what civ has become

[jozef57]

when i come here on the forum i notice people still complaining about AI . civ seems to ahve become a game where people play high difficoulty restart many times if things are not going well and still complain about the ai. civ used to be a game and i play since civ 2, where this game is played restarting all the time and still think it is not hard enough, for overm90% of players though it is we play the cards we are dealt and do not mind to loose sometimes if playing like this you notice that you start playing lower difficoulty's to cope with this game, but people just look at nice guy's like mazobit saxy gamer potato and think that is the way to go, now i know over a 100 civ players and most of them stopped playing since the game is ging in a direction they not like for me to the game offers more frustration than enjoyement, if civ is tailored to the few genius playes who restart a dozen times before finsihing a game if at all and still complain, most people will leave and that will mean lost jobs for the devs too, i feel i am the only one on the forum who dare to mention this but i am the game is now on its way to a silent dead and is already withering away, look to how few players bough the next frontier addon this is the reason. if the devs want the fgame to wither away this is the way to go

 

[Tech Osen]

That is very hard to read. At least use caps at the start of your sentences please. And paragraphs for the win.

Regardless, the issue with the AI is that they have a very frontloaded set of bonuses. Once you catch up they usually form little risk as they seldom actually manage to win a game.

 

[anonxanemone]

"Comparison is the thief of joy." -Teddy Roosevelt (I think)

Forget how Potato McWhiskey, The Saxy Gamer, Mobizir, or others play. They are fun to watch and learn a few tricks but play the game that is most enjoyable for you. Civ isn't competitive unless you make it that way (i.e. as in competitive multiplayer).

For me, I play on Emperor difficulty and Epic speed with emphasis on building pretty cities and roleplaying. It's the right pace and challenge that enough amusing events happen for me

 

[Stringer1313]

when i come here on the forum i notice people still complaining about AI . civ seems to ahve become a game where people play high difficoulty restart many times if things are not going well and still complain about the ai. civ used to be a game and i play since civ 2, where this game is played restarting all the time and still think it is not hard enough, for overm90% of players though it is we play the cards we are dealt and do not mind to loose sometimes if playing like this you notice that you start playing lower difficoulty's to cope with this game, but people just look at nice guy's like mazobit saxy gamer potato and think that is the way to go, now i know over a 100 civ players and most of them stopped playing since the game is ging in a direction they not like for me to the game offers more frustration than enjoyement, if civ is tailored to the few genius playes who restart a dozen times before finsihing a game if at all and still complain, most people will leave and that will mean lost jobs for the devs too, i feel i am the only one on the forum who dare to mention this but i am the game is now on its way to a silent dead and is already withering away, look to how few players bough the next frontier addon this is the reason. if the devs want the fgame to wither away this is the way to go

I agree with all of this. I'm shocked to hear how many people on this forum restart this game when they get a bad map for instance.

But I'll cop to the the fact that I myself do a lot of complaining esp with how easy it is to get alliances. The ease of making an alliance with Genghis Khan for instance really destroys role playing for me.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm guilty of restarting. Mostly because I just don't like the map, though, not because it's hard. Perhaps there's something in my head I'm going to try that won't work there.

 

[Cpt Chaos]

I'm not sure what you mean about the direction of Civ. The game isn't being tailored to the hardcore players at all - quite the opposite.

I don't think people claim that the early game on deity is too easy. The issue is the opposite: The early game is wildly inconsistent and can often be too hard, but provided you survive without being crushed, crippled, or too badly set back, the game becomes too easy. People complaining that the game isn't hard enough are saying so because once you get your empire set up and in decent shape you know you can't lose. When was the last time somebody lost to a deity science / culture victory before T300?

What people want is an AI that actually knows how to fight wars*, focus on a victory condition, and make it so that a player can genuinely feel that they might lose beyond the first 100 turns. Not everybody wants that challenge (certainly not all the time), but currently the option does not exist. If you want a relaxed game, just turn the difficulty down.

*even just basic improvements like actually using battering rams / siege towers, or not suiciding units.

 

[SirWill90]

Re: the OP - Hard to see your point. I will say that for my play style which is single player, very casual/Prince or King difficulty, I restart until I get something with decent food, production, and one or more amenities within reach of first city. My playing time is quite limited and I don't like wasting an hour or so playing from a bad starting spot only to find my game going badly as a result, and typically the AI puts me in a pretty terrible starting spot that no sane nomadic tribe would ever consider for building their first city - if anything I wish the game had a better set of minimum start criteria for player's first settler.

That said, it's totally understandable some (many/most?) might enjoy the challenge of going with whatever starting cards they are dealt. That's the beauty of the game. If I am not enjoying it I can restart it.

Play how you like.

 

[King Rad]

I do agree that we can each play the game in whatever way we like. With that said, I also find it funny that some who complain the game is 'too easy' do exactly what the opening post said, they restart until they get their desired start. Also not mentioned was the fact that many play on maps and civs that are more amenable to their playstyle. If that's fun for them, that's great. But again one shouldn't complain the game is too easy if they're setting up everything to their maximum benefit. Like @SirWill90, I play casually and for fun. I don't restart, but I also take on average 2-3 weeks to finish a game, so I'm not worried about the extra time involved associated with a bad start. I also play every civ, and nearly always on a continents map because that's the way our world developed. Again, each person can play on any world map that's offered and is fun for them. I understand @Cpt Chaos point regarding wanting an AI that knows better how to fight. Unfortunately, designing the 'perfect' AI for a game like civ, especially considering the computers that we play on and the near infinite choices on everything from which unit do I move first, what do I build and where, should I produce a worker, settler, military unit [and which one], building, etc., is pretty much impossible. And even if it weren't then we'd be complaining about the hours/days between turns while the computer tried to determine its next move. There have to be priorities with the AI, but it's never going to be as good at seeing the whole and planning accordingly as a human. But the game itself, in its current iteration, is for me, the best Civ so far. There are some things I'd like changed, but they certainly don't interfere with the hours of fun I've had playing the game.

