Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by akossoka, Apr 1, 2017.
For me Civ 1,2 and 4 were all good out of the box.3, 5 and 6 not so.
If IV was good out of the box for you, then so is VI.
IMO. This is easily the best base game they've ever released, and it's stacking the gameplay hours faster than I ever did with 4 or 5. Alpha Centauri is still the one with the Nostalgia crown, but with expansions, I'm seeing 6 overtake that soon. It's just still really expensive so it's hard to recommend when you have so many cheaper options, and there's just more games overall competing for my time. The big thing for me though is the extra level of polish this game has over so many other 4x games. I've been exploring other 4x that I usually pick up when they go on sale, and almost all of them always end up doing something worst.
To me... It feels like devs have this pick 2 type scenario... Competent Impressive AI, Tactical meaningful gameplay, or Short and efficient turn times.
Almost every game I've seen pulls off 2 of them but rarely the third. Civ 4 eventually did competent AI, and efficient turns, but stacks of doom are relatively simple. A Total War game (or any game with tactical combat minigames) usually does the first 2 reasonably well, but then turn times drag on if you want to fight it out properly. I'm mostly curious when people are critical of 5 and 6, what game actually pulls off all three of those points better?
I pick up and play (mostly when they go on sale) a lot of 4x games, from Heroes, Endless games, Orion, some Total War games, and even some more Hybrid games like Sins, and Offworld Trading Co. I've even played some serious crap like Elemental when it first released... For me, if Civ games haven't always been the gold standard, I don't know what would be even close, 6 is no exception.
Enjoying CIV4 games. Seems that any further pondering about 6 is not necessary anymore for my part, Thank you.
If you want quality out of the box (or four patches on as you'd buy it) get it. Get it now
No! Just wait. (In the end everybody is the best to convince himself.)
Btw, some are hungry and / or like the sausages nearly raw from the grill. Some like watching them to gain colour, relax and wait a bit ... others insist in their steaks well done - so what?
Do you think as it is Vi isn't quality c4c6?
Depending on what I thought many months ago about how long civ6 would need to mature to a degree I will love, I committed myself to work on a project which will take many months more to come ... so it doesn't matter how I evaluate the current state (simply haven't the time to find out myself even if I wanted) ...
Some day civ6 will be sweet _and_ I have time to waste and IT WILL BE FUN.
As a game it is the best Civ game to play today. But as a challenge, no. And truthfully you can't really compare games that span 25 years of development. Civ I was by far the biggest leap relative to the time when it was introduced.
But I have a suspicion Civ VI just might be very close to the best once they release the first major DLC which hopefully fixes the biggest issues at least to some extent. The patches have already done a decent job although they are taking too long to develop those patches.
Would you please not impose your thoughts upon me?
I'll rephrase what you wrote:
If you don't have anything constructive and respectful to bring to the conversation, could you please shut up?
I liked Civ IV out of the box. I don't like Civ VI out of hte box. You may have a different experience, but please respect other people's opinions.
Moderator Action: Telling others to "shut up" is not the sort of civil discourse we expect. You can make your point without trolling other posters.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I don't think 4X games should be tacitcally challenging in the first place. They are strategy games, not tactical games. 5 & 6 fail to me because the AI behaves too badly, so they fail on "competent impressive AI". as for "tactical meaningful gameplay", archers firing over mountains aside, the small size of the maps make it a failure for me too. There is not enough space to maneuver. You just bring front line troops, ranged troops, and a reserve. You can't really outflank people or use terrain meaningfully. Holding a pass with a pair of foplites, one healing while hte other one takes damage and accures experience, and then switching them over, isn't tactically interesting in my book.
Of course you can outflank them, even the 2v1 frontally the second attacker gets the flanking bonus. That's the joy of the hex system.
I am always using terrain meaningfully, try taking Gilgamesh on in the open early on.
Out of the box VI is only comparable to V. Not even close to the previous four in terms of quality, challenge, and completeness.
For me : 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 > 6 > 5
If you're learning the game, it's reasonable that you will lose a unit unexpectedly.
If you are repeatedly putting units in places they die to concentrated fire...why are you doing that? In a strategy game the expectation should be to alter behavior in favor of strategies that actually work. Unless suiciding your units confers benefits, you should probably stop doing it instead of ignoring evidence that you can stop doing it.
U_Sun is a very good player that has massacred civ 4 deity, when beating deity meant that you avoided major mistakes. But he's a human being utilizing a decision heuristic + doing computations while going through the game. There is nothing, in principle, preventing you from doing similarly and going games without losing units.
With hundreds of hours in a strategy title, the ideal is to improve. I know most players don't, and instead sit in a state of perpetual intermediacy (after taking years off from civ 5, I returned briefly and caught up to my playing group inside a week ), but that's *not* a required outcome.
As for the AI, 5 > 3, but 5 is still pretty low if the max is 100. Where 6 is so much more forgiving is that it simplifies the planning and computation for micromanagement. All you need is a vague understanding of where to slap down districts, enough cities, and to know how to survive and you've a good chance of winning if you know the game rules. There are less early game decisions to juggle in the more recent entries in civ.
I'd have less issue with that if the game just let it play through faster then (fewer, but very strong implication decisions can be a decent design approach), rather than adding heaps of decisions that don't actually alter the outcome much but burn time to slog through them.
Considering it can't put 5+ people in MP in stable fashion, has serious design limitations on meaningful decisions, a weak AI due to the game constraints, and terrible UI 6 has no business being considered for best in the series, because not all of the earlier titles share those flaws.
I think CIV VI is probably the best vanilla release and will, with the inevitable expansions, probably be the best game in the series.
Oh, I forgot... since I am such a veteran player (and that means something) here is my list of best to worst.
Reading these posts, I just feel like at YouTube seeing some fans tirelessly and seriously convincing people Taylor Swift is the greatest female singer ever.
I know what you mean, you would think that it was obvious.
I judge a Civ release by when and how often I think "Woden and Mithras, I love this game!".
Started thinking this for Civ VI after the last Patch, its getting its act together. I love Monty will amphibiously assault now, that was brilliant when it happened to me, I actually lost that game as Mbingy Mbongo got ahead culturally.
Still miss Civ II real advisors ("Build City Walls!") and civ IV will always be the one that was so good I actually wanted the divorce....
Separate names with a comma.