[GS] Should I buy GS?

[Knightfall]

I'm debating whether or not to buy GS, so i figured I'd reach out here for some advice. The professional reviews are glowing, which is encouraging, as many of the same reviewers were lukewarm about RF. However, the Steam reviews are somewhat more mixed, so I decided to come here to get a third opinion. What do you guys think?

 

[mmenphis]

If you like base game, buy it. Fourty dollars isn't much for many hours of good fun.

 

[Sostratus]

The professional reviews are glowing, which is encouraging, as many of the same reviewers were lukewarm about RF

Well, GS is miles better than RF. While the Era system and Governors were great, GS packs a lot more stuff. Of course, a lot of garbage is still garbage, so content alone might make a gamer wary; however, GS has some really good systems and reworks. I'm not going to write a review since you've already read those.

GS adds some amazing civs with very unique gameplay. Inca, Mali, and Maori all play completely different from a regular civ (if you're playing to their uniques.) They approach maps completely differently. The others are also generally pretty well regarded. Most people think canada is pretty bad, but RF had georgia. If you enjoy this type of civ design then I can tell you that you'll love this new crop. I cannot emphasize this enough.

As far as climate and weather goes: I find that disasters really spice up the early and midgame. Late game really gets shaken up by climate change since you can't hunker down and press next turn until your spaceship launches- the map will change and the storms can really throw meteorological wrenches into your plans. So if you like the gameplay now but dislike some of the tedium at the end, this is a very positive change.

But IMO the best change they made is the queue/multiqueue/empire queue. Oh my goodness does that make empire management soooo much easier. If you have more than 10 cities its just a godsend.

Is it worth the higher price? Yes, i think so. There's some quality stuff in GS, especially the civs. The game feels like it's got all the pieces now. Meets or beats BNW on "feature completeness."
And they made germany borderline OP so you know GS is top shelf

 

[Knightfall]

If you like base game, buy it. Fourty dollars isn't much for many hours of good fun.

Well, GS is miles better than RF. While the Era system and Governors were great, GS packs a lot more stuff. Of course, a lot of garbage is still garbage, so content alone might make a gamer wary; however, GS has some really good systems and reworks. I'm not going to write a review since you've already read those.

GS adds some amazing civs with very unique gameplay. Inca, Mali, and Maori all play completely different from a regular civ (if you're playing to their uniques.) They approach maps completely differently. The others are also generally pretty well regarded. Most people think canada is pretty bad, but RF had georgia. If you enjoy this type of civ design then I can tell you that you'll love this new crop. I cannot emphasize this enough.

As far as climate and weather goes: I find that disasters really spice up the early and midgame. Late game really gets shaken up by climate change since you can't hunker down and press next turn until your spaceship launches- the map will change and the storms can really throw meteorological wrenches into your plans. So if you like the gameplay now but dislike some of the tedium at the end, this is a very positive change.

But IMO the best change they made is the queue/multiqueue/empire queue. Oh my goodness does that make empire management soooo much easier. If you have more than 10 cities its just a godsend.

Is it worth the higher price? Yes, i think so. There's some quality stuff in GS, especially the civs. The game feels like it's got all the pieces now. Meets or beats BNW on "feature completeness."
And they made germany borderline OP so you know GS is top shelf

All of this sounds promising (I didn't know they finally added a production queue). How is the AI doing? A lot of the user complaints I've read complain about the AI being extremely passive to the extent that the player can basically go crazy with no real opposition on lower difficulty levels.

 

[Sostratus]

How is the AI doing? A lot of the user complaints I've read complain about the AI being extremely passive to the extent that the player can basically go crazy with no real opposition on lower difficulty levels.

As far as combat the AI itself hasn't changed much with the expansion. They recently boosted the impact of walls, which does make a difference in being able to rush them early game.
The biggest difference I've seen is that once you get into the modern era, AI can get a bit knee capped by fuel resource shortages (this has much more to do with the resource system than the AI though.) They aren't stupid- if they have resources you will see a swarm of their armies teeming about, polluting the skies with CO2 emissions. They say they properly use airplanes now too, which is a welcome change (air units in GS got a pretty universal +20 str buff. They hurt.)
I've read they can win science on immo/diety in 300 turns or less, so if you like higher levels you might need to sweat a little.

 

[Caprikel]

They also added some city-states with really great tile improvements. Nazca lines are my now favorite tile improvement in the game, and I can use them with any civ as long as Nazca is in the game. They single handily make Desert cities actually good.
Also Rapa Nui Moai are really great for culture generation. If you have a volcanoe, surrounding that with maoi will basically provide you with all the culture you'll need.
Then there's the Cahokia Mounds, which can get you up to 2 amenities per city, and up to 2 housing per mound.
Finally having great improvements from city-states makes maximizing tile yields more interesting, since now there are a lot more options to work with with all civs given that these at least one of these city-states is in the game.

 

[Victoria]

If you enjoy the base game you will likely enjoy the expansion which adds a lot of extra things to the game.
They do not make the AI smarter and some new things like world congress are implemented poorly so probably the best advice is that is has not made the game better to play but has included a lot of new immersive elements.

