Is civ6 the best civ game

[LDiCesare]

Are you plyaing on Settler or something? The AI has a lot of flaws, sure, but if I, on Emperor, put a unit in the wrong spot, I can expect it to die. Despite trying several times, I'm still not good enough to keep slingers alive when killing barbs. Etc. Those things wouldn't be a problem if the AI was so bad as you make it out to be. And on top of that, the AI sees major improvements every patch.

And yes. Your opinion is worthless, not his. How many hours do you have into the game? If it's less than some 40-50, maybe even if it's less than 100, it's not enough to be able to make a fair assessment of the game.

In the post you quoted, I say I play on the HIGHEST difficulty level. That's Deity.
You too are calling my opinion worthless without reading what I wrote. Please learn to read first. Again, you are making wrong assumptions. I have more than 100h in the game. So all your arguments, and his, are wrong. What to make of your conclustions?
You think the AI is good when it sends settlers to the frontline? Seriously? He just gifts the player settlers. Barbs are not opponents, they are mostly irrelevant as a challenge because they are a threat only in the early game. Civ VI difficulty level amounts to flipping a coin: Odds: You get rushed by Gilgamesh or someone else early on when they have 3 vs 1 advantage, +5 to their combat stats thanks to Deity bonus, and since it's turn 12, you lose. Even:You don't get rushed early. The AI can't wage a war. You win.
The AI sees improvements, yes, but they are still not good enough. When it has tech advantage, difficulty bonus advantage, when it declares war against you, it should win. It does not. It still has no clue how to attack a city as per the last patch. It valiantly surrounds it and lets you pick its superior units one by one because it can't position itself decently and doesn't concentrate its firepower on single targets.

 

[Victoria]

No opinion is worthless and an opinion can be very resistive to change. Often I find myself trying to convince others without a firm foundation myself. I can see some quite glaring issues with civ6

The UI is bad in so many ways e.g. Transport routes, spies
The restart button has just about stopped me playing at times
The leaders are a pain, especially when they spam you. I have said 5 times already I do not want to be your friend, are you that stupid?
The civic being the same mechanic as tech only seems to wind me up but it does annoy me with repetition.
The fact you can win so easily on deity with the right start and loose so badly with the wrong start.

So respect to all those out there that refuse to play it. I still find it an engaging game despite all of this

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Give me an example of this complex decision making in II that you refer to, which is more complex than district planning, and the balance between getting boosts and still fulfilling any initial plan one has. I'm looking forward to this

Are you telling me:

- you have a problem with district planning, which is very easy

- you are unable to secure the boosts along your preferred strategy

That's just bizarre.

 

[Leyrann]

In the post you quoted, I say I play on the HIGHEST difficulty level. That's Deity.
You too are calling my opinion worthless without reading what I wrote. Please learn to read first. Again, you are making wrong assumptions. I have more than 100h in the game. So all your arguments, and his, are wrong. What to make of your conclustions?
You think the AI is good when it sends settlers to the frontline? Seriously? He just gifts the player settlers. Barbs are not opponents, they are mostly irrelevant as a challenge because they are a threat only in the early game. Civ VI difficulty level amounts to flipping a coin: Odds: You get rushed by Gilgamesh or someone else early on when they have 3 vs 1 advantage, +5 to their combat stats thanks to Deity bonus, and since it's turn 12, you lose. Even:You don't get rushed early. The AI can't wage a war. You win.
The AI sees improvements, yes, but they are still not good enough. When it has tech advantage, difficulty bonus advantage, when it declares war against you, it should win. It does not. It still has no clue how to attack a city as per the last patch. It valiantly surrounds it and lets you pick its superior units one by one because it can't position itself decently and doesn't concentrate its firepower on single targets.

Your posts before very strongly implied you basically played one game for every patch, maybe even less. That doesn't make for 100h, so I assumed you had less. If you indeed do have over 100 hours into the game, then your opinion is indeed more valuable.

I certainly *do not* think that the AI sending Settlers to the frontline is good behaviour. That said, I don't see it happen often. I'm not cheesy enough to declare war and capture a Settler for free, but the idea does cross my mind when I come across one, and I can't really remember that happening.

