PC Power Play (Aus) interview with Ed Beach

[ltccone]

I think people give way too much importance to this. VI have more owners playing than V (you can see this on steamdb). As a popular game that kept selling well for 7 years, Civ V current players count isn't a surprise, around 10.000.000 people own it against 2.000.000 Civ VI owners. If anything, this show the strength of the franchise, with both games showing a respectable player base that most games don't get even close, it's a juggernaut. One game doesn't need to fall for the other to rise, the franchise is strong enough to sustain two player bases.

I don't think Firaxis is too worried to get Civ V Players to play Civ VI. The more, the better, of course but it's not like Civ VI doesn't have a strong playerbase that can justify by itself the support this game will get. It's doing well, despite all its flaws. X-com 2 is a success for Firaxis, it have around 1.700.000 on PC and have around 5.000 current players, which is a health playerbase, mostly for a SP game. Civ VI is doing a lot better than that.

I haven't played one game of Civ 5 since Civ 6 came out.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I really can't understand why anyone would still be playing Civ5. Even heavily modded & expanded upon, the basic game mechanics were so clunky & horrible compared to Civilization VI.

 

[leandrombraz]

I haven't played one game of Civ 5 since Civ 6 came out.

Same here, I can't go back. Despite all the flaws, I really like districts and how Civ VI focus on planning ahead, it feels less automatic.

I really can't understand why anyone would still be playing Civ5. Even heavily modded & expanded upon, the basic game mechanics were so clunky & horrible compared to Civilization VI.

One crowd that Civ VI will never appeal to is the "autoworkers" players, people that doesn't like micromanagement. Civ VI demand your attention on everything. Eureka/Inspiration optimization, efficient use of policies, builders, cities specialization, great people and so on. There isn't a lot of things that you can just put in auto mode and forget about it.

 

[UWHabs]

I really can't understand why anyone would still be playing Civ5. Even heavily modded & expanded upon, the basic game mechanics were so clunky & horrible compared to Civilization VI.

I can understand some people not buying 6, or maybe if you have some multiplayer friends and not all of them have upgraded yet, but yeah, I stopped playing 5 well before they announced 6, and have never really felt the desire to go back.

 

[Alkaid]

I really can't understand why anyone would still be playing Civ5. Even heavily modded & expanded upon, the basic game mechanics were so clunky & horrible compared to Civilization VI.

To each their own.

I'm still waiting, ever hopeful, that a new patch and/or expansion will bring the game up to where I'd like it to be. Awful combat AI, end-turn spamming late game and some gameplay quirks still stifle my enjoyment of Civ VI. (Also still dislike the game's art style, even if I have softened some on it since release) I don't play with any mods in Civ V, and I usually go back to it when in a Civ mood instead of VI as things stand. I'm ready to move on from Civ V after 700 hours worth of it, but Civ VI still needs some more work in my opinion. Judging by the player numbers between the games, it seems I'm not alone.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Same here, I can't go back. Despite all the flaws, I really like districts and how Civ VI focus on planning ahead, it feels less automatic.



One crowd that Civ VI will never appeal to is the "autoworkers" players, people that doesn't like micromanagement. Civ VI demand your attention on everything. Eureka/Inspiration optimization, efficient use of policies, builders, cities specialization, great people and so on. There isn't a lot of things that you can just put in auto mode and forget about it.

Which I consider to be one of Civ 6's greatest strengths, oddly enough. I hate games that are "set & forget" past a certain point.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Civ 1 & Civ 2 had Civil Wars if a Capital was taken, Civ 3 had a Plague & City Flipping system, Civ 4 also had City-& tile-Flipping, as well as events in BtS, & Civ 5 BNW had cultural pressure leading to revolts, particularly in case of Ideologically opposed Civilisations.

I'd like to see Civilisation take all of these past mechanics, improve them significantly, & put them back into the game. Take the best elements of the Civ 3-Civ 5 Cultural Pressure mechanics, & merge them into a Civil War mechanic a la Civ 1 to Civ 2. Take Civ 3's plague system & Civ 4 BtS's Event system & make it significantly more nuanced (so that past player actions play a bigger role on whether events-good or bad-trigger, & always give players multiple choices (3-4) on how to respond to every event. Oh, & bring back the Vassalage System from Civ 4 & the Ideology system from Civ 5.

Lastly, it'd be nice to have a strong, in-game impetus for Civilisations to set up colonies on distant lands. Maybe resources that are unique to that land mass/continent, or a bonus for resources on different land-masses.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

To each their own.

I'm still waiting, ever hopeful, that a new patch and/or expansion will bring the game up to where I'd like it to be. Awful combat AI, end-turn spamming late game and some gameplay quirks still stifle my enjoyment of Civ VI. (Also still dislike the game's art style, even if I have softened some on it since release) I don't play with any mods in Civ V, and I usually go back to it when in a Civ mood instead of VI as things stand. I'm ready to move on from Civ V after 700 hours worth of it, but Civ VI still needs some more work in my opinion. Judging by the player numbers between the games, it seems I'm not alone.

