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

[Gedemon]

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

against a common threat ? of course they will, especially if it's imminent.

They may start to compete again over influence/resources as soon as the threat is over, but they do unite until then.

There even was a proposal of a Franco-British union (as in same nation with the same constitution, so not something temporary here) during WWII at the moment of the fall or France. An union, between France and Great Britain, knowing the past history between those two nations... If they could even think of proposing it, nothing would be unrealistic in game.

Problem for the game design is that to have meaningful cooperation, you need to rework the victory types, and allow more than 2 players alliances, not something I think they can do for civ6, even if there is another season pass IMO.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Gaul is another inclusion I'll never understand

Because people wanted a proper Celtic civ?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

What's funny to me is that all of the arguments about what civs should and should not be in are because we have so MANY civs in the game. If there were an original roster of 16 or whatever the choices would be easier.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What's funny to me is that all of the arguments about what civs should and should not be in are because we have so MANY civs in the game. If there were an original roster of 16 or whatever the choices would be easier.

I personally don't mind any of the civs that did get in, and I wouldn't necessarily want to take any out of the game in order to substitute one on my wishlist either.

 

[oSiyeza]

Things I predict:

The world Builder will never be fully functional, dlls will not be released for at least some years if ever, the game will receive a ton of "number tunning" balances but most of the bugs and problems with game systems will remain forever. And Civ VI will be completely forgotten with the next iteration, which I only hope is not as shallow as this one.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Because people wanted a proper Celtic civ?

So they gave us a Belgian one

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Things I predict:

And Civ VI will be completely forgotten with the next iteration, which I only hope is not as shallow as this one.

You underestimate nostalgia.

When Civ 5 was the current game people here only saw the problems and drawbacks. That there were only a few "best" paths to victory, etc.

When VII comes out people will complain that it's not more like Civ VI.

I personally don't mind any of the civs that did get in, and I wouldn't necessarily want to take any out of the game in order to substitute one on my wishlist either.

Fair, but most of the civs we're talking about here wouldn't even be on the boards of there weren't FIFTY (!!!) civs in the game already. The more we get the more we want.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So they gave us a Belgian one

Better than France 2.0? 1.5? Not sure which one it would be?

Fair, but most of the civs we're talking about here wouldn't even be on the boards of there weren't FIFTY (!!!) civs in the game already. The more we get the more we want.

Honestly I expected about 50 civs this iteration. Though not all are definitely the 50 I thought we'd get, or what I wanted, so I understand why people feel the way they do.

 

[pokiehl]

You underestimate nostalgia.

When Civ 5 was the current game people here only saw the problems and drawbacks. That there were only a few "best" paths to victory, etc.

When VII comes out people will complain that it's not more like Civ VI.

He’s also underestimating how popular Civ 6 is. It’s the best selling game in the series bar none and is available on more platforms than any other iteration. It’s the first entry to the series for many many players, which will also strengthen the nostalgia factor you’ve referenced.

I think it’s good for us to take a step back every now and then and realize that this forum and many particular threads can become echo chambers of opinions that are not representative of the majority of the player base.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Things I predict:

The world Builder will never be fully functional, dlls will not be released for at least some years if ever, the game will receive a ton of "number tunning" balances but most of the bugs and problems with game systems will remain forever. And Civ VI will be completely forgotten with the next iteration, which I only hope is not as shallow as this one.

Civ 6 isn't THAT bad.... I will say it is better than non-modded civ 5 at this point.

He’s also underestimating how popular Civ 6 is. It’s the best selling game in the series bar none and is available on more platforms than any other iteration. It’s the first entry to the series for many many players, which will also strengthen the nostalgia factor you’ve referenced.

I think it’s good for us to take a step back every now and then and realize that this forum and many particular threads can become echo chambers of opinions that are not representative of the majority of player base.

Not to mention civ 6 is available in many different platforms- Playstation Xbox and Nintendo Switch...

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

Oh man, I 100% agree with you. The agenda system is, to me, a complete downgrade from Civ 5 and verges on failure. The Civ 5 AI "personality flavors" led to much more distinctive and cohesive AI personalities than the incoherent, tantrum-throwing AI we have in this game. It kills my immersion so much. And "satisfying" their agendas is never fun or engaging; it's just tedious and irritating. I don't care that this person wants me to have a navy or that person wants me to settle on the coast; that's not having a personality, that's just a set of banal yes/no criteria to meet or ignore.

The other benefit of the AI flavors was that Civ 5 had an option to randomize the personalities as well, which greatly enhanced replay value to me.

Please Firaxis, go back to AI flavors!

Honestly- I never paid any attention to the agendas (or gossip) and couldn't begin to even tell you which civs favor what, because they simply don't matter in the outcome of any game. That speaks volumes as to what an obvious failure and waste of time those things have been in this game.

 

[tsf4]

I just want personalities to not be dependent on the civ. Give me random! I don’t want say Alexander to be a warmonger every game. And sometimes I want Canada to be one, etc etc

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I just want personalities to not be dependent on the civ. Give me random! I don’t want say Alexander to be a warmonger every game. And sometimes I want Canada to be one, etc etc

Ugh, I want the random agendas removed so we get more consistent characters from game to game!!

 

[Zaarin]

I just want personalities to not be dependent on the civ. Give me random! I don’t want say Alexander to be a warmonger every game. And sometimes I want Canada to be one, etc etc

I'd find this acceptable as a mode or toggleable option, but I wouldn't want this to be default. However, Civ5 style personalities with a predefined range of parameters would be an acceptable compromise--so Alexander will always be a warmonger, but how warmongery will vary from game to game.

 

[Guynemer]

I'd find this acceptable as a mode or toggleable option, but I wouldn't want this to be default. However, Civ5 style personalities with a predefined range of parameters would be an acceptable compromise--so Alexander will always be a warmonger, but how warmongery will vary from game to game.

Right. Primarily because the leader's personality should, ideally, synergize with the rest of their kit. A pacifist Alex would make no sense with Macedon's kit, and warmonger Laurier would make no sense with Canada's.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Right. Primarily because the leader's personality should, ideally, synergize with the rest of their kit. A pacifist Alex would make no sense with Macedon's kit, and warmonger Laurier would make no sense with Canada's.

All except Gandhi.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

All except Gandhi.

A nuke for a nuke only makes the world blind.

 

[Zaarin]

A nuke for a nuke only makes the world blind.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' but I say to you preemptively nuke everyone and they can never hurt you in the first place."--Gandhi probably

 

[DWilson]

Indira?

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

If you fight fire with fire the whole world will go up in smoke.
Gandhi: And is that a bad thing?