I very much disagree with your other main point, saying the AI can't wage a war. Apparently, you've not been paying enough attention. Release AI was extremely bad, I certainly agree with that. However, since the Australian Summer patch I've seen them take walled cities, and in a game where I had neither horses nor iron, I was actually in a lot of trouble defending against Germany despite playing (pre-nerf) Australia and having a lot more cities. Only after I'd gotten a number of Crossbowmen and a horse resource did I manage to take back the city he captured, and that still included suiciding basically every warrior and heavy chariot I had at that point, and I most certainly wasn't in a position to keep pushing the momentum. Since the Spring Patch, I've even had things happen like an early rush with some four archers and three warriors failing because, after having fought quite a bit to get to the AI's (unwalled) city, I was not able to deal with three more archers appearing. In fact, now that I think about it, this may still have been Summer Patch. On the Spring Patch, however, I know that I needed 30 turns to get a city-state while playing Germany, simply because they got their walls up just before I could go in for the attack and because they'd already built heavy chariots while I was fighting with archers and warriors and hadn't yet gotten a battering ram (I once again had no iron). Also on the Spring Patch, I got into quite a bit of trouble attacking with Alexander in the classical era, as the AI had a walled city on the coast (so no sieging, as it was the first coastal city I was going to get) with quite a bit of good defense. All on Emperor by the way.

AI might not be brilliant by any means, but for at the very least some 95% of the players they're at least a challenge. I agree it needs better, but if they keep improving the AI as much as they've done the last few patches for two years, well, I think that the people who now say "Deity is too easy" will for the most part be happy if they win on Emperor or Immortal. Right now I'd say the AI is already about as good as Civ V's AI, maybe even better. And the game's only been released half a year ago and will probably be supported for some three more years.

Oh, and on your last comment, I don't know what kind of AI you're playing with, but the AI I'm playing against is quite good at focusing on a single target. It happens quite often that I put a unit somewhere thinking he'll be safe, and then the concentration of firepower just kills him off.

 

[nzcamel]

Are you telling me:

- you have a problem with district planning, which is very easy

That isn't what I am saying. What I am saying, is that along with IV, VI has meaningful strategic choices to be made in terms of city planning.

I-III were all farms and mines. Everywhere. IV made a far more interesting game, in terms of giving you genuine choice over what yields you wanted to prioritise leading to different strategies. V abandoned this for reasons beyond my comprehension! Sure, they had those trade center things, but by and large the strategy was gone from city planning; which mean exacerbated people putting their workers onto auto, as it really no longer mattered what got built where. Yes, there is often an optimal site for your favoured district meaning that isn't a big choice; but you may have to toss up between other districts and where you place and you can't get the best out of all of them. This lets you make decisions on what you think is important.

- you are unable to secure the boosts along your preferred strategy

That's just bizarre.

Anyone who is honest with themselves while playing will admit that some boosts they would have liked to have got, allude them. Or they sacrificed a previous priority to get the boost. That city state they really covert wants them to do 'X'. X was never part of their plans, but it is now! And it has come at the expense of something else. We have interesting strategic and tactical choices like never before in the series (for tactics, just look at the new movement rules - wonderful )

 

[Unconquered Sun]

It happens quite often that I put a unit somewhere thinking he'll be safe, and then the concentration of firepower just kills him off.

That's you making an unforced mistake, not the AI being good.

After each patch, I get enticed by all the "the AI is now good" comments, and every time I get disappointed. Now I'm back for the latest patch, here's what happened:

- roll an all standard Deity game, random civ, shuffle. Got Indians + food poor start. Crushed some barbs, took Scythia's second city, the AI sent its third, never settled, settler in the way of my army, stole it; then crushed literally all of its remaining army before letting it off with its capital in exchange for all its gold and resources. Then I did the same to China, backfilled some cities, finished off Scythia, by that time I was so much ahead it wasn't even funny.

Lost units: zero.

Undeterred, I decided to try another game in search for challenge: standard/deity/random/fractal this time. Got Frederic, immediate area wasn't that great, but the nearby lands were rich. Met a +4 gold city state. Barbarians were never a problem, they even managed to lose a camp against a solo slinger of mine. Met a +2 science city state, still the first to do so. Realized I'm alone on a large, rich, safe landmass, victory inevitable.

