Longtime Civ4 player, wanting to buy this game, but

[Gedemon]

The modes are like scenarios, part of the paid content that keeps development going. I only like a few of the modes just like I've only played a few of the scenarios. No big deal.

The bug fix patches you're referring to are completely different. People don't pay extra for fixes. The premium content keeps devs invloved. There were a number of free updates that came out along with the various NFP releases including the April patch. The civs and modes don't take time away from bug fixes. They facilitate it. Capitalism Baby!

The modes take so much less effort than the various scenarios they've added but I've never really seen the same complaints about them. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet more players are using the modes than ever played the scenarios.

It's a question of balance, people don't pay extra for fixes because they've already paid for them when they bought the game, honestly I would have preferred that the game's development ended before they butchered their engine with Gathering Storm and then added more and more content over a now unstable base...

I also disagree on the "modes take so much less effort than the various scenario", from my modder's perspective it's the opposite, but on the other hand, I can agree that modes generate much more sales than scenarios.

I can also understand that the NFP was a way to keep/protect the artists team by generating income before working on a new projects.

But again, balance, seems they have not a lot of coders (which also is an argument to say that the development cost of the NFP wasn't at the detriment of bug fixing, as it was mostly done by people who don't fix bugs), or they've moved them to the next project first, which is logical, but IMO the game really needed more fixes before.

 

[Vargas1]

Oh it follows. for each mode there was time spent developing the mode instead of the base game. there is a reason modding is officially added to games so that developers can focus on the game not mods. civ6 modes are poorly implemented mods that took time away from improving the core. the base game is in such poor shape now for single player as a result it is not worth playing for players that have come from civ4.

You're setting up a false dichotomy that folks spending time on game modes would necessarily otherwise be fixing issues on the base game (which, it seems obvious to say, consumers have already paid for). It's just as likely that if they weren't developing modes, they would have moved on to an entirely different project.

 

[glider1]

You're setting up a false dichotomy that folks spending time on game modes would necessarily otherwise be fixing issues on the base game (which, it seems obvious to say, consumers have already paid for). It's just as likely that if they weren't developing modes, they would have moved on to an entirely different project.

look at the state of the game now it needs six months of work to get the base game up to scratch. Had they done what they used to do which was release an expansion instead of these game modes, by now we would have had a feature rich game with integrated development of the base and we would be in better shape as used to happen with fxs development (civ4-5).

On top of that these game modes have left the developers with no clue about how to add complex features to the next iteration such as well designed corporation system since they didn't do it in civ6. So if we are to get beautifully integrated systems in civ7 the developers won't have any experience to go off because the modes didn't give them that experience.

 

[acluewithout]

I think NFP and the game modes are fine. The game is in pretty good shape all considered, although probably does need one more patch for bugs and some remaining balance issues.

But, that said, I do think the game suffers from needing one more small expansion, just completing some mechanics and allowing a bit more development of the engine / base game. Civ 6 suffers a bit in comparison to Civ 4 and Civ 5 as a result, because while Civ 6 has more content overall, Civ 4 and Civ 5 feel more complete.

To answer the OP, I think buying into Civ 6 particularly if you can get it on discount is a good option and or wait for a final bug fix. It’s pretty good. But yeah, it does currently miss a few beats, which is a bit sad given how much work has gone into it.

 

[PiR]

I can agree that modes generate much more sales than scenarios.

Scenarios have very limited replayability. I've tried a few and once you know the map, most of its secrets are gone.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think NFP and the game modes are fine. The game is in pretty good shape all considered, although probably does need one more patch for bugs and some remaining balance issues.

But, that said, I do think the game suffers from needing one more small expansion, just completing some mechanics and allowing a bit more development of the engine / base game. Civ 6 suffers a bit in comparison to Civ 4 and Civ 5 as a result, because while Civ 6 has more content overall, Civ 4 and Civ 5 feel more complete.

To answer the OP, I think buying into Civ 6 particularly if you can get it on discount is a good option and or wait for a final bug fix. It’s pretty good. But yeah, it does currently miss a few beats, which is a bit sad given how much work has gone into it.

I would say Civ6 definitly has more content in terms of Civilizations and stuff, but earlier Civs had far more detailed systems and features that worked much better together

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

it needs six months of work to get the base game

That's why they just need to release the code to the modders who will actually fix things.

