Really Boring... or just me?

[JtW]

The game is boring to me, as well, and I think it's two things, which both can be fixed via patches, but I doubt they will be:

1) useless combat AI = no challenge
2) too high warmonger penalties in the later eras mean there is nothing going on in terms of conflict

 

[Siptah]

The game is boring to me, as well, and I think it's two things, which both can be fixed via patches, but I doubt they will be:

1) useless combat AI = no challenge
2) too high warmonger penalties in the later eras mean there is nothing going on in terms of conflict

Have you tried the AI mods? AI+ for example makes the combat AI way better. I still hope for Firaxis getting it right in the patch, but until then AI+ is a nice fix.
There are also mods that reduce the warmonger penalty, but I haven't tried any since I don't thing the penalty is too high. I'm not sure if the Ai starts more wars in those mods.

 

[HF22]

Well calling deity easy is a bit too much.

At this point, even excluding exploits, the first war is a pretty easy win. Some of that might be the bug people are suggesting gives the human player extra cogs for unit production at higher levels.

But the tactical AI is really bad. Shuffling without attacking, retreating even from cities, not using archers. You can be at a 10 point unit strength disadvantage due to early AI UUs or buffs like the USA home continent thing, and still not break a sweat.

Its really disappointing. All these great new systems, but you hardly need to bother with them, because you win even if you suck at them.

 

[HF22]

Have you tried the AI mods? AI+ for example makes the combat AI way better. I still hope for Firaxis getting it right in the patch, but until then AI+ is a nice fix.
There are also mods that reduce the warmonger penalty, but I haven't tried any since I don't thing the penalty is too high. I'm not sure if the Ai starts more wars in those mods.

There is some really great work being done on those mods. But its early days in their development, but they are still working out how the AI functions, which seems to be mostly hidden in the engine itself.

In the paid developers can't get it right because of time etc, we can't expect miracles from the mod community in a couple of weeks with half the tools available.

 

[Siptah]

There is some really great work being done on those mods. But its early days in their development, but they are still working out how the AI functions, which seems to be mostly hidden in the engine itself.

In the paid developers can't get it right because of time etc, we can't expect miracles from the mod community in a couple of weeks with half the tools available.

Yes, no miracles. But as it is now it its early days, it is already a noticeable improvement.

 

[Sascha77]

An expansion might be the thing to wait for if you are bored. See you in ~ a year.

Yup.. same as with Civ V.

S.

 

[Auberon]

You are not alone, I find the game incredibly boring too. I have tested it with a small map and a quick setting and the game drags, and drags, and drags... and amounts to a chore.

The features most people seem to like about this version are what I find boring. Civilization 6 forces me to do a lot of micromanagement (districts and their positioning, builders all game long, tens of civic cards and deck building, scores of military units, placing wonders on the map, a lot of cities, amenities and housings...). To my eyes each turn requires a lot of more or less insignificant choices I don't really care about. Civilization has always mixed strategical, operational and tactical levels in a haphazard way but I don't like how civilization 6 is doing it.

I am among the few who prefer civilization 5 Brave New World over any other civilization version so far. Civilization 5 BNW suit my tastes better because a lot of the tedious parts of most 4X games are abstracted and I can focus myself on the higher strategical level of empire management. This is a question of taste, this is how I like it and I can understand why the "micromanagers" don't like Civilization 5 BNW.

To sum up, Civilization 6 puts back a lot of micromanagement and a lot of cities in Civilization... and it is not for me.

I don't think the expansions will make Civilization 6 better for me as I don't like the core mechanisms. Wait and see though...

 

[Europa Victrix]

The features most people seem to like about this version are what I find boring. Civilization 6 forces me to do a lot of micromanagement (districts and their positioning, builders all game long, tens of civic cards and deck building, scores of military units, placing wonders on the map, a lot of cities, amenities and housings...). To my eyes each turn requires a lot of more or less insignificant choices I don't really care about. Civilization has always mixed strategical, operational and tactical levels in a haphazard way but I don't like how civilization 6 is doing it.

I enjoy setting up a perfect spot for a district, but the card and unit management is beyond tedious. The UI for both being incredibly cumbersome doesn't help.

 

[ddd123]

At this point, even excluding exploits,

you cant exclude them cause it was stated there is a HUGE bug giving players a religious bonus in nearly every game...

But the tactical AI is really bad. Shuffling without attacking, retreating even from cities, not using archers. You can be at a 10 point unit strength disadvantage due to early AI UUs or buffs like the USA home continent thing, and still not break a sweat.

tbh running aways works wonder, the reasion why civ5 AI was easy to beat was they never heal/save units so at some point youi had lvl 5 guys vs lvl 1 and it became a walk in the park, this AI is definitely not perfect but the main idea of running away when low is perfect, its basically the human tactic all along, it just need some minor fix after all the cheap and exploit ones...

 

[HF22]

you cant exclude them cause it was stated there is a HUGE bug giving players a religious bonus in nearly every game...