Lost units: zero.

But I don't give up as easily, so I'll start yet another game patiently waiting to be challenged by this latest patch. Truth to be told though, I've played many, many strategy games on their most difficult settings, and Civ VI deity doesn't even amount to a blip on my challenge radar compared to things I've seen and overcome.

 

[Leyrann]

That's you making an unforced mistake, not the AI being good.

After each patch, I get enticed by all the "the AI is now good" comments, and every time I get disappointed. Now I'm back for the latest patch, here's what happened:

- roll an all standard Deity game, random civ, shuffle. Got Indians + food poor start. Crushed some barbs, took Scythia's second city, the AI sent its third, never settled, settler in the way of my army, stole it; then crushed literally all of its remaining army before letting it off with its capital in exchange for all its gold and resources. Then I did the same to China, backfilled some cities, finished off Scythia, by that time I was so much ahead it wasn't even funny.

Lost units: zero.

Undeterred, I decided to try another game in search for challenge: standard/deity/random/fractal this time. Got Frederic, immediate area wasn't that great, but the nearby lands were rich. Met a +4 gold city state. Barbarians were never a problem, they even managed to lose a camp against a solo slinger of mine. Met a +2 science city state, still the first to do so. Realized I'm alone on a large, rich, safe landmass, victory inevitable.

Lost units: zero.

But I don't give up as easily, so I'll start yet another game patiently waiting to be challenged by this latest patch. Truth to be told though, I've played many, many strategy games on their most difficult settings, and Civ VI deity doesn't even amount to a blip on my challenge radar compared to things I've seen and overcome.

I'm sorry to bring it to you, but just because you're a perfect god at the game, doesn't mean everyone is. I have a total of close to 700 hours in Civ V and VI, if I put a unit somewhere and it gets killed while I didn't expect it (as opposed to a standard casualty of a unit getting fired upon for a few turns and me realizing I can't save it), then it's because the AI is better than I expected. Which, in turn, means it's better than it was in V and previously in VI.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

I'm sorry to bring it to you, but just because you're a perfect god at the game, doesn't mean everyone is. I have a total of close to 700 hours in Civ V and VI, if I put a unit somewhere and it gets killed while I didn't expect it (as opposed to a standard casualty of a unit getting fired upon for a few turns and me realizing I can't save it), then it's because the AI is better than I expected. Which, in turn, means it's better than it was in V and previously in VI.

Whatever godly powers you ascribe to me, they don't excuse the AI:

- not settling its third starting settler, in a Civ version where cities bring no penalties, by the time the human player has 120 hammer units that require a tech that isn't exactly starting - ???
- sending said settler the way of my units - ???
- after losing its second city, sending its entire army in a haphazard rush against a defending line of Varu and archers, instead of protecting its capital and forcing me into choosing between white peace only and delaying my China attack - ???

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please try to be respectful towards each other's opinions. Calling them worthless is not civil discussion. You may disagree, but state why you disagree instead of calling other's views worthless. Stick to the argument and skip the personal.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[MyOtherName]

I'd like an example of the strategy that I or II had that VI doesn't have.

You miss the point entirely: it's about the relevance of strategy, or more precisely that it isn't very relevant to civ 6.

In Civ 4, a basic grasp of all facets of the game just means that maybe you survive deity long enough to get squashed beneath a stack of medieval units rather than a stack of ancient units. Or if you manage to stay under the radar and avoid getting wiped off the map, you get to watch the enemy AI shoot off to a victory condition while you're still centuries behind everyone.

In Civ 6... you don't even need a basic grasp of all facets of the game to go to an unchallenged victory at deity.

Becoming better at city planning, better at plotting out eurekas to get, learning how to judge whether to go out of your way for city state questions... all irrelevant to the SP game since victory at the highest levels comes without really knowing anything about them.

Some (most, I imagine) of those people who talked about beating deity the first week after launch weren't trying to brag about how amazing they were -- they were trying to drive home the point that the AI really sucks so badly that people who have no experience with the game can easily achieve victory at the highest levels.

(and also to give a negative answer to all the people that were asking questions about whether Civ 6 was worth buying)

 

[Victoria]

I played Civ V a long time but only played civ 6 for a few months
Does this make it the best civ game or have I just got less friends?

