My first impressions

[salty mud]

I was a Civ IV snob for many, many years. I tried to play Civ V but just couldn't get into it. 1UPT and global happiness, as well as the extremely limited strategies available, really put me off it. A Civilisation game where the optimal strategy is to build 4 strategies and follow the exact same development path, game after game? Pffh. Seeing the platinum edition of Civ VI on sale however, pushed me over the edge to try Civ VI. Maybe it's time for me to get with the times.

I've played about 7-8 hours now (within two days... one more turn strikes again ) and so far, I'm really enjoying the game. The biggest turns off for me in Civ VI were always districts, which seemed like an unrealistic and arbitrary concept, and the return of 1UPT. Neither seem as bad, and I actually quite enjoy the district building aspect! Some of my findings so far:

- I like the Civilisation variety. All of my time so far is as Rome, who I think give a solid bonus for players learning the game. I'll have to adapt my strategy for another civ though; hopefully automatic monuments and roads won't become a crutch for me!

- AI doesn't seem that bad so far. I was able to denounce Montezuma and take one of his cities fairly quickly, but when I went to his next city it was nicely fortified with an encampment and troops. I couldn't take it. He managed to sneak a unit or two behind my lines but this was pretty easily dealt with. I do wish however AI would be more expansive. Perhaps it's just what I've played, but AI don't seem to settle too many cities.

- Seperating science and culture techs was a great idea. It's cool to see them both develop in tandem, and actually makes me care about the culture I earn. In Civ IV I used culture for border pops and... that's it. Here, it's a constant concern.

- City planning is essential. Unlike Civ V, where you could plop a city whereever you wanted more or less, here you must bear in mind terrain and possible district settings. In my current game, I settled a city right next to Mount Etna and I am currently taking advantage of the massive food/production yields an eruption has given me. This city planning aspect, with dynamic map even playing a part, adds so much to the game.

- Expansion is back! Sitting on four cities is suicide. I can actually build an empire now without the game arbitrarily punishing me for it. I love watching my colour stretch across the map until it starts budging up against someone else's... as if that's going to stop me.


I've not reached late game yet, which is apparently where some things start to fall apart, but so far I'm happy with my purchase. How were your first impressions of Civ VI? Were you a snob like me that took the plunge and were glad you did? What are your favourite features?

 

[Sostratus]

I immediately got drawn into the district system.
I like liked Civ4 and civ5 a lot, but ultimately I would say civ5 GK beat out my experience of Civ4 BTS, as much as commerce and the specialist economies were amazing...

The graphics had to grow on me. But I think the long term factor was the continued differentiation of the civs. I didn’t like how similar many Civ4 empires are- I often found the traits more impactful than the Uniques. In civ5 they all got unique abilities, although they didn’t get too wild until the expansion pack civs.

Civ6 has a level of character to each empire that is almost on the level of a “moba” game. I really find myself liking the “total package” in firaxis’ civ6 crew. I mean look at my 2 favorite civ5 boys- Germany and Inca- and compare them to civ6. Completely blown out of the water with some of these empires. And I have made my own Civ via mod- as nice as it is, it just doesn’t have the spark that vanilla ones do. Truly, outstanding work.

I think I’d probably say the adjacency system in general is what I like more than districts by themselves, since it makes maps fun. But a lot of civ5 elements got very improved - unique great people, unique city states, to name two. The only point I dislike is I think civ6 on the whole has a worse balance on game pacing / economics than civ5, but that’s something that isn’t a core issue and it’s not like I don’t have 1,000 hours in the game.

I really like empire building, so for me the game only starts to drag once I have reached essentially the tech/policy level that just about maximizes what I can do. Usually this lands around unlocking all the strategic resources, and being able to build aerodromes (atomic age or so.) but, it really depends on if you enjoy playing until victory, or if you simply need to assure yourself you will win. For the latter players, this can leave basically the industrial era onwards as dead space if they are good.

 

[tiamats4esgares]

Well I've played Civ IV a lot too (and III and II) before V came out, but when V came out I was obsessed and it became one of my top 5 favorite games of all time, and most played game on Steam (still is). So my first impressions of VI was as a V player who was already disappointed by BE, and someone who hasn't played IV in so long it's a distant memory.

I had 5 major disappointments from the start that kept me from playing much at first. They are:

1. The graphics. I was so used to V, and this was completely different. V is much like IV, but VI is way different you have to admit. However, over time, I've come to like it. I think it grows on you. Like an ugly stray kitten, or something.

2. No Diplomacy Victory. This was "fixed"...erm...well not really. I don't think playing Civ VI will ever compare to the fun I had playing diplomacy victory in V.

3. Tourism...I mean, "Cultural" victory was vastly similar to Brave New World (Civ V's last expansion). Well, as someone who liked pre-BNW culture victory of Civ V this was a disappointment but not a shocker.

4. No love for tall. You seem to be a wide lover, but I love tall, and no matter what, Civ VI continues to ignore us tall lovers. The Mayans are not a solution. They just suck, IMO.

5. And the most controversial opinion of all (though I honestly don't know why other people don't think this): Lack of civilization diversity. Looking at all the vanilla civs in VI, just none seemed to really catch my interest. When the Mongols came out, and later, Maori, that kind of fixed the problem a bit for me but I still only like 3 civs (Those two and the Chinese, which I've grown to love, but only after Diplomacy Victory became a thing).

I hardly played Civ VI at all until Diplomacy Victory became a thing. I just went back to V because I wasn't feeling it. But there were a lot of positive things I liked about VI. Districts, the divide between the science and civic trees, governors, and the way builders work now, to name a few.

I have gone back to V a few times since playing VI a lot and it feels weird that there's just less to worry about, and less to do. And the graphics are so different. I don't know if I'd say I like VI more than V.....that's a big claim to make. But, for now, it's the game I prefer to play.

