thoughts on civ vi from old-timers

I'm really enjoying the game so far. The AI is still rather stupid, but, that was to be expected... they're also too 'denounce' happy.

I am having far more fun with this game than I ever did with either IV or V (Vanilla).

Why does everyone say the UI is bad? I like it. It needs more info, but, still, I like it. The only thing I do not like and I cannot find an option anywhere is how to move around the map using my mouse instead of clicking on the mini-map.

 

Will never see the early 60's again, retiring coming super fast, played Civ2 to Civ6, Call To Power 1 and 2, and I still love these games: my wife hates them obviously!!
Back on topic: Civ 6
Each time a new version comes out, people grumble, rant, say they won't buy it, decry the product, insult the developers, etc... yet they all take the time to post in these forum, sustain discussion for hundreds of posts,
propose solution, etc... conclusion: they love the series, they buy the products, they play for hundreds of hours, there is no other activity where by investing 70 € you spend 1000 hrs using it (not for fun at least!!!).

Civ 6 is a new approach to the same problem, and everybody is trying new ways to do old things, this is excellent, creativity at its best, the game will be balanced, the flaws are usually corrected, and some of the new features are great:

Example: everybody was *****ing about the low production, then one guy figures out that by correct placement of the districts you can stack production values, now everybody is complaining about something else!

That is Civ and that is what we have had generation after generation of games.

So please go on complaining, suggesting things that have to be done, and maybe the developers will give me a super product (which I already love more than Civ 5, Civ 4 in the balance of future upgrades)

 

I've played since CIV I on the Amiga and I think both CIV IV and CIV V where much more incomplete at the release. (Can't really compare to the earlier ones since I didn't play any of them on release day) Especially CIV V was a mess and was barely working at all while CIV IV was unbalanced and lacked a lot of features the the expansions fixed. However CIV IV went on became my favourite Civ ever.

Regarding CIV VI it is at least working and have a lot of features and new ideas but but I think there are some really serius AI issues that I'm not sure they will ever manage to fix, and a lot of stuff that need rebalancing which I have higher hopes that they will adjust. I think there are som good ideas like the different personalities, the districts, the eurekas etc but almost everything is in need of rebalancing.

 

Same here, i've been playin since CIV1 and im a diehard fan of the series.
Of course CIV4-BTS is the best of all until now. CIV6 has the potential to be a lot better.. The most vital patch has to be the AI combat fix and i am eagerly waiting for it. The game has me hooked even in this current state.

Come on guys, i know that most of us complaining since we all love this series and we want CIV6 to be better than CIV4. Otherwise we wouldnt bother to discuss this and complain about this in this forum.

How about we wait for the 1st patch and see whats happen. Im pretty sure DEVS are aware of the crappy AI already.. Now if u ask me, WTH they released it knowing that? well, i rly cant answer that.

 

A big fan since Civ 1. Didnt like Civ 5.

But so far I have that One more turn feeling again for Civ 6!

 

Custom maps, and custom map scripts lets you have larger maps.

YnAMP already has larger maps at the disposal right now in the creation forums.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ynamp-yet-not-another-maps-pack-for-civ6.602050/

 

I'll say at once that Civ 6 is the best at release in the series IMO. I've had a blast this last week exploring all the new features. BUT the AI is as bad as ever and now that the novelty is over I am losing interest fast. How can anyone enjoy playing a strategy game where the rival civs represent no threat at all militarily once the human player has acquired a few units? I thought the introduction of agendas would make me more alert to what rival civs were up to, but none of it matters when the combat AI is so terrible. I don't expect human-level AI, but being attacked by spearmen and catapults in the atomic age and then seeing them shuffling around cluelessly is not my idea of fun Devs can get away with poor AI to some extent in non-visible areas of the game, but combat makes AI failings glaringly obvious. I think in this day and age it's pretty inexcusable for the devs to ship a game in this state. I will now put the game to one side and only come back to it when patches and perhaps mods have made it of genuine interest to someone who likes to be tested at least somewhat when playing strategy games.