As for the purchase, I am a long time Civ 4 lover, I have over 5000 hours of Civ 5 and over 1500 in Civ 6. Probably half of those Civ 5 hours were from Vox Populi, and I have probably only 200 hours of Civ 6 without at least one mod. So, if you are buying it for a computer where you can add mods, then I would 100% recommend it. If you are buying it for a console (and since you are a longtime Civ 4 lover) then I wouldn't recommend it, since you cannot mod anything there (correct me if I'm wrong) and therefore you are stuck with whatever final product is there. If I had Civ 5 on console (so no mods) then I would have quit that game a long time before.

 

[aieeegrunt]

That's why they just need to release the code to the modders who will actually fix things.

As for the purchase, I am a long time Civ 4 lover, I have over 5000 hours of Civ 5 and over 1500 in Civ 6. Probably half of those Civ 5 hours were from Vox Populi, and I have probably only 200 hours of Civ 6 without at least one mod. So, if you are buying it for a computer where you can add mods, then I would 100% recommend it. If you are buying it for a console (and since you are a longtime Civ 4 lover) then I wouldn't recommend it, since you cannot mod anything there (correct me if I'm wrong) and therefore you are stuck with whatever final product is there. If I had Civ 5 on console (so no mods) then I would have quit that game a long time before.

Civ6 console player who has put many, MANY hours into this game and this would be my opinion as well

I am going to give Civ6 one last chance by playing just the base game without Rise and Fall, Global Storm or any of the mode, and barbarians turned off.

I think the biggest question is do you want kind of a semi passive builder minimax game? Civ6 fits this extremely well.

Do you want the AI to pose an actual threat? I’d pass.

 

[Zaarin]

But, that said, I do think the game suffers from needing one more small expansion, just completing some mechanics and allowing a bit more development of the engine / base game.

I don't think another expansion could solve Civ6's fundamental problem, which is the incoherence of its systems--not a small expansion anyway. It would have to be a BNW-style from-the-ground-up overhaul. I think the main design team moved on to Civ7 even before NFP (hence NFP's middling quality), and I think that's good because Civ7 is our best hope to see Civ6's plethora of good ideas better implemented.

I would say Civ6 definitly has more content in terms of Civilizations and stuff, but earlier Civs had far more detailed systems and features that worked much better together

I mostly agree with you, but I disagree on an important point. Civ6 has more content and more detailed systems...but those systems are all going in different directions and don't cohere into a logical game. Even Civ5, which IMO is the second weakest Civ game after Civ3, was better at making a coherent set of systems.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I don't think another expansion could solve Civ6's fundamental problem, which is the incoherence of its systems--not a small expansion anyway. It would have to be a BNW-style from-the-ground-up overhaul. I think the main design team moved on to Civ7 even before NFP (hence NFP's middling quality), and I think that's good because Civ7 is our best hope to see Civ6's plethora of good ideas better implemented.


I mostly agree with you, but I disagree on an important point. Civ6 has more content and more detailed systems...but those systems are all going in different directions and don't cohere into a logical game. Even Civ5, which IMO is the second weakest Civ game after Civ3, was better at making a coherent set of systems.

I agree on the total incoherence. I just played a game of Civ6 with R&F and GS turned off, barbs turned off, all modes turned off, and the game was hilariously SO MUCH BETTER.

I noticed the AI was a lot better at expanding and building up it’s cities. It even improved all it’s strategic and luxury resources and it’s use of builders actually made sense

Unfortunatly the AI is till absolutly worst in class terrible at warfare, bailed out by the ridiculously ahistorical wall mechanics (gee I wonder why that is).

This is the biggest flaw by far for anyone who isn’t either a passive builder or who just wants to beat up a pinata. It isn’t all just UPT at fault (although it is the biggest flaw for sure).

So I’m Rome, it’s the classical age, Persia is my neighbour. I start building up an army literally fortified on the high ground on his borders. I make it painfully obvious I am coming for him.

His response is to denounce me….and build a settler and a builder.

I sigh and invade, crushing his immortals and taking everything but his capital with ease

His response is…builds another settler, then sends it unescorted literally into my army.

I am ultimately stopped only by city walls and an encampment giving him of those stupid LOS ignoring city strikes a turn combined with the absurdity of the classical era’s best siege army in history being impotent against said walls

I have a strong suspicion that Civ6 “pure vanilla” with a stacking mod, a plus one movement mod, and an AI mod would be a very improved game. Just add a mod that nerfs walls.

As far as systms go I guess it depends on what you consider “detailed”. If I do a side by side comparison of just about every system in Civ4 and the equivelant in Civ6, Civ6 is less complex and usually worse.

 

[Zaarin]

As far as systms go I guess it depends on what you consider “detailed”. If I do a side by side comparison of just about every system in Civ4 and the equivelant in Civ6, Civ6 is less complex and usually worse.

