rschissler
King
Have you thought about trying this Multiple Unit Per Tile mod? I haven't tried it, but I wonder what other people think. http://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/multiple-unit-per-tile.25511/
Really Boring... or just me?
- Thread starter Zaimejs
- Start date
Usama84
Chieftain
interesting, I didnt know they had one out that fast
neilkaz
King
I also am bored by Civ 6 and find BNW to be MUCH better especially since I have recently installed the Vox Populi mod which makes Civ 5 BNW a tremendous game.
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
Unfortunately, I too am largely bored by Civ VI now, after 20 hours (this for me is on the short scale of gameplay, especially for a strategy title. By way of comparison, I poured hundreds of hours into Age of Empires III, and those games are over far faster than any Civ game). Even Civ V kept me more entertained (and that was in the crappy base game, unpatched), though I think VI is overall better mechanics wise. I think I feel bored because it's similar to V in many ways, and because it falls to V's issue of not having atmospheric storytelling--largely because diplomacy is a farce and they cut down leaderscreen interactions to a minimum (and you have to press ESC to exit the leader reactions too as they drag on -_-). In short, VI lacks drama, and it is not capable of being retold to friends in the form of an epic story.
Whereas Civ IV always is capable of being retold as an epic story, because its diplomacy system actually works and the AI behave in distinctly different matters. I recall that in IV only Montezuma and a few others would be crazy enough to send legions of clubmen to sack your capital. In VI, WHOEVER YOUR NEIGHBOR IS will do that. Even Gandhi. That makes no sense whatsoever. Just as it makes no sense whatsoever that the only wars initiated in the modern era are by the players (since the AI are just THAT afraid of warmongering penalties, per the code).
Whereas Civ IV always is capable of being retold as an epic story, because its diplomacy system actually works and the AI behave in distinctly different matters. I recall that in IV only Montezuma and a few others would be crazy enough to send legions of clubmen to sack your capital. In VI, WHOEVER YOUR NEIGHBOR IS will do that. Even Gandhi. That makes no sense whatsoever. Just as it makes no sense whatsoever that the only wars initiated in the modern era are by the players (since the AI are just THAT afraid of warmongering penalties, per the code).
I think you nailed it with these bullet points. They should get rid of the AoE effect of districts completely. It leads to very bad effects. I do not feel the excitement of exploring the map, finding great locations to build cities. I just check how I can overlap most efficiently.
And I seriously think Eurekas needs to be toned down to 10% bonus. Or just get rid of them completely. They are the main reason for the playing-on-rails effect. If you plan on playing efficiently, all your games are carbon copies of each other for the first hours.
I started a BNW-game today and I'm enjoying myself a lot more than in Civ VI. By my own design, it is a slow game. Dido (still need her achievement) on large islands, King and Marathon. But even though I have a much clearer idea of how to progress through techs/policies, I'm getting much more of the old "one more turn"-feeling here.
I think, for me, it has to do with multiple factors:
1. Ability to play pretty peacefully - so far I haven't been targeted by any Civ and all my closest neighbors are at least neutral towards me, two or three are actually "friendly".
2. Getting the culture to enable policies, choosing a "path" through the policy-tree and "locking in" the individual ones is better than being able to constantly adjust your government back and forth every few turns. It gives the choices you make in the policy tree a lot more gravity - plus it makes working towards the next policy more exciting.
3. Progression through the tech-tree also feels more interesting. No Eurekas to "suggest" a certain path that might not actually be the one I chose before I got the Eureka. Ability to seriously focus on science to get to important techs before everyone else does (like Printing Press for the WC). Which also makes a lot more sense in V, since some techs you really do want to get before everyone else. In VI, it doesn't seem to matter too much.
4. Directly related to point 3.: Actual races for Wonders. I just got beaten to Notre Dame by Morocco - which I didn't expect and which messed up my expansion plans due to my (currently low) happiness. And that's something VI just doesn't have. The AI doesn't prioritize certain wonders or just can't build them in their cities, so a lot of stuff always remains un-built right to the end of the game. This never happens in V where the AI is pretty good at going after certain wonders and will generally never, ever leave anything un-built. And that makes the VI-wonders (and the "race" to grab them) feel a bit underwhelming.
5. UI is *so* much better. I can't understand why anyone thought it was a good idea to get rid of the city-screen and spread the info that was available on one screen in IV and V out to multiple screens with multiple sub-menus each.