 

Been playing from the start, but hardly touched Civ 3 as my computer couldn't cope, consequently played Civ 2 for a long time, and so far it's my favourite. Civ 6 has some potential, but I don't see any benefit in the changes to the tech tree, and the boosts appear to be pointless. I am not decided on the government policies yet, as to whether they add to the game or simply create unnecessary distraction. I don't like the city unstacking, I think this version forces 'build everything everywhere' more than others, yet there's no space left to do it. AI denounces you for no reason, they flood you with missionaries, and they never offer a fair trade.

Still on game 1 though, so it all might grow on me. You just have to forget everything you know, and learn the new game.

 

you can hold left click to grab the map and move it around. there's also an option in options-->interface to select that will scroll the map when the cursor is at edge of screen, which is convenient but annoying when trying to access menus on the top of the screen

 

The arrows on your keyboard also move the map around; I think I like this method best as it won't deselect units as with the mouse grab and won't annoy as with the mouse scroll

 

Played every version since starting with Civ 1 on a 386. Never been a power player, just casual...or as casual as you can be when you have to force yourself to stop at 3 in the morning Civ 3 was my fav for a long time.

I find I like Civ 6 so far. It certainly has issues with a timid combat AI and not nearly enough info in the UI for my tastes. But it feels better than 4 and 5 did at release. 5 was bad enough that I stopped playing Civ until BNW came out and then I took it back up again. But overall, I'm having fun with 6 so far. But as I've never been a super serious player I'll likely be able to deal with the quibbles until they get patched.

 

I started with Civ2
So you are comparing a game that had like 5% the complexity of Civ6 with it, and complain it is "incomplete" compared to the previous iterations?
Sorry but this is not a honest discussion.

 

It's weird that we're showing our veterancy badges in order to have opinions, but FWIW I've been playing for 20 years too, since Civ 1.

To me, Civ 6 is in much, much better shape than its predecessor. I can't recall how IV, III, II, or I played on release, but back then, software development was so different as to make those comparisons moot. Civ V is the most relevant comparison, and IMO the state of Civ VI on release is far ahead of where Civ V was. Definitely has its share of problems with dumb AI, backwards diplomacy, some exploits, and a UI that's badly in need of work, but I'm comfortable waiting for those updates to come in patches. The Firaxis name is synonymous with the Civilization brand, so they tend to address the problems eventually, even if it isn't as quickly as we'd like.

 

Played all Civ at release or soon after (took a while to switch to 3). I'm currently having a blast playing Civ6. It is far better than the CiV release and I put it in line with the fully developed CiV game. Balance is wacky, but that's to be expected with so many new mechanics. Nothing that makes me rage quit. Hell, I was disappointed at the end of my first CiV game, but this one made me start another one right after, then another one.

It builds up on CiV mechanics and put some twist in it, but almost everything is in there. Finally a game that doesn't strip the new release barebone and re-add bits here and there after.
UI is fine, took me a whole game to figure it out, but it's okay. Minor improvements could be done but the overall design is great.
AI is dumb, but it always was. Combat wise, it improved from CiV (heh, ranged can move and shoot at least). Diplomacy AI is... eh. I can make friends but something's still off. Need more testing to really pinpoint what is wrong here.

Meaningful choices to focus your civilization appears often, making the final result something I'm invested in. Something I forged. That's fun

All in all, Civ6 is better than CiV (I never was THAT big of a fan anyway) and is probably the best release in Civ history. Good game, worth it.

 

Always good to see what the ancient old timers think... Being an ancient old timer myself!

But let`s be honest, Firaxis don`t make the Civ games for us any more. I don`t think we even enter their planning thought process. It`s all for the kids that will accept anything now.

Guess I will remain holding off getting this for now.

 

Your loss.

 

Civ VI is the best one yet at release, by a mile. Go back to your Atari ST days. All games had shortcomings, issues, and what we now call glitches and bugs... The difference back then was the perspective about figuring out how to play the game with those in place, and either work around them or use them to your advantage.

 

I'm pretty sure you can still use the opponents railroads in CivII, taking over an entire civ with like one tank. Nobody said much about it then because nobody knew any better: nobody says much now because "good old days of games ready right at release."

 

What a silly and nonsensical thing to say. What's your basis for this perspective? Anything other than your own desire to think yourself superior to others?