I get you, although I am more into Civ 6 and Civ 5, people need to remember that Civ 6 is basically where Civ 5 left off but just slightly unpolished, But Civ 6 is ten times better than what Civ 5 was at this stage in its' life.

So just see how quickly you change your mind once we get the first expansion pack

 

[God of Kings]

As I once said, Civ VI has the potential to be the greatest Civ game ever, ...

Spoiler :

after two expansion packs that is.

 

[Alkaid]

I get you, although I am more into Civ 6 and Civ 5, people need to remember that Civ 6 is basically where Civ 5 left off but just slightly unpolished, But Civ 6 is ten times better than what Civ 5 was at this stage in its' life.

So just see how quickly you change your mind once we get the first expansion pack

It certainly is better than vanilla Civ V started off as. If they can improve the AI more and we get a good expansion I'm hopeful that I might be able to get into it like I want to.

 

[Ferocitus]

She might have been a 'looney,' but she did defeat the English armies occupying France.

No she didn't. Men with weapons did.

 

[ltccone]

No she didn't. Men with weapons did.

She led them.

 

[HF22]

@Ferocitus By men who were willing to fight & die, because she inspired them to.

Which is almost the definition of good & historically impactful leadership.

 

[HF22]

Same here, I can't go back. Despite all the flaws, I really like districts and how Civ VI focus on planning ahead, it feels less automatic.

One crowd that Civ VI will never appeal to is the "autoworkers" players, people that doesn't like micromanagement. Civ VI demand your attention on everything. Eureka/Inspiration optimization, efficient use of policies, builders, cities specialization, great people and so on. There isn't a lot of things that you can just put in auto mode and forget about it.

I wasn't a Civ 5 player, more a Civ I-IV one, but Civ VI feels very automatic to me. Even on deity, you conquer a few AIs early, & nothing else really matters.

All those systems you mention can be pretty much ignored, & you still coast to Deity victory.

The micromanagement in Civ IV by contrast always seemed far more impactful to me.

 

[trev1972]

interesting read guys.

The builders dont bother me either way, im neutral on it

And i dont mind micro management early game (early game i check each tile worked anyway)
Late game though when you are pressing next turn to get your space victory, then yes it is annoying having to reassign each spy / trade route etc...and having the ai fade in to tell you that you suck etc because your just finishing the game and the interaction is irrelevant

For me the game weak points are

AI- my first ever game of civ vi (with years since i played civ v) i went into space and my neighbour was walking warriors around... ok it was prince but still.
In the second game (king) i played england on the tsl, and it was painful watching the ai trying to swim past my battleships and destroyers.

It makes it hard to bother playing peacefully since i know i should just build some units and go on a conquest spree taking advantage of ai ineptness.

Diplomacy- i just feel the options are more limited , and the agendas makes the ai seem bipolar. Hope this is expanded upon.

MAP options, i am thinking back to civ iv here really with the type of maps we had as options (i didnt play 5 a lot so dont remember 5's options).

I havent booted 4 or 5 up since either though to be honest.

As for the interviews, it could be simply '1 year on' being the reason, but i suspect the marketing is to try and generate more interest for upcoming expansions

 

[Ferocitus]

@Ferocitus By men who were willing to fight & die, because she inspired them to.

Which is almost the definition of good & historically impactful leadership.

By a desperate group who used her as propaganda, at most.
By your "logic" an infant monarch could inspire men to fight and die.
It doesn't mean that infant was a great leader.

 

[trev1972]

Civ 1 & Civ 2 had Civil Wars if a Capital was taken, Civ 3 had a Plague & City Flipping system, Civ 4 also had City-& tile-Flipping, as well as events in BtS, & Civ 5 BNW had cultural pressure leading to revolts, particularly in case of Ideologically opposed Civilisations.

I'd like to see Civilisation take all of these past mechanics, improve them significantly, & put them back into the game. Take the best elements of the Civ 3-Civ 5 Cultural Pressure mechanics, & merge them into a Civil War mechanic a la Civ 1 to Civ 2. Take Civ 3's plague system & Civ 4 BtS's Event system & make it significantly more nuanced (so that past player actions play a bigger role on whether events-good or bad-trigger, & always give players multiple choices (3-4) on how to respond to every event. Oh, & bring back the Vassalage System from Civ 4 & the Ideology system from Civ 5.

Lastly, it'd be nice to have a strong, in-game impetus for Civilisations to set up colonies on distant lands. Maybe resources that are unique to that land mass/continent, or a bonus for resources on different land-masses.

Totally agree on settling distant colonies, at the moment the way district cost works it discourages late settlements or even mid game settlement

 

[HF22]

@Ferocitus

I, and most historians, ascribe Joan far more agency than any infant.

 

[Art Morte]

Totally agree on settling distant colonies, at the moment the way district cost works it discourages late settlements or even mid game settlement

Yeah, I've complained about it myself. In too many games there's still good spots for cities available when entering the last few eras, but it doesn't feel that worthwhile to go and settle.

I think cities founded in the Modern era and later could start as size 3 or 4.

 

[trev1972]

Personally i think cities founded in the modern era should have a few buildings included, a primitive village founded 3000bc does not have the same capacity of a colony settled by an advanced country.