Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by jjkrause84, May 12, 2016.
We're really going all-in on the hyperbole, aren't we?
Assuming what you said holds true, anyhow, a strategic empire-management game isn't exclusive with a Farmville clone presuming in this Farmville clone there are strategic elements to managing something that could be called an empire.
This is the problem with conflating a mechanical base (strategic, empire builder) with a product / brand base (Farmville, "Facebook game"). Farmville is a game of some strategic and / or tactics (given what I know of it's I'd presume more on the strategy and less on the actual tactical level). These aren't exclusive descriptors, here.
Something to think about anyhow.
If you want civ to be a complex, grand strategy game like Europa Universalis, then you will disappointed with civ6. Civ was never that type of game and Firaxis is definitely moving away from it even more. Firaxis is all about making accessible, fun strategy games. That is what civ1 was and that is what civ6 will be. So in that regards, civ is not dead and probably never will be.
42k players in-game on a Wednesday morning
No you dont have to take anything away. At least not much.
Least of all features people liked.
If you are going to take bits away take the worts bits away like the stacks of doom.
Look if you want a starmelined game go play risk or chess or checkers.
Why the obsecion with turning all games into simple streamlined games?
Yes Civ 4 had plenty of problems.
That did mean some of its best features needed cutting like the bad ones.
Civ 5 should of built on the best features while removeing or fixing the bad.
As for your steamlined games? As I said go play risk if Civ is so complex for you. Better yet the Devs should just wack in a opition you can flick on and off in settings that swicth between and simple streamlined game and a more complex and mature game everyones happy that way right? No excuse not to add options.
Moderator Action: This sort of trolling post is neither civil nor constructive.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
One of the things that took a lot of people by surprise was the loss of the stack of doom in Civ V. With the continuation of the depth unit per tile limitations, I think we have an opportunity in a great deal of strategic depth in Civ 6. Stacks of Doom had their era, but honestly combat gets pretty boring if its limited to that.
The other thing, is that Civ 5 took awhile for modding to take hold, I am really interested to see CIV 6 will be more modder friendly. Really modding is part of what makes civilization such a re-playable game.
What people liked was subjective. Elimination of Micromanaging tiles was a stated goal as far back as the dying days of Civ3. Soren didn't like people moving citizens around every turn to maximize hammers and calculating overflow.
I can agree that some people really get attached to terrain bonuses and building that perfect science/commerce or production city, but that to me seems antithetical to what Civ is. It's not a city builder, but an empire builder, and I rather focus on the big picture.
Geopolitics is what for me Civ is. It's the sweep of history, the interactions, the history making. not the bean counting science city with 110 beakers vs. another one with 90. That's a small detail. I just need to know which of my cities are science, which are production and assign work accordingly.
to increase the player base, and increase it did!
The Truth ^^
I'll agree that Civ 6, as of now looks underwhelming, but in no way was Civ 5 "abysmal".
I read the entire thread on my phone last night and enjoyed the discussion about complexity in Civ5, and the "perceived" vs "actual" complexity debate.
But one thing I have an issue with: It has been six years now. If Civ5 is truly the end of the game for you, why can't you just leave it? Anno is game that is dead to me because it went futuristic. Anno 1404 is "my" last Anno. Do I write in Anno forums, full with people who love the newest two iterations, asking why they just can't go back to what I like better? No. It's a part of growing up and that games will change in one form or another. I still play Anno 1404. Would I like a new one? Yes. But it won't happen. So I started going back to city simulation, which was a path I had previously abandoned (for the same reasons) and discovered that Cities:Skylines was the true successor to SC4. Maybe there will be a nation-building simulation that resembles much of what Civ4 is about in the future. Maybe it already exists, but you haven't gone out looking for it.
And in response to
I can say that Civ5 drives my fascination with AI and is one reason why I became a computational social scientist. Discussing Civ5 from a scientific perspective with my supervisor during my PhD was the absolute greatest thing. And Anno 1602 was my personal starting point back in the day. I can appreciate that. And then I can leave it where it is.
I just want to say I can very well relate to the "yearning" for what once was, but rather than stirring up the same topic after every new launch/expac/dlc/youname it, maybe try to turn it into a positive. Play Civ5 with mods, try difficulties higher than emperor. Play a Community game to be in direct competition with other CivFanatics. Try the scenarios which alter the game mechanics significantly.
All of this will be easier once you accept that Civ4 was the best thing for you and you personally, and no future iteration of the game will take that away.
I don't accept that.
Because I enjoyed Civ 5 and SMAC more.
Why should I go play chess or checkers? Why are you acting like you aren't the one crying like a baby? Why are you telling me to leave when I'm the one happy with the games and you are not?
I loved 4 and can beat it on immortal.
I love 5 and can beat it on immortal.
I'm good at the games, I like them, I think they're great, and I don't think they're "too complex".
