Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by cephalo, Aug 25, 2016.
In comparison to Civ VI, I wouldn't call the social policy trees tech trees.
To be honest, I don't think there will be a civilization game ever that will surpass Civ 4.
Some games are just so good that they'll stay the benchmark forever. Another example is Simcity 4. Cities Skylines is better looking, being 3D and all, but the city simulation of SC4 is undisputed the best.
Although it's good to have a benchmark to compare other games, it's not a good idea to expect some games to be bettered, ever. It'll only end in disappointment.
Conceptually I'm okay with the city-states. In game terms they are smaller powers who are not out to win the game--and therefore can be your steadfast allies because it's literally impossible for them to become rivals. It's always been a bit of a problem in game where there can only be one winner, as you will never have a true ally that you wouldn't backstab at the end if it meant emerging victorious. City-states are conceptually designed to represent smaller nations in a board game with one winner, and they are okay at that--conceptually.
How they play out is another matter. One major concern stems from crowding the map, which is exacerbated by 1UPT and the ridiculous rule set of V (seriously, my civilian units can't share a space with city-state military units?), and of course the huge penalties if you want to solve the space issue via conquest (massive diplomatic fallout on top of the normal penalties for having another city).
Civ VI doesn't appear to be doing much in this regard, but we'll see. Hopefully capturing a city-state that is in the way won't screw up your relations with everyone else on the map. And maybe you can raze them this time.
Civ 4 combat system was awefull it wasnt fun at all. It was olso totally random you could have total random outcomes i allways remember themeinteam ranting are you kidding me game ? on his lets plays and he is right game sometimes make you fail even if you have high odds.
The one unit per tile is a welcome change. And battles arent calculated by change but actually combat strenght if you do 8 damage you will do 8 damage.
To each their own, I found the strategic depth of IV's system to be a better fit for the game than the tactical wargame that V utilizes. At least the AI can utilize the former in a manner that somewhat resembles competence.
Not to say V's system doesn't have its merits. I do prefer V's mostly-consistent damage-to-HP system over IV's winner-take-all %-based death match. With that said, Powell Doctrine: bring overwhelming force to compensate for unexpected problems. Expect the RNG to screw you, bring more than you need. At least with unit stacking it's not such a pain in the rear to move a huge army where you need it.
I agree with that. Not to go down this hole again; my issue isn't so much as people talking about the issues with five, as it is people talking of IV as if it has no problems whatsoever and is the most perfect thing of any possible things. There shouldn't be picking apart of minute details of one release, while overlooking/accepting equally serious problems with another.
I think you're pinpointing the wrong thing, I don't think that City States are the problem, I think it is their synergies in the game
- Same Voting Power - Not exactly true, first of all, they don't vote in BNW, and only vote pre-BNW for the people they are allied with, even so, you get less votes from City States than you get from Major Civs in World Congress
- Surrounded By Cities - I think in Civ 6, there's more landmass to inhabit so I think overall this will be less of an issue, in addition, I think the primary problem isn't that they exist, but that conquering them is never a viable strategy unless you want to piss everybody off on Turn 20 because a city state is in the way.
- Diplomatic Victory - I don't think City States are to blame rather than the mechanic of getting allied, which is replaced by a much better and more flexible system of Envoys, everybody nicknamed the Diplomatic Victory the "Economic" one because of the fact that gold = alliances
Sorry, no. Civ 4 had artillery as disposable shock troops- first to the fight, and almost always needing replaced after as they weren't ranged units.
Having to use actual cannons as cannon fodder was just so immersion breaking and bad for gameplay that I've never looked back to Civ 4
I agree. City states seem too arcadey.
While two tech trees make more sense, if only some of the features depend on something else. You're right, rock and roll has to require electricity tech, and so on.
For combat, IMO 1UPT of Civ is ugly because the map is so small, at least the hex is small compared to the whole map or cities. The city center should be at least 3-hex big, a unit should have 3-4 movement point. That way ranged unit operation is more tactical and it wouldn't feel so cluttered and hard to move around.
The tech trees never made too much sense. You researched the Calendar and the Compass before Astronomy, and Animal Husbandry before Trapping in Civ 5 among other things. And couldn't you build a space ship without Computers?
