Civ 6 has much more potential than Civ 5. Even at launch it's already a better game than 5. That being said, it's way too easy, and diplomacy is nonsensical right now (see:

). You might want to wait to see what happens with future patches. If they fix diplomacy and the way the AI handles units (which is one of the main reasons why it's so easy), it can be a good game.

 

[RedKi-rr]

VI is so ridiculously easy it's not really fun. There's just no challenge past the early turns.

I would say to play Deity in Civ 5/6 comparing to Deity/Sid in Civ 3/4 is similar to drink beer after vodka. Probably I will not be mistaken if I say that the beer is non-alcohol.

From what I see/hear, Civ 5/6 is a game for a couple of evenings comparing to Civ 3/4 which are at least for one month.

 

[sherbz]

I am a civ veteran player (in the sense that I have played a huge amount of every version apart from the first one). I can say that out of all of them Civ IV is by far my favourite. It is also by far the most difficult. If I were ranking them, I would probably go with:


Civ IV

SMAC

Civ II

Civ III

Civ V

Civ VI


The thing is that Civ IV is the most strategically satisfying of all of the above. Some examples:


1. In Civ IV if you go to war with an AI, unless the other AIs love your victim, they wont care two hoots about you wiping them out. Conversely, in Civ VI, all AIs will hate you regardless. And even if you didn’t declare the war, and as a consequence take their cities, they will denounce you. This is bad news in a game like Civ VI because the optimal way to play is to have as many cities as possible.

2. There is no limiting infinite city spam in civ 6. Civ 4 had maintenance, and 5 had global happiness. Civ 6 only has amenities and housing. And these do not really limit the number of cities you can have. They have more of an impact on how big a city can get. Civ 4 had 3 methods – maintenance, health and happiness. One concerned itself with the number of cities, and the other two concerned themselves with how big a city could get. There is a lot of strategy involved here because there are consequences if you over expand. There isnt in civ 6. You just build as many cities as possible.

3. War is brutal in 4. Units die, and in large numbers. There is no such thing as retreating to heal up after you have been attacked. In Civ 6 (and 5) you could/can have an army that consisted of about 6 units, and field them for the entire game and not build anything else.

4. The AI is supremely better at managing stacks than it is with 1UPT. A carpet of doom is much less fun than a stack of doom because it doesn’t simulate a giant traffic jam.

5. Barbs are a genuine threat in 4. They can wipe out your empire with a lucky roll of the dice. TBF to civ 6, barbs are also a threat. Its just a shame that once you tech archery you are basically invincible.

6. The tech tree in 4 is better balanced. There are genuine beelines you can make that shape your game. And the tree is sort of split in to 3. There were generally two paths in civ 5. And there isnt really much of a beeline option in 6. This is because the boosting mechanic essentially forces you research certain techs in a certain order.


The only thing I think 6 does better than 4 is the social policy card system. Which IMO is more interesting and could actually be a really good concept if properly fleshed out. Like with most things in civ 6 though, everything just needs more work. My only criticisms on 4 are:


1. The implementation of the apostolic palace is broken.

2. Later religions like Islam should be easier to spread, and early religions like Hinduism should stop spreading indefinitely.

3. Personally I would tweak some of the leader traits. Aggressive & protective should be buffed to include some bonuses to espionage.


They are fairly minor gripes though. It remains easily the best civ out there.