Looks like Civ 6 is done: Kevin called April "final game update"

[Kupe Navigator]

Mao Zedong was more recent than Haile Selassie.

oh yeah... forgot about Mao... but not really much? I mean both died during cold war era...

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Mao Zedong was more recent than Haile Selassie.

The barbarian leader in civ 4 is alive...

 

[Kwami]

oh yeah... forgot about Mao... but not really much? I mean both died during cold war era...

Sure, Selassie died in 1975 and Mao in 1976. Very close.

 

[God of Kings]

Sure, Selassie died in 1975 and Mao in 1976. Very close.

Leaders should be dead for at least 15 years in order to qualify to lead a civ. Mao died 15 years before Civ I was released.

 

[EricTheGreat12]

Finally, the WC. In V it was simple and effective. And tbh, the rich deciding the diplomatic agenda of the world kinda made sense...and even then there were ways to "buy" votes from people so it really did have more depth to it than that. It was simple yet effective and made for some hilarious decisions and late game shenanigans that really made Civ V late games compelling. Especially after ideologies (But that's already been talked to death)

To be fair, the World Congress in Civ V was garbage and didn't help the late game at all- other than votes on "World Projects", or the "World Ideology", it always ended up being the same stupid vote on banning happiness for X or Y luxury resource, and it was just so easy to cheese the system by way of The Forbidden City and city states. Civ VI has problems with its own World Congress, in the sense that players cannot determine what exactly to vote on, it begins too early and it still has some of the "X or Y luxury resource does not grant amenities" crap going on, but it doesn't mean that Civ V's system was any better.

The late game in Civ V just seems so underdeveloped compared to its successor. Climate change isn't a mechanic that is as impactful as it should be, but at least it provides a mechanic to be aware of in the late game; in Civ V, the end-game is just a mad rush to a victory condition, and the World Congress in that iteration was the only mechanic to dramatically change the late-game, and at that a repetitive mess.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

The late game in Civ V just seems so underdeveloped compared to its successor. Climate change isn't a mechanic that is as impactful as it should be, but at least it provides a mechanic to be aware of in the late game; in Civ V, the end-game is just a mad rush to a victory condition, and the World Congress in that iteration was the only mechanic to dramatically change the late-game, and at that a repetitive mess.

finally someone who thinks civ 5's endgame was something great compared to civ 6.
Civ 5 is overrated by civ fans....

 

[Gedemon]

The end game as always been a design problem to solve for the dev, civ4 was quite good, civ5 was bad until BNW made it passable, and for civ6 they've found a simple solution: the game is designed to end prematurely.

So they've put more development time in the early game (which does make sense from a marketing perspective, IIRC not a lot of people played full games for the previous versions), and did minimal work on the end game: unified culture graphics, AI still not able to deploy fighters 4.5 years after release, new mechanisms coming into play early, even those that should quick in later, as, still by design, you also advance in the tech tree faster...

But as a result, if you want to play for 500 turns, the last hundred turns are not as interesting as they were in the previous iterations IMO.

 

[Duuk]

finally someone who thinks civ 5's endgame was something great compared to civ 6.
Civ 5 is overrated by civ fans....

False. Civ5 is overrated by Civ*5* fans. I could have skipped from 4 to 6 with much less angst, and I really wish 1UPT would finally go away. Bring back stacks of doom that the AI could mostly handle.

 

[Kwami]

False. Civ5 is overrated by Civ*5* fans. I could have skipped from 4 to 6 with much less angst, and I really wish 1UPT would finally go away. Bring back stacks of doom that the AI could mostly handle.

No, thanks. And let's not make this another 1UPT vs. stacks of doom thread, please.

 

[sonicmyst]

I think Apocalypse mode is just another attempt in putting something flavorful in end game by wiping out tiles and cities, but I think the disasters pillaging tiles very often are more of a nuisance than fun.

And who plays until comets strike the earth?

 

[Jkchart]

I strongly agree with this and don't actually want more civilizations at this point. There are a few I'd be happy to trade, though...

I'd be happy for them to fill the final 8 slots in the HOF I saw the other day with alt leaders though...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd be happy for them to fill the final 8 slots in the HOF I saw the other day with alt leaders though...

The surprise is that they end up announcing Victoria will get to lead Scotland, Canada, Australia, India, and highly requested Egypt, filling up five of them.