But aren't the two trees linked by Eurekas? I know that is no hard limit. But you need to keep up with the civics to get the Eurekas for later techs and vice versa IIRC. And especially with later tech, 50% boosts seem a thing you don't want to miss if possible.
It was darn close to it!
No need for so much overhaul from civ4 to civ5
Ok ok ok, calm down TeraHammer, civ6 will enable some good multiplayer again. Or will it
This deep, complex and flawless argument runs every engine in the decadency cars of the people against progress club.
Forgot the sarcasm tag, heh, sorry about that.
Be careful next time
It is interesting though that if you gut most pro-civ4 arguments, only this remains. I hated 5 at start, it was really barebone, but comparing to BtS and BNW, well...
The only thing I hated in both 4 and 5 is the impact of starting locations and first few huts and ruins. Both could easily make or break the game. Also, both games had issues with balance, for example see Slavery in 4 and Great library in 5. Railroad net was butt ugly in 4, random events were also quite annoying, combat was horrible, and the whole game was a tech race cookie cutter fest. That's the negative extreme. 5 had unimaginable map clutter during peace, it would have been better to have more resource capitalization buildings such as the mint or the circus, and AI motivation was very obscure most of the time. I only had issues with militaristic states, being useless, but they could be captured after all.
There is nothing I want to see gone from 5. I'd prefer a more steep exponential rise in upkeep cost for units to avoid said clutter fest. More and more unique features per civ is the best addition, to give each of games a unique feeling.
The use of the word "district" might be throwing you off. The term "district" is actually an incredibly vague designation which can refer to something as small as a neighborhood, or as large as a single state.
Unstacked cities aren't meant to represent a single city spanning the size of modern-day France. For me, a U.S. citizen, it helps to think of it this way:
A city is actually the capital city of a state.
All tiles worked by the city represent the boundaries of that state.
Each individual tile / district represents a suburb, town, or village with a specialized function.
For example, if you play as the American civ, and you found the city of Sacramento, then any tiles worked by Sacramento are part of the state of California. If you build a Theater district to be worked by Sacramento, that Theater district (Hollywood) would be the equivalent of all of Los Angeles and Burbank combined.
Likewise, Campuses can be seen as college towns, Encampments as out-of-the-way military bases (Area 51), farms as long stretches of flyover country, etc.
Haha. For the record I do like both games, though there are aspects of both that I think could have been better. People seem to accept/overlook four's flaws more readily than five's, for some reason. I think (final version) five got more right than four; and judging by the early returns, I think six will be better still.
City States as they worked in five did have some shortcomings. I like the concept though and hope they build on the idea as previous civs have built on new mechanics from earlier games.
The game just does not work wtihout city states. It is not designed nor balanced around their absence.
I think you miss the point. Cephalo, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, prefers "the idea that everyone starts off equally, and if given the chance, could develop into a great civilization". City states convey the idea that some people are inherently inferior and can't ever rech greatness. A bit like barbarians, but worse, as in Civ IV, barbs could have destroyed eveyr other civ and "won". The philosophy behind city states is something I just can't stand personally. In addition, they are gamey, but that's rather secondary.
The policy tree in V is also something I hated too. It was static, you were forced into a path where revolutions would never happen. I like the cards system in VI. I am neutral with it being tied to culture rather than tech. I think it complexifies things for the sake of change only but am not set for or against.
That's off topic. cephalo is sad you can't have many small civs. He didn't mention huge sprawling empires.
Um you know you can change the amount of city states for whatever map you are playing on right - just customise the game. Standard size is way too small for me, huge maps are the only way to go.
Nope. Just yet another player stuck on civ iv.
I cannot believe people can like stack of dooms over 1upt personnaly. Imo civ VI doesnt make it perfect as i believe the map should have grown bigger or change of scale to give more room for both units and cities especially with the unstacking.
But stacks of dooms was 0 strategy and made imo 0 sense. Which is weird considering thatblistening to some people everything in civ v is just easier and dumber than precious civ iv. But hey, to each his own i guess
I think the main issue for me with five is the "limit" on number of cities in your empire. I AM more of a small/tall player, but four/five cities shouldn't be the best option almost every time. That's basically a numbers balancing issue, though, not something I would remove.
Separate names with a comma.