 

[Esperr]

I played Civ V a long time but only played civ 6 for a few months
Does this make it the best civ game or have I just got less friends?

View attachment 469064
View attachment 469065

First of all, that Date time group if unreadable. What even is that?

Second, I think for the most part if you liked V you will like VI more at some point. If you thought IV was great then you probably will think V and VI are worse but not by much. I have always looked at IV as the perfection of the Civ I formula and V and VI are almost an entirely different game.

 

[DWilson]

IIRC, IV was probably the height of the series' complexity, however that's not what Sid was hoping for with the series (which is reflected in the notable simplicity of several of his most recent products and his comments about game design). V, and thus VI, were an attempt to get away from that, and focus on trying to focus more on general enjoyment (which didn't work for many). For people who want the in depth complexity in the series, IV will probably be the best rendition until the graphics finally change enough to win the people over.

Really, the problem is that IV and V/VI have slightly different target audiences, which will effect how people value the games against one another.

 

[nzcamel]

You miss the point entirely: it's about the relevance of strategy, or more precisely that it isn't very relevant to civ 6.

In Civ 4, a basic grasp of all facets of the game just means that maybe you survive deity long enough to get squashed beneath a stack of medieval units rather than a stack of ancient units. Or if you manage to stay under the radar and avoid getting wiped off the map, you get to watch the enemy AI shoot off to a victory condition while you're still centuries behind everyone.

In Civ 6... you don't even need a basic grasp of all facets of the game to go to an unchallenged victory at deity.

Becoming better at city planning, better at plotting out eurekas to get, learning how to judge whether to go out of your way for city state questions... all irrelevant to the SP game since victory at the highest levels comes without really knowing anything about them.

Some (most, I imagine) of those people who talked about beating deity the first week after launch weren't trying to brag about how amazing they were -- they were trying to drive home the point that the AI really sucks so badly that people who have no experience with the game can easily achieve victory at the highest levels.

(and also to give a negative answer to all the people that were asking questions about whether Civ 6 was worth buying)

Yeah, so you are talking game difficultly, and not strategy at all lol. It's a fair criticism, but you've got to get your subjects right

IIRC, IV was probably the height of the series' complexity, however that's not what Sid was hoping for with the series (which is reflected in the notable simplicity of several of his most recent products and his comments about game design). V, and thus VI, were an attempt to get away from that, and focus on trying to focus more on general enjoyment (which didn't work for many). For people who want the in depth complexity in the series, IV will probably be the best rendition until the graphics finally change enough to win the people over.

Really, the problem is that IV and V/VI have slightly different target audiences, which will effect how people value the games against one another.

You could well be right on what Sid values or doesn't. It wouldn't surprise me.
Yet Civilization is no longer one product - it is two. Civilization Revolution may have been targeted at console users initially; but as it has ended up on other platforms too, it is a basic version for almost anyone. Now we all know that there is no point doubling up with your products. Those who want a simpler Civ experience have Revolution. If the main game isn't much more complex, then they are competing with their own products, rather than tailoring them to different markets which makes far more sense.

I tried Revolution once of my gf's tablet. Given what I expect from a Civ game it was predictably dull in its basic-ness. If the main game was to continue down the road that V took, you would lose me and players like me who do like a deeper more complex product. And needlessly, because with Revolution, they can cover both customer bases.

 

[DWilson]

I'm not trying to say the PC series will become like Revolution, I was just using that as an example of how IV was different than the series was envisioned or how Sid designs games. I expect that they were incredibly satisfied with the state of V upon completion, and will attempt to produce things similar to or slightly more than that in terms of complexity. A balance between complexity (to avoid unnecessary amounts) and approach-ability (as V and VI are).

 

[nzcamel]

I'm not trying to say the PC series will become like Revolution, I was just using that as an example of how IV was different than the series was envisioned or how Sid designs games. I expect that they were incredibly satisfied with the state of V upon completion, and will attempt to produce things similar to or slightly more than that in terms of complexity. A balance between complexity (to avoid unnecessary amounts) and approach-ability (as V and VI are).