 

[Jkchart]

I can’t believe the game has been out since 2016, we’ve essentially had three expansions, multiple dlc, and yet the back third of the game is still missing.

That’s my gripe in a nutshell.

By any measure, Civ VI has the most content and has received the most support of any Civ game. And, while I get this is just my subjective view, pretty much everything that is in the game seems really good to me. Yes, Religion is really good. Yes, the World Congress is great, and is frankly better than Civ V’s version (although admittedly they’re very different things). Yes, Comets, Vampires, Zombies and all that are a hoot, an optional hoot, and so are the Mad Max meets Fortnite and Pirates! multiplayer games are awesome.

There’s pretty much nothing in the game as it is that I wish wasn’t there. There are things here or there I’d tweak. But yeah, it’s all fantastic.

Here’s the thing though. Civ VI has had a really solid, fun, engaging early game since the start. All the various expansions have doubled down on that, and have probably made the mid game pretty solid as well. But for all this development and support, the end game is still a barren wasteland of unrealised opportunities.

Civ 5 had a great end game, but while Civ VI has happily reused lots of ideas and mechanics from previous game, very little of Civ 5’s end game has made it into Civ 6. Key gaps are:

• Ideological Pressure. We have Loyalty at turn 0 since RnF. We have Happiness and Amenities, and Tourism, and Ideological Governments (that you can switch between). We have a World Congress, and Policy Cards and all sorts of things. But we’re somehow missing Civ V style ideological pressure, and all the conflict and positioning and challenges that created for the late game? How do we have all the pieces needed for Civ V style Ideological Pressure, and a track record of that being great fun in a Civ game, and yet it’s been left out of Civ VI? It’s a huge missing piece from the end game.

• Ideological Tenets. RnF basically brought back Civ V style Social Policies via Governors. Awesome. But why is there no equivalent to Civ V style Ideological Tenets? The way the game works now, Governors just cease being relevant after about the Medieval Era. FXS clearly realise they could do more with Governors given Secret Societies. Along with something like Ideological Pressure, to me it’s obvious the game needs something like Government or Ideological themed Governors that unlock later in the game, expanding how you can use Governor titles and the ways you can specialise Cities. I just don’t get this gap.

• Other Late Game Content. Where are the Civ V “Reformation Beliefs”, that give you new ways to upgrade your Religion in the late game? Where are the ideological themed Wonders, Buildings and Units? Where is the option to send Spies as Ambassadors (particularly now we can’t even send Spies to Allies)? Where are the Future Units? We have Giant Mecha GDR, but that’s it? Where’s my Stealth Bomber? How is there still only 4 Dedications per Era - surely there’s enough stuff in the game to justify a fifth Dedication per Era (eg Focused on Diplomacy).

This is my ongoing frustration with Civ 6. It’s the best version of Civ up to about the Medieval Era, maybe early Renaissance. And then content-wise the game just falls off a cliff. And I seriously don’t get why.

I think something that’s telling are the game modes people seem to leave “always on”. Secret Societies (ie expanded uses for Governor Titles), Corporations, Barbarians. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but I think that indicates people are still wanting a bit more depth to the mechanics particularly around stuff that was in previous games (specifically Civ V) and or is a bit more late game focused. And FXS know this late game stuff is likely to be well received given how well Brave New World sold for Civ V.

If FXS stop development after NFP, which of course is a real possibility, then I really don’t understand the logic at all. I just don’t get putting so much effort into this game, getting the early to mid game to be so good, and then just “abandoning” the end game. I mean, not even putting stuff into the end game that Civ V had - ideological pressure, an equivalent of ideological tenets, and a few other bings like reformation beliefs and stealth bombers, just seems completely perverse.

Anyway. It’ll be what it’ll be. Either FXS do another pass or more DLC or they don’t. If they do, then I don’t see why they couldn’t do Civ V style Ideological pressure and similar things given they’ve managed to do Corporations and more dynamic Barbarians. Fingers crossed. Until then, I’ll keep playing with the toys I have, and just restarting my games about 20 turns after I unlock Frigates...

I agree with so much of this BUT I truly hated how V handled ideological pressure. The first culture civ to get industrialization first ALWAYS got stupid pressure that caused the rest of the world problems. They would need a bit of rebalance on how the pressure numbers are calculated AND the strength of each (example, you almost always wanted Order in V) to make it an appealing mechanic again. Otherwise add it back in VII rather than half-*** it just to have it.