It has been a long time since I played Civ4, but off the top of my head religion and great people are much more complex in Civ6, the district system is just something that Civ4 has nothing comparable to, etc. I remember that Civ4 had a culture system that worked something like Civ6's loyalty, but it's been too long for me to remember if it was more or less complex. Complexity doesn't equal quality, of course. IMO Civ4's religion system was less than ideal but better than Civ6's, for instance. Civ6 isn't lacking in complex systems; it's lacking in an overarching design philosophy that ties those systems together.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Nah Civ 4's religion was way more intricate. It wasn't an either/or thing. You could mix religions or allow only one. Building multiple worship buildings was a massive culture boost. You could allow for Free Religion. The whole mono-religion crap is incredibly dull with the few exceptions like India and Kongo but largely irrelevant. The result is the religious game is mostly binary-- you're either religious or not though I guess the use of faith in culture wins is something. You could also win a religious victory without being the founder. (well, it was called diplomatic victory).

But like most things 5 dumbed everything down though I saw 6 as bringing it back towards the right direction.

And speaking of diplomatic victory the AP/UN was much more complex and powerful than the WC which is embarrassment. At least 5 made you felt like it was important.

 

[Zaarin]

Nah Civ 4's religion was way more intricate. It wasn't an either/or thing. You could mix religions or allow only one. Building multiple worship buildings was a massive culture boost. You could allow for Free Religion. The whole mono-religion crap is incredibly dull with the few exceptions like India and Kongo but largely irrelevant.

All fair points. Like I said, it's been a long time since I've played Civ4. What I meant, though, is that the religions themselves are more complex in Civ6, which I have mixed feelings about: I like the more complex religions, but I hate that they're basically an extension of your civ rather than something happening below the civ level.

 

[Rotomagus]

[...]

So I’m Rome, it’s the classical age, Persia is my neighbour. I start building up an army literally fortified on the high ground on his borders. I make it painfully obvious I am coming for him.

His response is to denounce me….and build a settler and a builder.

I sigh and invade, crushing his immortals and taking everything but his capital with ease

His response is…builds another settler, then sends it unescorted literally into my army.

Well, he of course wanted to forward settle again, and kill your legions with loyalty pressure!

Laughed hard!

And then there is the case, when the AI cranks out settlers while invaded, which settle cities almost on the other side of the globe, somewhere in Tundra or Desert, and when you get there 'gefühlt' 5 rounds later, those cities are bigger than your capital, have 5 buildings and 2 districts and 8 units out of nowhere around them, courtesy of ... 'Bonus'!!! Yeah!

Why play something like that!?

 

[Archon_Wing]

All fair points. Like I said, it's been a long time since I've played Civ4. What I meant, though, is that the religions themselves are more complex in Civ6, which I have mixed feelings about: I like the more complex religions, but I hate that they're basically an extension of your civ rather than something happening below the civ level.

But that's the problem. The strategy behind religion is much more complex in 4. The religious victory was also more complex because it required your religion in every civ but you had to have a vote to win which is a lot more intricate than "spam theological combat"

But still better than 5; religion not even in Vanilla and no victory involving it!

Though I guess the WC is probably a clearer example of 4 just being flat out more complex in some regards.

 

[Zaarin]

But still better than 5; religion not even in Vanilla and no victory involving it!

TBH this is one thing Civ5 got right. I want Religious Victory gone and never to return. Let it play roles in other victories, but Religious Victory is an absolute mess.

 

[Archon_Wing]

TBH this is one thing Civ5 got right. I want Religious Victory gone and never to return. Let it play roles in other victories, but Religious Victory is an absolute mess.

I can't really agree. But in any case, i dislike it when a series heads backwards, and this one does that a lot already.

 

[Zaarin]

I can't really agree. But in any case, i dislike it when a series heads backwards, and this one does that a lot already.

If a feature is bad, I don't see removing it as moving backwards.

 

[Archon_Wing]

If a feature is bad, I don't see removing it as moving backwards.

I don't think removing it because Civ 6 did it bad is a good reason though, because you'd be removing a lot of features.

What's wrong with RV anyways?

 

[Zaarin]

It doesn't make sense. It overemphasizes founding a religion and disincentivizes spreading a religion you didn't found. (For starters, I think the whole idea of founding a religion needs to go, too, but that's a different discussion.) Mechanically it also made them decide to make passive spread virtually meaningless as opposed to the previous two games. All in all, religion needs to be rethought from the ground up, and while I certainly think that religion should be a contributing factor to other victories, especially Culture Victory and Diplomatic Victory, I don't think it makes sense as its own kind of victory.