S.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
No, getting bored with this game has nothing to do with the difficulty level or the game speed - or at least, it shouldn't. I never finish games of Civilization IV. I always play on extra-slow (as in, technologies take longer to research) Marathon. There never really is a huge challenge, I always know I'm going to win somehow, if I could be bothered to finish a game - but I usually don't finish them. Not because I get bored, because I play on such huge maps with so many AI's on such a slow speed that turns take longer and longer (though not that long, mind). I don't get bored at all though! It's nice to build up a civilisation, an empire, interact with the AI, see the world take shape, see the AI expand, see conflicts, enemies, and allies emerge, between me and the AI's and between the AI's themselves... And yet, I grew bored of Civilization VI within a week. Because Civilization VI just doesn't have this.
Usama84
Chieftain
"I know I'm going to win" (regarding Civ 4) Not sure what you talking about bro, Civ 4 was hard, even in noble level. If you didnt have crazy defences the stacks of doom would be at your capital before you builld your first swordsman... I find Civ 6 very easy, the 1UPT seems to confuse the AI, what a joke
Bored too, playing Rimworld (and struggling!)
Multiple posts across multiple threads.
I agree with most of you, don't feel that "next turn" that previous titles did.
1UPT kills the AI. Great on paper, useless in practice. Hey, but now we don't have stacks of doom. No, we have the stacks of doom spread out over 40 tiles instead.
The Government policies that are like a psychotic megalomaniac's decision making.
I want to make units, no I want to make settlers, no I want to have cheaper cavalry, no, I want religion, no I want more money, no I want this, this, this, no this . . . . .The government advisers must be like, jeesh . .
Great for the modern gamer, but the empire builder? Gamey, Facebook, flash/mobile game instant gratification.
Production, production production, I agree with some posters, cannot play this game at standard or longer.
Too few cities, nothing to build. Too many, tedious turn times to just build basics, spam those trade routes.
Apostles, aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Builders, who the hell thought or play tested making the same unit over and over and over again and thought that this would be fun?
There is a reason a lot of us talk about Civ 4 and put it on a pedestal, mainly because it was fun, challenging, and very rarely the same each game. (Eventually)
We accepted SOD because the AI could use them competently.
You could build your empire and find your place in the world.
Governments meant something and gave your Civ identity.
Civ gameplay direction is now being driven by 1UPT and "how many people can we get to buy our game" mentality.
The people that are defending this game are, "hey, just wait for the modders to fix it!"
I know that modders changed a lot in BTS Civ 4 but how long ago was that?!!!
Multiple posts across multiple threads.
I agree with most of you, don't feel that "next turn" that previous titles did.
1UPT kills the AI. Great on paper, useless in practice. Hey, but now we don't have stacks of doom. No, we have the stacks of doom spread out over 40 tiles instead.
The Government policies that are like a psychotic megalomaniac's decision making.
I want to make units, no I want to make settlers, no I want to have cheaper cavalry, no, I want religion, no I want more money, no I want this, this, this, no this . . . . .The government advisers must be like, jeesh . .
Great for the modern gamer, but the empire builder? Gamey, Facebook, flash/mobile game instant gratification.
Production, production production, I agree with some posters, cannot play this game at standard or longer.
Too few cities, nothing to build. Too many, tedious turn times to just build basics, spam those trade routes.
Apostles, aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Builders, who the hell thought or play tested making the same unit over and over and over again and thought that this would be fun?
There is a reason a lot of us talk about Civ 4 and put it on a pedestal, mainly because it was fun, challenging, and very rarely the same each game. (Eventually)
We accepted SOD because the AI could use them competently.
You could build your empire and find your place in the world.
Governments meant something and gave your Civ identity.
Civ gameplay direction is now being driven by 1UPT and "how many people can we get to buy our game" mentality.
The people that are defending this game are, "hey, just wait for the modders to fix it!"
I know that modders changed a lot in BTS Civ 4 but how long ago was that?!!!
For me, the mid to the mid-late game can stall from time to time depending on the circumstances and difficulty level. I had one game that wasn't so bad, but more often then not I'm just spamming "next turn" for 20, 30, 50 turns in the middle with very little input on my end. This certainly doesn't detract from one more turn when everything is clicking though. The beginning of the game is fun as always, the end can be fun and frantic during the fight for victory conditions. I just wish there was more meat between the two.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
More difficult than V and VI, to be certain, especially at higher difficulties, but at lower difficulties it is very manageable, and you are certainly exaggerating with needing 'crazy defences'. A dozen chariots or axemen work well enough.
