Old timer's, what are your thoughts so far?

[Acken]

Hehe as much as i like civ5 i wont defend 1upt to the core. Its the one part of civ5 that i like the less.

Its not even 1upt in itself but more its relationship with terrain and ai ability to use it. Units take just too much space. Maybe if units tile were on a different scale than cities and mountains it would be better i dont know. Put an army in a flat plain and the ai performs well. Put it in a forested area with lakes and rivers and it just crumbles.

 

[Drakarska]

The reason is that I like an easy win, so I usually play on difficulty levels where I get ahead of the AI fast. In the beginning of a game they will still get techs that I don't have. By the time I reach paper in Civ4 there are few things that they can teach me. That's why I had the qualification that I like an easy win.

Then why bother playing the game at all? If you like an easy win without any challenge, what's the point?

 

[Felis Renidens]

These mods are like applying lube to try and bash a square peg into a round hole. Well done obviously, according to many the peg is now in the hole, but Civ was never meant to be Panzer General as Jon Shafer wanted. Why are we still heading down this path!?

How would you represent the extensive and multi pronged forces of Israel in Civ these days? I agree that 1UPT is a fine game style (if the Civ map could be about 100 times larger!).


Thanks Ricci.

I suppose you will need to adjust the scale, although at least the Air Force won't be a problem.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think a small bump in an unknown tech upon meeting a civ (with a notification instead of just being nearly invisible the way it is in Civ V) might have the right feeling while not being too damaging to gameplay.

I think that tech trading is too gamey for me, but contacting a distant civ could/should give you (and them) a science boost for a few turns at least.

 

[Felis Renidens]

Then why bother playing the game at all? If you like an easy win without any challenge, what's the point?

The point is that I enjoy it that way. It's not about will I win, but how will I do it this time. I enjoy the building and management of a civilization from the stone age to space age. I play for relaxation, not challenge - strange as it may seem to people.

Of course each version has it own self challenges - like how early can I get to space, could I get all the wonders? Things like that.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Then why bother playing the game at all? If you like an easy win without any challenge, what's the point?

We all play for different reasons. Sometimes I play to win; other times I play just for fun and to build a cool empire. I must confess that in the 24? years that I've been playing Civ, I've never started a game on Deity outside of the GOTM (and that was over 12 years ago when Cracker was running them).

 

[Ryika]

Some of the most fun you can have with the game is playing on a somewhat low difficulty anyway, then be a warmongering pig and create stories in your mind about the gruesome things you do. Those are the games that render me unable stop grinning like a madman.

 

[Westwall]

Then why bother playing the game at all? If you like an easy win without any challenge, what's the point?

To feel like a god/god-emperor.

That's why I play anyway.

 

[Aristos]

In vanilla BNW, I would agree with you. However, modded ( and hats off to to the wizardry of Acken ) made TT a more essential tactic..

Acken??? You sure mean Putmalk, the creator and keeper of C4DF (Civ4 diplomatic features), who now joined the CBP mod and made C4DF even better. Putmalk is the one that made TT possible in Civ5, among other things (including a nice working Vassal model).

 

[sonicboom12345]

Been playing since Civilization II. I hated V, especially after BNW. Hated 1upt, hated the fact that you were forced to build tall, hated all the empty space on the map, hated the diplo, hated everything.

I'm ambivalent about VI. Neither optimistic nor pessimistic. Everything that used to make Civilization special to me was ruined with the last game, and I've since largely moved on to Paradox. I'll wait to hear what the reviewers have to say about VI before I purchase it, but then again it's not like I can really trust them either after the glowing reviews most of them gave V at launch.

 

[daft]

Been playing since Civilization II. I hated V, especially after BNW. Hated 1upt, hated the fact that you were forced to build tall, hated all the empty space on the map, hated the diplo, hated everything.

I'm ambivalent about VI. Neither optimistic nor pessimistic. Everything that used to make Civilization special to me was ruined with the last game, and I've since largely moved on to Paradox. I'll wait to hear what the reviewers have to say about VI before I purchase it, but then again it's not like I can really trust them either after the glowing reviews most of them gave V at launch.

Hopefully it's a return to the roots of the game, a brilliant and delicious surprise to us, old-timers, otherwise I'll go back to playing my never finished CIII games.
Won't purchase the game right away either, not for months after the release, maybe even a year after, but hey, from what I read here in this forum sounds like it might be a real good one.

