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

[Acken]

Yes, but there are some things linked to both. Like the tactical depth being linked to the ability to predict combat outcome.

I dont really think so. I think depth is more about the web of actions and consequences. Calculation is more a mundane task that dont really add anything and is just the intermediary step between the action and knowing what the consequence is.

Let me be more clear. The bonus giving you some increase value in combat power does not need to require complexe calculation to provide depth. The computer can just do that step for you through the UI. You select A and it calculates some bonus. For a boardgame to limit clunkiness its often better to reduce the difficulty of those computation but no depth is lost in the process. For example a biardgame will try to use +1 +2 bonuses rather than percent increases. Limiting the complexity of a computer game computatio can also allow the player to make comparisons more easily that are not provided by the ui.
That way you can even increase the depth by reducing the calculation simply because the player is able to create more intuitive links between a choice and consequences.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Btw. will there be tech trading in this game?

No, there will be no tech trading.

I dont really think so. I think depth is more about the web of actions and consequences. Calculation is more a mundane task that dont really add anything and is just the intermediary step between the action and knowing what the consequence is.

That's partially true. If you're going to attack enemy unit, computer could calculate the odds beforehand and show you. But what if you need to calculate a couple of turns ahead (at least the next AI turn), making UI to display those odds becomes impossible, so you have to roughly calculate them. For tactics ability to see consequences a turn ahead is a depth.

 

[Acken]

If those calculations are complex then you didnt gain in depth. As I said, if you need to calculate stuff that are not shown on the ui then simple calculations are better. Having complex calculations dont really add anything on what your decision is going to be. It just make getting a clear picture harder and is imo not good design. Thats what im trying to say.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If those calculations are complex then you didnt gain in depth. As I said, if you need to calculate stuff that are not shown on the ui then simple calculations are better. Having complex calculations dont really add anything on what your decision is going to be. It just make getting a clear picture harder and is imo not good design. Thats what im trying to say.

Yes, I agree with you here.

 

[LordProtector]

I am the exact opposite of an old timer. In fact, I spent a few hours playing Civ4 for the first time today. And I hated it, the interface was agony compared to 5, and it's obviously so much uglier.

However, it has made me a lot more interested in 6. CiVI is clearly a return to the style of the franchise, and it's now obvious to me that 5 was a big step in a new direction.

I'm now feeling excited about 6, as it essentially looks like a remake of 4 with the past parts of 5 included. So yeah. /My boring opinions.

 

[Brianstorm]

I am the exact opposite of an old timer. In fact, I spent a few hours playing Civ4 for the first time today. And I hated it, the interface was agony compared to 5, and it's obviously so much uglier.

However, it has made me a lot more interested in 6. CiVI is clearly a return to the style of the franchise, and it's now obvious to me that 5 was a big step in a new direction.

I'm now feeling excited about 6, as it essentially looks like a remake of 4 with the past parts of 5 included. So yeah. /My boring opinions.

Say what you want about how Civ 4 looked, at least you could see all of your buildings on the map! Improvements having different animations if they were being worked or not was useful not to mention cool, and the fact you were on an actual globe was amazing (anyone know if that's the case with 6?)

I've also never heard someone say they even liked 5's interface, let alone more than 4, what do you like/not like about them respectively?

 

[rastak]

I thought Civ V's interface was fantastic.

The "better interface" mod cluttered the hell out of it and made it look terrible but without mods it was fantastic.

 

[Lucius_]

Idk, I didn't think 5's interface was that bad. I really only have two complaints. Moving multiple units was annoying. Obviously previous civ's stacks were much easier to manage, as you were essentially only moving around 1 unit. I think that's less a UI issue and more a gameplay issue. The other complaint would be world politics. While it could be mildly confusing, I liked Civ III's diplomacy web. Even in Civ:BE, civ relations with one another were more clear. I'm curious what other complaints there are about CiV's interface. I've mostly read complaints of multiple clicks to do actions that required less clicks in CIV, but without any details or examples to compare.

 

[Staler87]

Civ V implemented 1upt without any thought as too the effect this would have on the games UI. I shouldn't have to keep track of where I'm sending every single unit so I never send two to the same tile. It would often force you to give orders to units you didn't want to as well.

The city management screen was brutal compared to civ IV and I'm not the biggest civ IV UI fan out there. The enhanced UI mod gives you all the information you need at a glance. Not as aesthetically appealing but a lot better game wise.

 

[SemperFi2382]

The fact that they STILL have not confirmed Hotseat bugs the ever living heck out of me. As a classic, staple game mode, this should be a simple yes. However, they had to patch it in with Civ V, which is a load of crap to be perfectly honest. I refused to buy the game until it was added.

My wife and I are pretty interested in how Civ VI is looking, but every question about Hotseat is either ignored, or gets some half baked answer which makes me feel like they are once again going to make the same mistake all over again.

They talk about classic game modes returning, so why is answering this question so hard? If your marketing team says it's there, then it should be a simple yes. If it isn't done yet, which this close to launch, seems exceptionally stupid to fathom, acknowledging its existence is better than nothing.

 

[Aristos]

I thought Civ V's interface was fantastic.

The "better interface" mod cluttered the hell out of it and made it look terrible but without mods it was fantastic.

TMIT, you have been served.

Go for him, man.

Shafer's interface was a dream come true for the casuals, and a nightmare for the hardcore. 3-4 clicks to add to a queue??? Seriously??? And on and on... but I can see how it appeals to the casuals, as they don't want to be bothered with "too much" information in a strategy game...

 

[rastak]

TMIT, you have been served.

Go for him, man.