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
Civ IV was tough, but rewarding. Even if you were defeated, you generally got an awesome story to go with it (I manipulated X to go to war with Y, but X didn't like my different religion and came to kill me. I got Z to help me, and X and Z proceeded to have an epic war--I liked it until Y decided to go to war with me and neither X nor Z liked me enough to help me while warring with each other. But I made 10 wonders and circumnavigated the world! I also killed C after he declared war on me when I wouldn't give him tribute, and had an epic unit with a Great General from my Imperialistic ability, which helped. Now let me tell you about how problematic city-management was for me, and how I tried to stave off the war weariness...)
I'm using it set to Two units per tile. I just use it to make moving around less annoying. I try not to exploit it.
mitsho
Deity
Yes, I feel a bit bored. This game makes me bored by giving me too much to do and not enough at the same time. Too much as there are building decisions, spies to be assigned and random AI leaders popping up. That's just distracting micromanagement. It gives not enough to do as there is not enough variation in what buildings I put in districts (give me the choice between caravanserai and market again!) thus making build order similar again. Spies (and wonders and buildings) take forever to be built so I don't get around to it...) and the Trade Window of the AI is again a farce as it's pre-decided what deals are possible. That last one has been a problem with civ forever, but it could be made better with better 'statistics' UI. I long for the first civ which lacks a good looking leader screen but gets a single trade window where for all I care the different leaders are displayed on one screen...
But yes, I do get the feeling of boredom. On the other hand, I play really slowly and only a few turns each time due to time constraints.
Maybe not necessarily, but make the range instead of a radius dependent on a 'movement range' where water tiles count half (thus making coastal empires viable..). To me however I do not feel a joy in calculating the best position for these effects, I go more by a gut feeling (everything else takes too long...)
But yes, I do get the feeling of boredom. On the other hand, I play really slowly and only a few turns each time due to time constraints.
Maybe not necessarily, but make the range instead of a radius dependent on a 'movement range' where water tiles count half (thus making coastal empires viable..). To me however I do not feel a joy in calculating the best position for these effects, I go more by a gut feeling (everything else takes too long...)
why are city states even more lame now? Like wow! all you do is send an envoy and get the bonus. lol like wtf?
Firaxis basically hyped this stuff up and lied. District aren't that cool. Diplomacy isn't a game changer like the said. City states are worst.
No global happiness is great, but it should of enver been in civ 5 in the first place AI still sucks at combat. spies are basically the same.
No cultural or city flipping? gawd.
Firaxis basically hyped this stuff up and lied. District aren't that cool. Diplomacy isn't a game changer like the said. City states are worst.
No global happiness is great, but it should of enver been in civ 5 in the first place AI still sucks at combat. spies are basically the same.
No cultural or city flipping? gawd.
ThERat
Deity
The more you play, the more you realize that each game plays out similarly. Others have pointed out the issues here. I think, if Civ6 would be a board game to be played with other humans, it might be fun.
Going back to civ3. Hopefully they'll do something about this mess.
Going back to civ3. Hopefully they'll do something about this mess.
If you look at the Steam charts you can see a 25% decline in players for Civ 6 after one month of release.
http://steamcharts.com/app/289070
Seems like we are not the only ones getting a bit bored. So let's wait for the patch.
http://steamcharts.com/app/289070
Seems like we are not the only ones getting a bit bored. So let's wait for the patch.
Fierro
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2013
- Messages
- 107
Yet another point that I wanted to show - policy cards. Yesterday I was watching my young 9-old brother playing and noticed he didn't even care for them. After researching civic he just skipped the window and continued to play. If I didn't remind him he should check and change his policies periodically I bet he would play with that ancient +5 Strength vs Barb and +1 production slots till the late game. I realised that this mechanic isn't very intuitive for new players, they don't receive regular notifications about new policy cards discovered and don't know if it's worth to check out government slots.
For me as player, such mechanic seems interesting but not really well worked out to make it easy to play with. Some of policy slots are must have each game, some are totally useless, so this makes my games too similar.
For me as player, such mechanic seems interesting but not really well worked out to make it easy to play with. Some of policy slots are must have each game, some are totally useless, so this makes my games too similar.
Haha. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I hate Civs that only have one economy and in which every game plays the same way. That would be Civ 4 and its broken cottage economy which is the only way to play the game - or so all the naysayers said back in the day. LOL.
Similar threads
