Poll: What do you like the most in Civilization games?

[mogilan]

Hi,

I was wandering what you guys like the most in Civ games. I'm actually city management guy and I love looking how my cities grow. In the result diplomacy and warfare are just minor aspects of the game. Seriously, they could make civ game without warfare and I'd still like it very much

So
What do you like the most in Civilization games?

Please share your view on the poll. Maybe it will help devs to prioritize things on the "to be fixed" lists.

a) Warfare - everything related to conducting wars on the map, so army placement, AI behaviour on the battlefield, AI using broad range of units (not focusing solely on land units), units' specialization, domination/conquest victory

b) Diplomacy - interaction with other civiliziations, politics, diplomatic AI, possibilities of trading or making pacts with others

c) Technology and research - tech tree, progressing through ages, new units/buildings, variety of techs/civics, space race victory. But also culture, religion spread.

d) City management - tweaking city output, managing its population/culture/research/commerce/happiness, improving tiles, going tall

e) City placement and exploration - like d) but more strategic view, placement of cities on the map, managing borders, managing strategic/luxury resources, claiming new lands, colonization of islands, new continents, exploration, going wide

Thanks

 

[Mustakrakish]

Diplomacy... Ahaha... Hahaha... Heh... Uhum... *walks away embarrassed*

 

[Lord_Azazel]

e) Is probably the reason why I never seem to finish games. I usually get bored when I get to the modern era and start a new one.

 

[Solaxe]

Never used diplomacy in any of the civ games. This game has never encouraged you to interact with other civs diplomatically

 

[Victoria]

I want to tick all the buttons!

Diplomacy is soo integral in my game now, IDC that its broken, its only semi broken and Oh man is it great.Not only does it stop/cause me being attacked but I can gang up on other ones.... and there is always a civ on the other side of the world who hates a countries wonders or lack of civility to declare war with me.

 

[mogilan]

So far no votes for a) Warfare but 10 votes in total for d) and e) related to city management and exploration.

This can somehow explain why bad AI and 1UPT don't spoil the fun for many civ fans.

 

[Timally]

So far no votes for a) Warfare but 10 votes in total for d) and e) related to city management and exploration.

This can somehow explain why bad AI and 1UPT don't spoil the fun for many civ fans.

Speaking for myself, I think other games do warfare better..definitely more strategically. Endless legend is even more fun fighting. For me civ is building up the cities and trying to overhaul the AI as they always start better. Fighting is only fun for me when I am defending an AI rush, after their initial rush is over taking their cities is easy

 

[Zuizgond]

I like the diplomacy aspect, that's why I am disappointed with Civ 5 and 6.

 

[Bad Wolf]

I picked city placement and exploration, though I was torn between that and city management. I love the early stages of the game where you're racing to settle cities and uncovering the map. Civ VI has made the early game more dynamic than ever with barbs, fresh water and district planning, and extended the city placement portion right to the end-game with the new dynamics of district placement.

 

[Onii-chan]

All of the above? Or at least how they work in tandem, you can't really have one without the other after all

That said I don't particularly like warfare that much. It's not that the combat mechanics are bad, it's just not as interesting as playing pacifistic. That, and also a) the AI sucks at using units in combat efficiently, and b) simultaneous turns in multiplayer go completely against everything Civ combat is supposed to be so I refuse to play that against other human players too

 

[mogilan]

All of the above? Or at least how they work in tandem, you can't really have one without the other after all

Agree, but this is more a question "which aspect of CIV defines the game for you".

For example I could easily get rid of diplomacy - I remember playing Civ 1 where there were only 4-5 simple options to interact (like declare war/exchange tech) but it was still fun for me as the game had excellent City View that gave you kind of sim city feeling. But I cannot imagine playing Civ where city management is greatly simplified/automated.