Shafer's interface was a dream come true for the casuals, and a nightmare for the hardcore. 3-4 clicks to add to a queue??? Seriously??? And on and on... but I can see how it appeals to the casuals, as they don't want to be bothered with "too much" information in a strategy game...

Look, adding to a "queue" is for future actions. Not required to play now, this turn. Furthermore, to use myself as an example I'm hardly a casual. I've played thousands of hours from the very first morning Civ 1 hit the shop. A cluttered interface makes a reasonable person's eyes bleed. I'm not playing with an egg timer, I have no problem finding what I need quickly enough.

Is everything perfect? No, hunting for trade deals and city state quests are not easy.

 

[Lucius_]

Ahh yes, the build queue. I agree it's a bit annoying how it was implemented in CiV. Still a rather minor quibble though, like many of the UI complaints. Not the major issue that some make it out to be.

 

[Moon Ambassador]

and up.
I hardly remember Civ I, but obviously it got me hooked. I do remember planting one city immediately next to another; noob mistake.

Civ 2 and 3 were cool of course, but the only thing I remember from Civ III was that rubber and saltpeter were rather rare and limiting.

IV was very fun as many would agree. I would say it was the best of of Civs I through IV.

As to Civ V, I agree with some issues that Civ V had like the limiting of city numbers. However, I think some of the radical changes like 1upt, ideologies, World Congress, and the cultural victory changes in BNW were great gave new life to the series.

Now if they can somehow combine the really good aspects of Civ V and sampling of all the other Civ iterations like they claim is their goal, then I'd be in agreement with many that Civ VI will be the greatest of all. So far it seems they're headed in the right direction.

P.S.: Bring back corporations in a cool, integrative, and refreshed way and I'll be much more likely to give Civ VI the laurels it seems to be bucking for.

 

[jye42]

Civ I (When I was 10yo)
I have played every version of Civ except for Revolution.
I even played that bad spin off Civilization Call to Power by Activision
However, as I have grown so have my tastes and Paradox games tend to be my favorites over Civ.
So I am glad to see some ideas borrowed from paradox which could potentially make this the best Civ yet.
Lenses (Map Modes) from paradox games
Casis Beli this is a great way of dealing with warmonger, Paradox has used this for decades.
More than that Civ VI will include nearly all the features of Civ V. IMHO this is because they have looked at their competition Paradox and seen that they do that with every squeal.
Civ V was good but in many ways lost a lot of depth. The fact that Civ VI includes near all of Civ V means the game will only get deeper and more refined with no moving backwards.

 

[HoTT-NiXX]

I go back to Civ 3, somewhat 2 but I don't really count that since I played it so little, so perhaps this thread doesn't apply to me as much as others. However I'd have to say that, thus far, this version has me the most excited. I enjoyed 3 through 5 from vanilla and to their final expansion but never really went back and played a previous version once the new one came out. I find the CIV series to be one of the best of the genre and it has yet to fail me. I'm sure they'll be some issues when it finally comes out at the end of October and they'll be things I like and dislike but the hours I'm sure I'll spend on it more then make up for the $80.00 I spent. I've probably spent a rough estimate of 7-8k hours between Civ3-Civ5 evenly distributed and figure 6 to be another 2k+ when all is said and done. Even if I were to buy a new comp each time one comes out and only play Civ it still makes ii cheap when you compare actual dollars to the hours of enjoyment.

I'm really looking forward to the changes they brining to this CIV version. I think the whole district thing is going to fantastic. I'm also enjoying the tech tree vs civic tree and the eureka bonuses. It seems like this will be the first CIV where you can just load up the game and have a completely different experience whereas in the previous version I would go in and say I'm taking X leader and doing Y. The only thing that concerns me is the AI since the more you add the harder it is for the AI to adapt/be competitive. I've learned through time to just accept immortal and deity boosts to keep it challenging but it would be nice to have an AI that uses the advantages of the tech. I think the agendas will help with this in some small fashion for the first few hundred hours but after that I'll have everything down and notch the difficulty up.

 

[Aristos]

Look, adding to a "queue" is for future actions. Not required to play now, this turn. Furthermore, to use myself as an example I'm hardly a casual. I've played thousands of hours from the very first morning Civ 1 hit the shop. A cluttered interface makes a reasonable person's eyes bleed. I'm not playing with an egg timer, I have no problem finding what I need quickly enough.

Is everything perfect? No, hunting for trade deals and city state quests are not easy.

The queue issue was clearly one example of the many elements of bad design of Shafer's UI. Playing a strategy game without the key information readily at hand is not consistent with hardcore gameplay. Playing the game since One does not make the player a hardcore, the way he plays does (and using all available information to make interesting decisions is a big part of that).

Shafer's UI fails miserably under the above definition.

Let's see if they do better with Six. From all the initial videos and screenshots, somehow the UI so far reminds me too much of BE... too much.

 

[Socratatus]

Played since the first Civ I since around the 1990s. Really hate the cartoon art style, the leaders look comical, their eyes bulge out on some of them (The Japanese guy is the only one who looks ok) kills the feel for me. I like taking my opposition leaders seriously, not as a puppet-looking joke.

As to the rest of it, I`ll wait and see. Not excited. Won`t be buying until some Let`s Plays AFTER release.

 

[Craig_Sutter]

I am most interested in moddability... Civ V had its problems, especially with weird hardcoding. And difficulty, particularly with leader graphics, in adding new graphics to the game.

 

[Manetheren]

First played Civ III, got IV, but never got V. After reading about Civ VI and watching several YouTube videos I'm excited to start playing. Like the districts and city-states each having interesting suzerain bonuses. And of course the barbs will make life interesting in the early game.