System requirements are out!

What I'm most curious about is if the AI will use more than one core at a time. In Civ5, the graphics would, but the AI would not, so late-game on giant maps was slow, the same problem every version of Civ has had. I'd love to have the AI take advantage of modern CPUs - slashing the AI turn times by, say, 60% would do wonders for the type of map I prefer, and be far more effective than I could get by buying a new CPU.

Most definitely, or at least as well as any other system can be. That's a pretty high-end setup.

Most likely it will still run well enough, but with somewhat slower AI turn times. So as long as you aren't aiming to try the larger maps, you'll probably be okay.

 

So will this game run on Windows 10? Neither Civ 5 or Beyond Earth do...which is ridiculous in my opinion.

 

Er..what? Both of them work perfectly fine on Windows 10 for me.

 

Ummmmm..... huh? Can't speak to BE but CiV most certainly does.

 

Both work fine on Windows 10...

With BE, right after upgrading there was an issue which I believe I had to verify local files before it would work, or something, but it was just a minor hiccup.

 

I wonder how my computer will handle new civ. CPU and ram is better than high, on the other hand my video card has 2gb vram, but is only ~60% as fast as 7970. If high specs are for full hd I should be fine because I play on 1680x1050. Probably some graphics settings must be lowered. Oh well, we will see.

 

How would the game handle on a computer below minimum requirements?
Eg:
Intel Core i5 CPU 560 @ 2,67 GHz
RAM = 4 GB
GeForce GT 420M - 1GB

Would it be able to run the game?

 

They are working together with AMD on DX12 support so...

 

Both Civ5 and BE work fine on Win10. Civ6 will work great too. However, if for some reason your computer can't run Civ5, it's unlikely to be able to run Civ6.

EDIT: https://steamcommunity.com/app/8930/discussions/1/541907867783572794/

 

Euhm... They run absolutely fine. Are you trolling or do you really have issues?

 

the 970x is solid. I was on tier 5 with a Q9550 in Civ 5 and it reached it's limit in large endgame maps or Huge maps (i had to overclock it from 2.83 to 3.4 to make it viable again). I recently updated to i7-5820K with doesn't even sweat but i'm still on a R9 270X at the moment.

 

Bit concerned that my Core 2 Quad Q6600 will not cut it for Civ 6. It's 2.4 GHz but OC'd to 3.2GHz. GPU will be fine (750Ti) and 8gb RAM. Does anyone know if it'll be playable with my CPU?
Many thanks for any comments

 

Playable is subjective!

But if you do choose to upgrade cpu, this isn't a bad time for it: Intel has fallen off their tick-tock model, so performance optimization is likely to slow down even further, and a current cpu is likely to remain viable for even longer, unless Intel starts integrating completely new features that you want into the device.

Recommendation? Try what you have, and take advantage of end-of-year sales should it prove too slow.

Anyway,

Ken

 

This is my laptop:

CPU Intel Core i7-2670QM @ 2.20GHz
GPU NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M 2GB
RAM 6 GB

CPU and RAM should be ok, the problem is the GPU is listed below the minimum requirements. It supports DX 11 though.

I need a hint from some hardware expert, because these things are not very clear to me. Do I have any hope to play civ 6 with my PC? I don't mind playing at the lowest settings, and I think I'll play mainly on standard maps.

I know that my laptop is not good for gaming, but I only play civilization so it's not worth to upgrade.

 

You should be ok.

 

So...

I will be unable to play on my GTX 275... that sucks...

 

yep, but its mobo, ram, chip and os if I have to upgrade. Fun but expensive! thanks ken

 

Thanks!!

 

Both work on my computer. (Windows 7 upgraded for free up to Windows 10). Haven't had any problems with either game.

It's older games you have to watch out for like Mass Effect (first one). You can play that game as well, just don't run the system configuration.

For the record, just finished a game as Askia, and picked up 4 achievements on this game.

 

Doubtful, as the GPU is only about a third as powerful as the 450 that's listed as the minimum on the nVIDIA side. Which unfortunately is a lot less powerful. You can always buy post-launch and try, and use a Steam Refund if it doesn't run acceptably (IIRC you can only do a refund if you've played less than two hours). But if I had to put money on it, I'd say it's too far below to run.

I would say questionable, but perhaps acceptable if you really are okay with minimum settings + resolution. You're in the range of 70% of what they state in hardware resources for GPU, which means it's necessary to expect rather slow graphics, but there's a much better chance of "acceptable" than with the 420M.

Ultimately once the game's out, someone with similar specs will have a much more definitive answer (for all the questions here). What Firaxis considers minimally acceptable (GTX 450, AMD 5570, etc.) is almost surely better than the absolute minimum it will run on (they don't want negative reviews because it runs super-slow on the official minimums), but how much better is undetermined.