Yes, that was the extra cogs bug I referred to in my post. Something to do with the God of the Forge pantheon. Fixing that will clearly help difficulty somewhat.

In terms of cycling units, yeah clearly that was the idea, but its not working at the moment. The trigger should presumably be "going to lose the (or too many) unit(s) next turn", rather than can't get major victory, or whatever it is now.

But even that sounds quite difficult to implement. Maybe extra free promotions on top of their straight strength buffs instead would be more practical?

In any case, the barbs which are not afraid to die are more of a challenge at this point. And a deity AI should have more units than it can get to the front anyway. Losing a few should not be discouraged.

 

[Sascha77]

In any case, the barbs which are not afraid to die are more of a challenge at this point.

I had one game with a really unlucky barb-camp spawn right between my capital and my second city. Plus I was in ultra hilly terrain and had no horses. That barb-camp spawned a horseman per turn for three or four turns in a row and gave me much bigger problems than any AI-civ ever did. They messed me up so badly that I nearly had to abandon the game.

S.

 

[Gtdead]

I tend to have games that are way too passive, and others that are way too aggressive.

In one game I waged war against my neighbor, killed him off and that was the most exciting point till turn 230 or so.
In another game I had 3 DoWs at turn 30, 2 barb camps spamming cavalry in my capital and russia almost winning a religious victory before I even reach industrialization. In that game I built my first commerce district on turn 130. If it wasn't for the policy that decreases upkeep on units, I would had surrendered this game instantly.

 

[Europa Victrix]

you cant exclude them cause it was stated there is a HUGE bug giving players a religious bonus in nearly every game...

What's that? I'm always, even when beelining, the second guy to found a religion at best.

e: Duh, should read more carefully.

 

[Nefelia]

Go get some mods. More techs, more units, better AI, different map options, and some balance mods are all available.

 

[Karmah]

Playing civ for twenty no wait actually thirty years makes every vanilla release not the full excitement. I usually play extensively for a while then leave it and come back once in a while. Then the game gets refined more and more and the addiction follows. At least that 's how it has been for me since 4.

That being said, 6 is still the most exciting vanilla of the three last opus. It might help that I don' t have all the time to play but still it is fun and good. I have no doubt it's gonna be the best of the serie after each expansion

Edit: oh and yeah don't talk boring if you are still playing Prince. Difficulty in game is the no1 setting for fun.

 

[Usama84]

i dont think its that bad, it is a decent core of a game, but honestly, it is incomplete as it is.... I just REALLY hate 1upt though, I can never whine about this enough lol

 

[GhostSalsa]

I am among the few who prefer civilization 5 Brave New World over any other civilization version so far. Civilization 5 BNW suit my tastes better because a lot of the tedious parts of most 4X games are abstracted and I can focus myself on the higher strategical level of empire management. This is a question of taste, this is how I like it and I can understand why the "micromanagers" don't like Civilization 5 BNW.

I agree.

V was very elegant in how city micro was always one basic question, pay growth to increase output now or pay output to increase growth, and you could nurture or work different cities at different times — not interesting for those who only played tall, since growth was always the best option, but pretty intricate if you expanded and warred in mid-game.

In both BE and VI the question of where you put citizens and where you can get good tiles no longer directly relates to the output vs growth question and just feels like meaningless tedium… trade routes, tiles, citizens, workers who just put hammers directly into the ground and die, even production itself…
I just don't understand why these concepts are in the game at all anymore, if the games are just about default internal TRs and designing a grid of ugly districts

 

[Aheadatime]

Yeah this game is boring to me too. There's too much 'forced gameplay', meaning things that I must do every game if I want to improve as a player. Sure, I could be a 'casual plalyer' and not optimize my gameplay, but that doesn't interest me, and it's my belief that games should be balanced around top-tier play. Every single game, I have to

- Consider district placement/overlap/adjacency from turn 1, with every tile I improve, every city I settle, etc. I don't 'play the map' as advertised, the map plays me.
- Build according to eurekas/inspirations. Scout for continent/neighbor, builder for three tiles/mine/farm, delay settler for 6-pop cap into settler card, etc.
- Spam units ~50 turns in, as I'm being invaded by either a neighbor or barbs.
- Try my hardest to make people smile, as everyone is default unfriendly and agendas are so all over the place that I'm guaranteed to be hated by ~half the world.
- Cater to war weariness, cutting wars short against my will/strategy.

Etc. It's not a very open or creativity-requiring game. It's just all math and micro. Coming from a deity player who loves microing and improving the numbers, this game just has too much of that and not enough fun..

 

[bladex]

yeah starting to get boring already...
fortunately planet coaster will be out soon

 

[Usama84]

its not that bad, just the movement is very tedious because of 1 UPT really. I just played a few hours, its starting to grow on me, mainly because I just can't go back to Civ 4, its too old. But I will wait and keep learning this game until some mods or expansion packs come out hopefully soon!