 

[Red_warning]

I don't know what to think of steam reviews any more. I used to think they are neat but it seems that many nowadays will give a negative review of a game unless it's 100 % perfect.

I think GS adds a lot of value to the game, and if price is an issue you could always wait for a sale.

 

[seanos08]

Gathering Storm is fun. There are so many extra elements. The whole natural disaster and climate change mechanic is interesting. The climate model is a bit hypersensitive like you get flooding in 1900 when you have 2 coal plants and account for over half of all emissions. If you have the time to waste playing civ you should definitely upgrade to GS.

 

[Knightfall]

As far as combat the AI itself hasn't changed much with the expansion. They recently boosted the impact of walls, which does make a difference in being able to rush them early game.
The biggest difference I've seen is that once you get into the modern era, AI can get a bit knee capped by fuel resource shortages (this has much more to do with the resource system than the AI though.) They aren't stupid- if they have resources you will see a swarm of their armies teeming about, polluting the skies with CO2 emissions. They say they properly use airplanes now too, which is a welcome change (air units in GS got a pretty universal +20 str buff. They hurt.)
I've read they can win science on immo/diety in 300 turns or less, so if you like higher levels you might need to sweat a little.

yes.

They also added some city-states with really great tile improvements. Nazca lines are my now favorite tile improvement in the game, and I can use them with any civ as long as Nazca is in the game. They single handily make Desert cities actually good.
Also Rapa Nui Moai are really great for culture generation. If you have a volcanoe, surrounding that with maoi will basically provide you with all the culture you'll need.
Then there's the Cahokia Mounds, which can get you up to 2 amenities per city, and up to 2 housing per mound.
Finally having great improvements from city-states makes maximizing tile yields more interesting, since now there are a lot more options to work with with all civs given that these at least one of these city-states is in the game.

If you enjoy the base game you will likely enjoy the expansion which adds a lot of extra things to the game.
They do not make the AI smarter and some new things like world congress are implemented poorly so probably the best advice is that is has not made the game better to play but has included a lot of new immersive elements.

I don't know what to think of steam reviews any more. I used to think they are neat but it seems that many nowadays will give a negative review of a game unless it's 100 % perfect.

I think GS adds a lot of value to the game, and if price is an issue you could always wait for a sale.

Gathering Storm is fun. There are so many extra elements. The whole natural disaster and climate change mechanic is interesting. The climate model is a bit hypersensitive like you get flooding in 1900 when you have 2 coal plants and account for over half of all emissions. If you have the time to waste playing civ you should definitely upgrade to GS.

Thanks guys. Based on what you've said, I think I'll pick it up. Also, most of the major mods seem to have started converting over to GS, so that adds another incentive right there.

 

[comatosedragon]

I don't know what to think of steam reviews any more. I used to think they are neat but it seems that many nowadays will give a negative review of a game unless it's 100 % perfect

Any rating system that includes the option 'funny' to describe a review should probably not be taken too seriously.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I don't know what to think of steam reviews any more. I used to think they are neat but it seems that many nowadays will give a negative review of a game unless it's 100 % perfect.

I find aggregate Steam reviews pretty useful, personally. Games with overwhelmingly positive reviews tend to be quality products. Ones with mixed reviews tend to be of mixed quality, with some glaring issues that may not be important to you, but that impact the enjoyment of others.

 

[smvalentine]

Fanatical.com has Gathering Storm on sale 35% off list. May only be good in the US.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, GS is miles better than RF. While the Era system and Governors were great, GS packs a lot more stuff. Of course, a lot of garbage is still garbage, so content alone might make a gamer wary; however, GS has some really good systems and reworks. I'm not going to write a review since you've already read those.

GS adds some amazing civs with very unique gameplay. Inca, Mali, and Maori all play completely different from a regular civ (if you're playing to their uniques.) They approach maps completely differently. The others are also generally pretty well regarded. Most people think canada is pretty bad, but RF had georgia. If you enjoy this type of civ design then I can tell you that you'll love this new crop. I cannot emphasize this enough.

As far as climate and weather goes: I find that disasters really spice up the early and midgame. Late game really gets shaken up by climate change since you can't hunker down and press next turn until your spaceship launches- the map will change and the storms can really throw meteorological wrenches into your plans. So if you like the gameplay now but dislike some of the tedium at the end, this is a very positive change.

But IMO the best change they made is the queue/multiqueue/empire queue. Oh my goodness does that make empire management soooo much easier. If you have more than 10 cities its just a godsend.

Is it worth the higher price? Yes, i think so. There's some quality stuff in GS, especially the civs. The game feels like it's got all the pieces now. Meets or beats BNW on "feature completeness."
And they made germany borderline OP so you know GS is top shelf

IMO RF added more strategy to the game than GS.

Also the queue in Civ 6 + city management #inputs is still a complete joke and no designer making games in the last 20-25 years should take pride in a UI at Civ 6 levels . It isn't just outperformed by Civ 4, it's outperformed by games from the 1990's and every decade since.

Also is the queue actually DLC content? I thought it was part of the patch.