"The kids" have, if anything, much higher expectations than we ever had growing up. Back in the 80s and 90s, video games were still this miraculous thing that was so niche that you felt privileged to get to play them. Now, they're ubiquitous (which is a good thing) and there's so much insight into the development process and the work of designers and so much more frequent communication from gamedev companies that younger players have come to expect it as de rigueur throughout the industry. And when there is insufficient communication or a buggy release, the blowback is widespread and intense. (See also: No Man's Sky.) The industry has changed dramatically, especially around deployment methods, so some of that is to be expected and makes sense given the models they've grown up with. (In contrast to the release models we grew up with, where everything shipped on physical media and the Internet didn't exist, so patches and updates were either nonexistent or few and far between.)

So to say that "the kids will accept anything" is ridiculous on its face. If anything, younger gamers tend to have much more stringent expectations than we did when we were teens. But yes, anyone who wants to hold off until any product is fully-patched and has all the features they desire should of course do so - just don't think you're somehow a more discerning, sophisticated consumer because of it. You're not.

 

Old-timer here, playing since Civ II. It's of course way too early to compare Civ VI with the rest of the series in any comprehensive way. I want to make two points. First, in my opinion, Civ VI is in relatively good shape at launch. Second, the problems with combat AI in both Civ V and Civ VI are troubling and may never be adequately solved. Overall, despite its flaws, I think Civ VI has great potential.

First, as others have correctly noted, Civ VI is in much, much better shape than its immediate predecessor was at launch. The Civ V launch was almost a total disaster; unfortunately, that seems to have been forgotten by too many fans. Nearly every facet of Civ V at launch was broken, both in terms of design and execution. The game's lead designer suddenly left Firaxis shortly after launch. It took years--years!--for Civ V to get into decent shape. I'm not sure that Vanilla Civ V ever got into good shape. Only after two expansions, at the very end of its run, well after Brave New World shipped and was polished, can we say that Civ V became a very good game. Civ VI is in much better shape at launch, despite some significant issues (diplomacy seems completely broken, the balance in science and production seems way off, there are several very annoying bugs in the UI, and as I'll discuss below, the AI is not good enough).

Second, the combat AI problems common to Civ V and Civ VI are troubling because it may be the case that combat with the melee/ranged unit separation and one unit per tile (OUPT) system is too difficult a challenge for AI. In my experience, the combat AI in Civ IV: Beyond the Sword was excellent. It presented a good challenge. There was a back and forth in combat with the AI. Of course, Civ IV had a much simpler combat system: there were no ranged units. Units could stack up, infinitely, on the same tile. Pathing and movement was simpler as well. The Civ IV combat AI, in short, could play.

In Civ V, the introduction of ranged units that actually attack from a distance, the addition of complex movement/pathing rules, and the restriction of OUPT each present tremendous challenges for the AI. In all of my hundreds of hours in Civ V, the combat AI rarely, if ever, presented a real challenge. There were always obvious mistakes in its tactics--putting ranged units in front, allowing unit after unit to die in the same chokepoint, retreating when it should be attacking, attacking from the wrong direction, etc. etc. Many of these issues were simply never fixed.

The most troubling thing to me about Civ VI so far is that its combat AI seems to have similar limitations as Civ V's. In my first few encounters, I've seen the combat AI make a lot of obvious mistakes. Perhaps it is slightly improved over Civ V. I think the new movement limitation--you can't "cheat" by climbing a hill at the end of your movement--helps the AI pathing. So does, in theory, the ability to pair civilian units to an escort. That should cut down on AI mistakes. My early impression is that the AI has sometimes chosen targets well--it attacks my weaker cities. I've seen some effort at coordination of the AI's ranged and melee units in ways that Civ V's AI rarely pulled off. It's also retreating damaged units appropriately, sometimes. This is all encouraging, but overall, my first impression is that the combat AI will just never have the ability to play as well as it did in Civ IV (and earlier games).

Bottom line: Civ VI is in better shape than its predecessor at launch, and despite concerning flaws in its combat AI, there is a lot of potential. It's too early to come to any definitive conclusions.