Rise and Fall Made Civ 6 Much Better

[MarigoldRan]

And the Scythia Horse rush is like the Civ 4 Horse Archer Rush on Steroids. It's like having horsemen that never die who slowly grind down the enemy with numbers and attrition.

And then there's the Impi. Civ 6 is like a Warlord's wet dream.

 

[nzcamel]

I feel like 4 was much more forgiving, in that you can undo/minimize any mistakes you made via slider etc.

So, you'd let your economy or science take the hit to tide you over? But surely that was waaaay less than optimal. It was incredibly punishing. Or what am I missing?

 

[clapyourhands]

Vanilla Civ VI introduced a number of new features that held a lot of promise and potential to be great, and implemented them with varying degrees of success. Things like Districts, Eurekas/Inspirations, suzerainty bonuses, and the revamped espionage system were all positive additions IMO; their strength and balance may have been out of place, but that's an issue with number-tuning and not their fundamental concepts. RnF put espionage and the envoy system in a better place, and loyalty was a great addition in a similar vein--I think most issues you'd find with it have to do with the smaller details of implementation and number-balancing rather than the concept itself. With that in mind I think if future patches do fix up this tuning, Civ VI could very well become one of the franchise's best games without overhauling any mechanics.

 

[Morningcalm]

I do think emergencies and era score being tied to a civ's unique historic timeline made Civ VI's turn by turn play much more interesting.

The loyalty system could use some tweaks but as the fall patch is supposed to help with that we might see more interesting situations for a Lautaro to wade into.

 

[Zenstrive]

Rise and Fall feels like a more complete expansion than Gods and Kings was. It's rounding up the base game nicely while adding such varied contents. Love the peaceful Cree, love the focus-driving era points,love the dedications, love the dark age policy cards. What's left, for me, is a kind of World Council and more engaging cultural victory.

 

[Abaxial]

One has to bear in mind that some simple mods can change one's experience. It's a common complaint that in Civ 5 one is hugely discouraged from settling new cities - but one can find a mod that reduces unhappiness for number of cities, and this improves things greatly.

 

[King Rad]

I think Civ VI is the best civ game so far and R&F added greatly to it. The addition of the loyalty system is one of the best things ever, as well as the vanilla version's spreading of districts and wonders on the map. I played IV and really liked it, although I hated stacks of doom; and I thoroughly enjoyed V, especially after its being fully developed with BNW. But I think VI was best out of the box (better than IV or V); greatly improved with R&F; and I can only imagine what it will be like with possible diplomatic and economic victory options [think something like enhanced World Congress from V and enhanced corporations from IV]. I'm not a 'hard core' player in the sense that I strive for the quickest victory possible or play in the most optimal manner. I always play my games through to the end and always play the 'hand' I'm dealt. I use specific civ for my civ, to ensure that I play through each one [just now finishing the vanilla and dlc civs, on the last one in my current game, and haven't started using the expansion civs]; play standard or large continents, as opposed to trying to use something that adds to a civs specific strengths; and usually take 2-3 weeks to complete a game. I think I have about 1,500-1,600 hours in VI so far, but that's not technically accurate, since I also tend to watch TV while I'm playing (finished about 2 turns during a 1 1/2 hour Olympic event the other night) and often leave the game on while I doing something else [had 5-6k hours in V]. I put all this in because I think I'm closer to the 'average' civ player than probably most people who spend significant time on this forum. The bottom line is, I love this iteration of the civ series, liking/enjoying it more than any of the prior ones. But as with everyone who posts here, we all have so many different things that make something enjoyable or not, that it ultimately just boils down to our own prejudices/likes/dislikes.

 

[Disgustipated]

Count me in as someone who has to say Civ6 is the best of the series, even if it is the least challenging. That doesn't leave Firaxis off the hook, they should fix the AI to appeal to more serious strategy gamers. I simply have more time played in Civ6 than I do with Civ4 (I'm going by memory since it's not a steam game) and I'm around double my Civ5 hours already.

as for R and F, it's a pretty good expansion, though it doesn't add anything as big as religion did to Civ5 (I don't remember what Civ4's first expansion added, it was called Warlords, so I think it was more combat units like the cruiser which wasn't in the base game). R and F is missing the addition of more units (like the aforementioned cruiser that Civ4 initially lacked), and additional techs/civics. It's not a perfect expansion, but I'm happy with it.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Yea, I pretty much have the same view as you OP especially on how they got some of the civs right.