 

[Aristos]

Hopefully it's a return to the roots of the game, a brilliant and delicious surprise to us, old-timers.

As long as it is not "a big sloppy kiss", "for the hardcore", right Dennis?

The thing is, Civ V is a big sloppy kiss/love letter to our fan community. We want it to be for the hardcore. We want to make it as accessible as possible, but Civ Rev kind of took care of that route. It’s for the people who want the kind of Civ-lite [experience]. Civ V is for hardcore PC. We’re PC game makers for the most part, and like I said, we’ve gone into the console market for some stuff, but we’re gonna make PC games first for a long time.

https://www.vg247.com/2010/07/09/interview-civilization-vs-dennis-shirk/

 

[Thormodr]

As long as it is not "a big sloppy kiss", "for the hardcore", right Dennis?



https://www.vg247.com/2010/07/09/interview-civilization-vs-dennis-shirk/

Yeah, I haven't forgotten that one.

Hard not to be a little cynical after that statement by the marketing team.

Ed Beach does seem to be a straight shooter, though. He doesn't seem to be making any bold promises and is keeping a low profile. Hopefully the marketing team follows his lead.

 

[Aristos]

Yeah, I haven't forgotten that one.

Hard not to be a little cynical after that statement by the marketing team.

Ed Beach does seem to be a straight shooter, though. He doesn't seem to be making any bold promises and is keeping a low profile. Hopefully the marketing team follows his lead.

Well, Dennis got one word very precise:

slop·py
/ˈsläpē/

adjective
adjective: sloppy; comparative adjective: sloppier; superlative adjective: sloppiest

2.
careless and unsystematic; excessively casual.
"your speech has always been sloppy"

synonyms: careless, slapdash, slipshod, lackadaisical, haphazard, lax, slack, slovenly;

 

[Teproc]

Started with Civ I as a kid.

I'm enthusiastic. I'm a big Civ V fan, Civ VI looks like it's continuing the tradition of odd editions expanding on the previous ones : mostly I'm looking forward to the new tech/policy system which will help me not get too railroaded in (something I've always done too much in all the civ games), and the district system because it's new and seems interesting even though I don't quite know what to think of it yet. Also, if the talk of added moddability are true, I look forward to the many, many mods.

And yes, I love 1UPT. Yes, the AI is terrible at it andit makes the game significantly easier. Whatever, Deity is still hard enough (for me), and now I actually enjoy war. I almost avoided war at any cost in IV because of how mind-numbingly boring it was, as great as a lot of that game was.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Hopefully it's a return to the roots of the game, a brilliant and delicious surprise to us, old-timers, otherwise I'll go back to playing my never finished CIII games.
Won't purchase the game right away either, not for months after the release, maybe even a year after, but hey, from what I read here in this forum sounds like it might be a real good one.

Really? CivIII is to this point the worst one.

 

[historix69]

Really? CivIII is to this point the worst one.

Is this a personal opinion or an absolute statement? (reference?)

I like Civ1, Civ3, Civ4, (Civ5 with mods). (Somehow I skipped Civ2) Civ3 had nice features and most Civplayers I knew in 2001 were enthusiastic on release ...

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Oh, just opinion for sure.

 

[dexters]

What? Civ3 had a meh launch but was well received. To gamers It was seen as more opaque and hardcore. Due to the previous publisher infogrames treating it more of a cash cow and not really promoting it outside the strategy market it was Definitely less popular than 4 but whether it was worse or the worst is subjective.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

What? Civ3 had a meh launch but was well received. To gamers It was seen as more opaque and hardcore. Due to the previous publisher infogrames treating it more of a cash cow and not really promoting it outside the strategy market it was Definitely less popular than 4 but whether it was worse or the worst is subjective.

Well yeah, that's why I said it was opinion.

I think I was disappointed in it after SMAC (though I'm trying hard not to be one of those). It had some good advancements over II but I think I was hoping for a little more. It seemed to have some seeds of good ideas that were advanced in later versions, but weren't quite "right" at the time. To be sure I liked it at the time and played a lot of it, so it might be a little bit of revisionist history on my part just comparing it to what came before and after.