 

[Jaybe]

Certain parties made the strategic decision to make Civ6 also available on tablets, etc. That had an effect on how the UI could be implemented if it was to be consistent.

Bad strategy on their part? Yes, from my personal perspective, but ...
I am not a speed freak, so I am sure not nearly as much as yours, TMIT.
They were probably thinking more in terms of the bottom line.

 

[Chibisuke]

I just now purchased GS from Fanatical for $19.99 with the Fanatical discount and the Gamespot discount combined.

 

[tab]

I really think you should wait. The GS is just more bells and whistles on bike which has no tires. AI is still stupid. They will run circles around your cities just to be bombarded. Natural disasters are completely ignoreable. And the way world congress operates seems like im not even playing the game. A lot a times they call for an emergency vote against other civ just to tell me the results of the votes. You can select any resolution you want to pass, 2 sets of 2 resolutions will be given to you and YOU HAVE to make selection out of these 2 sets.

Extremely lame DLC in my opinion and experience. If you really have to try it then go for it but dont buy it

Moderator Action: Profanity deleted. Please read and comply with our rules regarding use of inappropriate language. Browd
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Chibisuke]

I've played a bit of it now and although it isn't the best DLC ever, the changes definitely improve the game.

The natural disasters (particularly the volcanoes) make city placement more dynamic. That being said, I have noticed that the AI appears to cheat sometimes with natural disasters on deity. I've had multiple instances where they get a "random" disaster to occur and damage or kill your weakened troops at moments that seem perfectly timed to help them win a crucial battle. It doesn't happen enough to make it truly tiresome, but it is annoying. However, on the whole I think the disasters are a big plus.

The changes to city states from the free patch (walls and more troops) plus the fact that special units now require replenishable resources makes deity games a lot more fun and strategic. No one can just buy a massive army instantly and steamroll. This means deity games last longer and later eras actually matter. It's a huge plus to me.

I agree, world congress doesn't seem very useful. I think the diplomatic points system is kind of bizarre and random. It was better in 5 when you got extra votes by controlling city states. However, I still think the Suzerain system in 6 is kind of stupid. It was better in 5 where someone would have to actually work at usurping you from control of a city state. Now it is way too easy.

I haven't been able to experience all of the new wonders yet, but the new world wonders feel kinda meh with the exception of Mt. Vesuvius. Maybe i'll change my mind on that.

The new units are very nice additions. Having a transitional unit between horsemen/calvary and knights/tanks was sorely needed. Glad to see they made that change.

I haven't tried out all of the new civs yet but that's mainly because I've found that the expansion makes playing China (my favorite civ) a hell of a lot more fun on Deity. Its still kind of impossible to get some of the first few wonders, but a lot of the mid/late game ones are possible to build now so China can be a real powerhouse with its wonder-rushing ability.

Overall, I think the expansion is a clear improvement of the game. Not the best, but if you enjoy Civ 6 it will definitely make it more fun.

 

[Einiweini7]

At the most basic level... If you get more than 20 hours of gameplay out of it then you have spent your money wisely. There is enough to GS that is new and interesting that you will get more than a few play throughs before you get bored. Natural disasters can make things interesting for your fledgeling civilisation. Mid game improvements include dams, canals and unit upgrades. Late game improvements can make even an average city a powerhouse in your civilisation.

The basic question would be, does it make the game better? I think it does. The decisions you make now have internal and external consequence, you can't just find enough coal and oil and spam units and power stations. It forces you to be more strategic in your early placement of these to gain maximum output with minimal consequence. Are there issues that need addressing? For sure, but the game is still enjoyable in the new form.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Certain parties made the strategic decision to make Civ6 also available on tablets, etc. That had an effect on how the UI could be implemented if it was to be consistent.

Bad strategy on their part? Yes, from my personal perspective, but ...
I am not a speed freak, so I am sure not nearly as much as yours, TMIT.
They were probably thinking more in terms of the bottom line.

I'm sure they're thinking in terms of the bottom line. As a consumer the results aren't always good from that.

The annoying thing about tablets vs the UI is that there's no need to neglect good or even competent UI conventions for PC use just because you put the game on a tablet. Hotkeys don't hinder tablet use at all, and poor information presentation is just as bad on handheld devices as it is on a monitor. If anything, reducing number of inputs/turn should have more impact on tablet players than PC gamers, because each action on a tablet is more costly in terms of time/effort to do it.

It's already annoying to back out of a trade screen to check things relevant to that trade for example. This doesn't become any less inconvenient on a tablet...it's likely proportionately more inconvenient. Same for when unit pathing screws up and you're forced to re-do orders over and over despite the entire path being safe...I don't see any benefits this grants to porting Civ 6 to other devices. Best I can tell, it's crappy on PC and remains so on other devices.

I get that the GUI presentation takes some hit from tablets, but there are *so many* things that are just globally bad with the UI in Civ 6. Misinformation, hidden information, unit pathing, city queues, city list/management in general, unit movement/pathing/input buffering...I don't care if they're releasing it for a quantum computer, a gameboy color, or as the next version of Skyrim. Civ 6 still uses bad UI conventions regardless.