 

[Krajzen]

There should be two more options:
- Culture and government
- Religion

:c

 

[mogilan]

There should be two more options:
- Culture and government
- Religion

:c

It's included in c) Technology and research. I think culture is similar concept to technology. Religion is also related to Diplomacy.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

After a carefully considered think, I opted for e).
I'm somewhat amazed that seems to be the consensus of everyone else too!

Perhaps Civ has been developing in the wrong direction, and it's time for Colonization 2?!
A game that involved far more exploration and city placement/development than Civ.

 

[Securion]

I voted Diplomacy because I would like to enjoy that. Sadly it sucks all the time.

 

[mogilan]

After a carefully considered think, I opted for e).
I'm somewhat amazed that seems to be the consensus of everyone else too!

Perhaps Civ has been developing in the wrong direction.
Perhaps it's time for Colonization 2!
A game that involved far more exploration and city placement/development than Civ.

I agree. Instead of 1UPT they should focus more on city management part and extending era of exploration.

Also 1UPT should be easier for AI to deal with as in Colonization there was always very limited number of unit types.

 

[smartcanuck1988]

What I enjoy the most is exploration and city placement.

What I would like to enjoy the most, but I cannot because it has always been lacking any depth, is diplomacy.

 

[Solitude]

Building tall and diplomacy.

I only have Civ 5 BNW as past experience but i loved building 4 cities and then just observe what the AI did.

Like choosing what allies to have in the game. Help defend their lands if warmongers tried to take it.
Also the politics. Some games you had one civ just going all out, taking land and cities form everyone so i simply crippled them through the world congress.

- No trades with that civ
- Standing army tax
- Ban whatever luxury resources they depended on.

It was easy to get most other civs with me on these because they absolutely hated the civ that was warmongering.
Was pretty funny seeing some civs run negative 200 gold per turn after various sanctions from me

If there´s one thing i truly hate it´s managing a stupid amount of cities which seems to be the thing with Civ 6 right now.
I don´t understand why they could not have balanced it out so that you can either go really tall or really wide.

And bring back more politics, that stuff was brilliant if you ask me. With the way envoys work now you wouldn´t be able to simply buy your way to a diplomatic victory.

 

[Deggit]

I'm not surprised at how overwhelmingly people voted for E. The beginning of a Civ game has always been the most interesting part, in every version of the game. #1 you have fewer things to manage, #2 each thing matters more, and #3 the difference between things matters more. The difference between Animal Husbandry and Sailing matters a lot more than the difference between Flight and Replaceable Parts. The difference between a 2/1 Swordsman and a 1/2 Spearman can have overwhelming importance in the early game. The difference between having 3 Warriors and 4 Warriors when the barbarians come calling matters. Where you settle your 2nd city matters more than 10x more than where you settle your 8th city.

Basically all the choices in the early game are so sharp and clear, yet also interesting and difficult.

 

[mogilan]

I'm not surprised at how overwhelmingly people voted for E. The beginning of a Civ game has always been the most interesting part, in every version of the game. #1 you have fewer things to manage, #2 each thing matters more, and #3 the difference between things matters more. The difference between Animal Husbandry and Sailing matters a lot more than the difference between Flight and Replaceable Parts. The difference between a 2/1 Swordsman and a 1/2 Spearman can have overwhelming importance in the early game. The difference between having 3 Warriors and 4 Warriors when the barbarians come calling matters. Where you settle your 2nd city matters more than 10x more than where you settle your 8th city.

Basically all the choices in the early game are so sharp and clear, yet also interesting and difficult.

It simply means that there's something wrong with scaling over time. It shouldn't matter where you settle your 8th city but it should matter if you get Industrialization (or any other tech that boosts your production enormously) 5 turns earlier or not. So when in early games you make strategic decisions about city location in late stage of a game, when the map if already fully covered, you should have another strategic choices to make. And CIV always failed on this part.

Like in history. Western world and Japan were first to benefit from industrial revolution and they profit to this day. On the other hand China was behind at the beginning but because it's became such a huge country it can catch up quickly now.