So says you. Meier is a fan of things not becoming overly complex. But I don't think that the tile improvements in IV made it overly complex. The districts are more complex than those tile improvements were! They just added some decision making to "city planning" where before there was almost none.
V ended up a yawn fest on too many turns with no decisions being made. I would never have automated workers in IV - what they built where was too important. In V it really no longer mattered. I'm okay with the builders with limited charges, but given how there are genuine decisions to be made in VI, I think they could have them as unlimited workers (albeit with a return to improvements taking time to build) and almost no one would automate them

With Revolution there, they cannot afford to keep the main game as simple as V, cos then they are just dividing their customer base for Revolution, and loosing the share of their customers who want a more complex nuanced product.

 

[MyOtherName]

Yeah, so you are talking game difficultly, and not strategy at all lol. It's a fair criticism, but you've got to get your subjects right

I have the subject right. Strategy should matter in a strategy game; when basically all strategies lead to victory, strategy no longer matters. You have basically no meaningful decisions if basically all choices lead to the same place.

Without the difficulty, all you have in gameplay is setting up a bunch of interlinking parts and watching them move past each other -- a sandbox game, not a strategy game.

 

[nzcamel]

I have the subject right. Strategy should matter in a strategy game; when basically all strategies lead to victory, strategy no longer matters. You have basically no meaningful decisions if basically all choices lead to the same place.

Without the difficulty, all you have in gameplay is setting up a bunch of interlinking parts and watching them move past each other -- a sandbox game, not a strategy game.

If there was only one victory condition you'd be accurate. With four victory conditions (plus score =5) it does get more complex. Obviously different victory conditions require different strategies...or they wouldn't be different So maybe what you actually long for is the lesser victory conditions present in I and II. And that's fair. But it isn't a question of how well strategy is implemented in VI.

"How many different strategies are there for achieving each victory condition; and how many of them are good strategies" is a valid question. But it isn't one that you are asking. Many of us feel that 1UPT brought a change in focus from strategies to tactics. I think it is a fair thing to take issue with (though elsewhere!); but even that is quite a narrow focus Civ wise if we're looking at all the victory conditions.

Of course deciding what is the best win condition for you in the game you are currently playing; and having a plan to prevent any civ who gets close to any win condition...well. That is an impressive juggling feat in and of itself One that isn't present as much with less victory conditions.

 

[Victoria]

First of all, that Date time group if unreadable. What even is that?

Second, I think for the most part if you liked V you will like VI more at some point. If you thought IV was great then you probably will think V and VI are worse but not by much. I have always looked at IV as the perfection of the Civ I formula and V and VI are almost an entirely different game.

21.01.2017 is DDMMYYYY

I really liked Civ in the early days, my first play was colonization and then Civ II, loved civ 3 but stacking got out of hand in civ 4 and the sliders were just meh. I liked the rest of civ4 but the stack got to me after a month and just de-installed it as I knew they would never remove a central design like that. I only got to Civ V with BNW because I had just assumed the game would keep the stacks. I loved the fact that it had gone to 1upt.... I only saw the finished civ V version so was quite impressed, sure it had its issues like tall and science which ultimately meant regurgitating the same strategy with some differences. Civ VI just seems more flexible apart from higher levels you need to take the early opposition out. It is a bit too easy to do which I think is quite a shortcoming and warmongering is not very punishing.

 

[Leyrann]

First of all, that Date time group if unreadable. What even is that?

Second, I think for the most part if you liked V you will like VI more at some point. If you thought IV was great then you probably will think V and VI are worse but not by much. I have always looked at IV as the perfection of the Civ I formula and V and VI are almost an entirely different game.

To be fair I can only partly agree. While I-IV are different to V and VI a lot, with tiles vs hexes, stacks vs carpets, etc, they're all turn-based strategy or 4X games (whatever name you prefer) that have a focus on advancement, where older units become obsolete (contrary to, for example, Age of Wonders or Heroes of Might and Magic, where you might only unlock stronger units later on, but where earlier units certainly do not become obsolete). On top of that, it also focuses on expanding a lot, whereas, again comparing to AoW and HoMaM, there are similar games that are much more focused on combat than on expanding (exemplified by the tactical combat in those two games where Civilization lacks it).

Oh, and on the date:

Spoiler :