 

[blok]

The surprise is that they end up announcing Victoria will get to lead Scotland, Canada, Australia, India, and highly requested Egypt, filling up five of them.

Might as well add the Zulu and the Māori on that list while you're at it. And possibly Nubia. There's 8! All we need for a second New Frontier Pass.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I think Apocalypse mode is just another attempt in putting something flavorful in end game by wiping out tiles and cities, but I think the disasters pillaging tiles very often are more of a nuisance than fun.

And who plays until comets strike the earth?

The thing about a lot of proposed mechanics is that they often aren't fun because they are imagined specifically as challenges to overcome rather than tools to be used. Because Civ is a game (and a long and grueling one at that), the devs can't just pile on maluses everywhere; they need to be balanced with things that give the players agency, ways to turn them into bonuses and edges.

Apocalypse mode tried to balance this by allowing players to trigger disasters with soothsayers, but it seems like an unsuccessful attempt because many players don't seem to enjoy or understand that element as part of the whole game mode design.

I also think this is why the climate change mechanics weren't particularly well-received because, aside from being a land-locked carbon-machine there's not much way to directly inflence climate change in the player's favor. Instead you just seem to be screwed over by RNG all the time. The "bonuses," things like alternative energy, are a completely separate system and don't actually make the climate change any more fun.

Hear me out though, I do think that GS had a kernel of an idea that could have been fun if the devs would only take a different perspective on the game. Imo, late game should be restructured to be cooperative more than competitive. The more win conditions which actively encourage cooperation (things like multiplayer wins), or merely making the game so difficult that everyone needs to cooperate just to reach end game, then the more fun abject maluses become as a whole. At that point the focus of the game is shifted not from rotely snowballing your win condition and mitigating obstacles, but dynamically responding to and negotiating with players and AI. The fun is no longer wrung from thin systems, but cultivated in the process of trying to simply keep the game alive (something which exists in early game but seems to mostly disappear for players later).

Making the game cooperative would also conveniently alleviate many complaints about the AI. Playing against incompetent AI is frustrating because they tend to not represent any real threat to the player. Playing aside incompetent AI in the midst of a global threat would be terribly fun, like herding cats.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Making the game cooperative would also conveniently alleviate many complaints about the AI. Playing against incompetent AI is frustrating because they tend to not represent any real threat to the player. Playing aside incompetent AI in the midst of a global threat would be terribly fun, like herding cats.

Ironically, when playing with the scout cats enabled, they can easily do that.

That's one reason why, despite global/real world circumstances, wanted a pandemic game mode, similar to the popular Pandemic board game.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Ironically, when playing with the scout cats enabled, they can easily do that.

That's one reason why, despite global/real world circumstances, wanted a pandemic game mode, similar to the popular Pandemic board game.

It's such an obvious design choice, imo. The climate change features were already begging for something Pandemic styled anyway. I know the World Congress and sea levels are a soft attempt at that, but where the win conditions and mechanics still only reward one winner, they don't really have much effect on changing the gameplay except frustrate players.

Another point (and I'm sure there are many), but the real success of games these days is multiplayer, the ability to form teams and cooperate, be it FPSs or MMOs. Civ notoriously doesn't have a particularly strong multiplayer following, but with a cooperative mode--and perhaps shortening the playtime a bit--it absolutely could.

 

[sonicmyst]

I agree on these points. It is such a missed opportunity to have more cooperation between civs in late game but instead we have scored competition on whose civ will have the least carbon emission. Same with international space projects.

I imagine the end game would be more impactful if there is an option for all civs to either unite for a common win goal (aka save the world) or lose (similar to a world armageddon of other games where earth will be wiped entirely).

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I agree on these points. It is such a missed opportunity to have more cooperation between civs in late game but instead we have scored competition on whose civ will have the least carbon emission. Same with international space projects.

I imagine the end game would be more impactful if there is an option for all civs to either unite for a common win goal (aka save the world) or lose (similar to a world armageddon of other games where earth will be wiped entirely).

But is that REALISTIC? I don't think civs will ever unite... unless you make them

 

[BackseatTyrant]

It's kind of a travesty that, instead of bringing further rep to africa and the americas, they chose to have Greece AND Macedon AND Byzantium. It's not on the same level of bad as, say, having HRE be a separate civ from Germany, simply because Charlemagne wasn't German, but it's up there. Gaul is another inclusion I'll never understand