You are the one who is crying about Civ and how it sucks. You're the one crying. All I said was 5 is as good as 4, and 5 is not simpler than 4. They are both complex.
Don't you dare tell me to gtfo and play checkers, and talk down to me like I'm some moron who can't handle complexity. You're the one who can't even apparently handle the complexity of my argument.
Moderator Action: Please do not respond in this way. If you have a problem with another post, please report that post. Publicly engaging in this way invariably leads to further outbursts, derailing the thread and disrupting everyone else's enjoyment of this site.
I agree with everything you wrote here (minus that specific Anno game that I've never heard of). I don't understand why, if people don't like the way Civ 6 is turning out and have vowed never to buy it (to the ridiculous point of threatening not to do so - which is clearly aimed at people who'll probably never come to these forums and read them), they continue to come here and disparage the game and antagonize the people who, at the very least, have a mild interest in it. I know I can't use the "T" word, but what else would you call it? Do they think, 5 months before release, the developers are going to come here, see the complaints/suggestions, and completely scrap what they've already done?
By "less start variance", I mean in Civ V it is significantly less likely that you spawn to your death. Civ IV would occasionally give situations where, even if you were the best player in the world and made no mistakes ever, I could still beat you trivially by camping you with early units. No counterplay, nothing you could do, just lose because you didn't have enough luck skill.
Similarly, there's no parallel in Civ V for "this one archer beat your two archers in a city and now you're 50 turns behind, get rekt". No, if you make that investment properly you'll not be hosed dozens of turns at random.
Finally, unlike Civ IV, Civ V does not have an era where warfare stands out as egregiously RNG dependent, orders of magnitude more so than other eras. That was the ancient era in IV. In V you can still get screwed in marginal cases, but not on the order of "here make some optimized decisions and lose anyway". Yet later on in IV, collateral initiative is so strong that it overwhelms RNG and you would need multiple-winning-lotto type odds to have 5 rifles not be flatlined by 3x as many cannons with city raider.
Civ V still has RNG, but it does it better than IV, aside from maybe the great prophet.
Ok - understand your comments on RNG are regarding effects on combat and I don't disagree there. It did make for some nail biting moments that ancient era IV combat - though that's not really what I wanted to discuss.
With regard to start variance... Yes in Civ V there was much less chance you'd spawn to your death... but maybe what I miss more than start variance per se - as in "death start" or "could have played this at +3 levels of difficulty it's so good a start" (although I do miss that a bit) is that in 4 there were real spots in the map worth risking heavy production for settlers for (as opposed to buildings, etc.) and fighting for early on... multiple resources on adjacent tiles that had meaningful bonuses, the importance of copper/iron for early military... rich seams of game changing goodness.
Some things never seem to change. I joined this forum while Civ IV was coming out, and I still remember all the complaints and comparisons:
Civ IV has terrible cartoon graphics. Civ IV lacks depth of strategy. Civ IV will never take over the forums like Civ III did.
I didn't visit the forums while Civ V was coming out but I imagine it was much of the same. I recently got into Civ V with both expansions and in my opinion it is the best game yet. I like almost every aspect of the game... except the late game unit clutter. In general the combat system could use a lot of improvements. That is the biggest thing that I hope Civ VI addresses.
So no, civilization isn't forever dead, and this seems to be the typical reaction of many vocal people with each new iteration of the game.
Agreed, I should have been more clear earlier. The latter part of your paragraph is (part) of what I meant with the early game decision tree, and now I see why you felt I made cases that were at odds. I didn't articulate the difference in what I was picturing properly.
I laud map generation allowing for very different-looking opening strategies. IV was better in that regard. V is better in the sense that its map generation is unlikely to auto-win or lose you though. That's what I was going for.
With IV, however, I never liked that someone having access to copper too soon before you made defense functionally impossible for most non-Mali civs. Swords and chariot archers can spank you early on in V but they're not auto-loss material like a couple axes walking around pillaging all the flatlands you have in PvP with nothing a stock archer can realistically do about it.
Similarly, for skirmishers were a winning unit on average against most civs by a margin for more than an era, so skirm rushing someone and pillaging them similarly had little to no counter play unless they were Inca or Persia with BFC horse or something. That kind of stuff is just too one-sided, and I consider V to have improved on that in fairness to V. Even the hardest-hitting early game stuff isn't nigh-impossible to survive.
and I agree that no one wants to auto-win or lose on a start. Those tundra starts are what "reload map" were for - unless you felt like a real self-abusive challenge that is. and ok - some early game UU's were overpowered in 4.
but in the case of... the importance of finding/claiming/hooking up certain resources (or 3 of them adjacent!) on the map, or getting to units like axeman (as the first example) - ok the advantage could be slightly overpowered for a time - but that's what drove it. for me anyway. the "one more turn". The fact that there was a significant advantage that you could get for a while if you understood the game's mechanics and could pull it off.
That's what I hope for in VI.
Separate names with a comma.