 

[montalaar]

AI will build cities and multiply like rabbits, until there is no space for player to expand, except of some conquest. alexander or khmers and many others drop cities in forward settling style towards player almost exclusively. behind them can be vast, empty spaces, but they will send settlers as close to player as they can. just raise difficulty level to see.
civ 6 is best game in series. i sweared at districts at first, now i fell in love with them. that is central part of planning in civ. around districts rounds everything else. great people had lots of improvements. lately admirals became meaningful, because most civ 6 time they were that bad.
also they improved coastal economy quite a bit. as i love to create chile like empires, with civs like gitarja, dido, england it goes very well.
good purchase you made!

 

[Victoria]

I stopped playing V when I found myself taking the same paths again and again.
In VI I hated the graphics and hated the interface but as a mechanic They had fixed the thing that counted for me.
They had provided choice, weighing things up was no longer a simple answer and playing each victory condition made for different game play. Even now people use different opening moves arguing theirs is better than others endlessly while the reality is that there is choice both in playing the map, the civ and the victory condition as well as risk/reward.
Yes the districts are great and corps and armies do create baby stacks (people cannot even agree on whether to build them or not) but it is the choice within these that becomes the balance.
I also think if they made the game too much harder it would reduce the choice more and this is why people who beat deity play emperor, because at deity you start being forced down more slightly optimal routes.

hopefully automatic monuments and roads won't become a crutch for me!

Culture is important early game and Rome's real weapon so yes be careful. Roads are quite different and a continuing frustration for many.

AI don't seem to settle too many cities.

They do but it is Perhaps about their decision tree’s dropping out of expansion too soon. They certainly can spread to over 10 cities left unchecked.

 

[sonicmyst]

What I initially love about Civ VI is the district system and how map play a big factor in placement of everything. Then with GS the map now becomes an adversary itself. As if it is another civ in itself who strikes back in the form of disasters.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

They do but it is Perhaps about their decision tree’s dropping out of expansion too soon. They certainly can spread to over 10 cities left unchecked.

Which isn't all that much really considering the AI often settled up to 20-50 cities in Civ 5. Ironically enough, in Civ 5 it was strictly bad to settle that many cities and the AI crippled itself. Same in Civ 6, now it would be beneficial to settle more cities, but the AI cripples itself by settling few cities and settling slowly.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I like districts a lot in terms of a gameplay standpoint, but in terms of representing actual cities and how they grow they don't make much sense.

 

[Hans Castorp]

I've come back to CivVI this month, having been playing IV a lot the last couple of months, and not having played VI properly for about a year. I think it is really coming together now - a lot of variation between games. They said they wanted us to 'play the map', and that's the way it has gone.

 

[Mount Suribachi]

My initial impression was how much better a game vanilla Civ 6 was than Vanilla Civ 5. Civ 5 Complete was a great game, but the base game was just an empty she'll with nothing to do.

Subsequent impression was how important planning was in this game to maximise adjacency bonuses, district placement etc. It's interesting you were a Civ4 player as I've always felt that they are a very min/maxy bunch of people, and that micromanagey style of play that ekes out every last fraction of yields is the kind of person who would enjoy Civ6.

 

[Victoria]

Which isn't all that much really considering the AI often settled up to 20-50 cities in Civ 5. Ironically enough, in Civ 5 it was strictly bad to settle that many cities and the AI crippled itself. Same in Civ 6, now it would be beneficial to settle more cities, but the AI cripples itself by settling few cities and settling slowly.

The AI would cripple itself with 20 cities now because it would have too much to do.

 

[Thormodr]

I loved cIV, the best game in the series. I couldn't stand Civilization 5, the swimlane game. Stay in your lane! Don't deviate!

Civ VI feels to me more like cIV. I really feel like I am telling a story. While not perfect yet, it is trending in the right direction.

 

[King of Prussia]

I quite like how each map is different, combined with your different civ bonuses, can lead to quite the variety in gameplay. Biggest issue is the mid to late game for me. This is one area where i find Civ V is far better imo. The vast majority of my requests for changes involve that part of the game. I can only hope in the next year they can find a way to make the AI more competitive in that part of the game. Bug fixes would also be welcome. Teaching the AI to make RR, make RR more useful, and less annoying to make would be nice as well.

 

[UWHabs]

What I initially love about Civ VI is the district system and how map play a big factor in placement of everything. Then with GS the map now becomes an adversary itself. As if it is another civ in itself who strikes back in the form of disasters.

Yeah, these to me are the largest points. Maybe the AI sucks, and there's horribly unbalanced parts, but I still certainly derive pleasure from a perfectly planned city with a beautiful campus, a theatre square nestled between a couple wonders, a river with an ideal dam/IZ/aqueduct setup, etc...Even just the decisions on whether a city should build a holy site, entertainment complex, theatre, encampment, etc... what works best for its location on the map, what my empire looks like, etc... it just makes me forgive so many other issues with the game that I can still happy to be a "builder" in creating a great empire.

There's even a little bit of story in that since each AI has their own focus, invading Korea who has campuses spammed in every city vs the Zulu whose empire is rampant with encampments. It's not quite the same personality gap that you saw in civ 4, but it's at least going in the right direction.

 

[salty mud]

I also think the AI have some interesting personalities. Nubia's queen referred to Nubia as "the land of bows"... When I invaded, I had to wade through at least 10 archer units.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I agree, they did a great job with Civ and leader selection! I'm not necessarily a fan of all the in-game portrayals though, still sad about Trajan and Alex. I just can't like them, but love how those Civs play.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

In in a tiny minority but surfer dude Alex kind of makes me laugh a little.