 

[gunnergoz]

I can't recall the last Civ VI game I finished. OTOH I play almost every day. AI sucks but so do I. Sue me.

 

[Quueg]

What the game has become is an increasing variety of civs, none of which can play the game worth a damn. Each new DLC just adds a different color of AI futility.

 

[Bibor]

A competent AI would chase players away. Good luck playing SC2 vs Deepmind, for example.
Civ6 is built to let human players win, which is also reflected in the "bonuses only; no maluses".
The need for restart, at least in my case, comes from my desire to build, not to win. Anyone can win Civ6 if they put their mind to it.
And if the desire is to build, then good starts for that become really scarce, ergo restart.
Civ6 is more like building a house. There is no true benefit to having "competent neighbors"; it's about whether you like the terrain features of the parcel you bought and how you build it.
And this game is great for youtubers, because they can pretend they know what they're doing, and you can't really tell the difference, because the game is lenient enough.

 

[IvoryPavane]

I generally don’t care for the way those YouTubers “tier list” everything, but I understand that min/max and optimisation is a facet of the game a portion of the game enjoy.

What is I dislike is how that bleeds down into every discussion of the game. “Canada is bottom tier” “Georgia is trash” “Meme Civs” when actually all the Civs are so much more than just their “power level”.

They are the leader, their history, their music, the way they make you play the game and so much lore. So seeing them getting reduced to how they directly stack up against other Civs in deity is so tiresome.

Especially when the Queen of deity is Korea which (imo) is the worst designed Civ in the game.

TLDR: The Civs are more than their uniques and no amount of Australia OP bonuses is worth listening to hours of Waltzing Matilda

 

[Giskler]

I'm guilty of restarting frequently. I have put so many hours into the game that I look for games that will e.g. let me build ridiculous cities with insane yields. It's highly subjective what everyone looks for and gets out of a game like Civ.

 

[LoneRebel]

Unlike some of the other posters here apparently, I do see your point. I don't understand why people whine about the AI being too easy when they don't even play the hand they're dealt with the first time and keep restarting until they get the perfect start. Though if people restart because they enjoy maximizing yields in their cities, yeah, I get the appeal of that.

And since there are apparently people who see civs as nothing more than a set of abilities or a vehicle of "AI futility" - well, you do you, but I find it hard to believe that people would play the Civilization franchise without the slightest interest in history or culture.

 

[Bibor]

Unlike some of the other posters here apparently, I do see your point. I don't understand why people whine about the AI being too easy when they don't even play the hand they're dealt with the first time and keep restarting until they get the perfect start. Though if people restart because they enjoy maximizing yields in their cities, yeah, I get the appeal of that.

Everyone can win, the question is how. In my book, a good start lets me build, it offers me a glimpse of what I can achieve if I know how. I don't need the start to give anything, in fact I dislike OP starts as much as I do weak starts. And this is where Civ6 fails massively with its decidedly questionable terrain requirements.
There are *no* alternative to campus. And this is my biggest issue with the game. Gold, faith, production, culture, all can be built. But not science.

 

[Victoria]

Civ 2 will always be a different mindset because of the iterations played.
I bought the new pack but regret it, Pathing issues really annoy me, traders do. New civs are just that, yes some excitement but the game is done as far as I see, just new fantasy toys you turn on.
There will always be complainers, we all whinge from time to time, whether it be an asteroid falling or a broken nail. I am as guilty as any.
But I play a different game to most, just happy messing around with self made targets.
Bottom line though in the end game just grinds too much for my taste, and many others.
Our world went through radical change in later years amd I was hoping the game would too, but nope.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I restart almost always, because I see no point in playing a start that doesn't make any sense for the Civ I am playing. Like, center of the continent as far as possible from the nearest Coast tile for Phoenicia or England, or middle of the rainforest start with no Tundra in sight for Russia. I am, at heart and always, a historian first and a gamer second, and these starts are simply impossible for the Civs as designed. For me, there is no point in playing them.
On the other hand, like several others here, I do a lot of Personal Victory role-playing in my games. I set In-Game goals that have nothing to do directly with any Victory Conditions. Like, starting America on one side of a Pangaea continent with the sole purpose of building a railroad to the other side of the continent by hook or crook (The "Golden Spike" personal achievement). Or playing England or Netherlands with the sole point of getting the maximum number of sea-going Trade Routes (The "India Company" achievement)

And, I freely admit that I finish probably less than 5% of the games I start, because I'm not paying any attention to a 'formal' ending of the game, just my own accomplishments - and because after the mid-game, as others have stated, the game becomes downright Boring against the hapless AI.

Bottom Line: Every One of Us designs their own game of Civ, and only very rarely is that the same as the one that Firaxis sold us.

 

[RealHuhn]

According to steamcharts(dot)com, the average player count in August 2020 was 50% higher than in August 2019 and 100% higher than in August 2018. Just because you don't like the game anymore, doesn't mean the game is dying. That's just false.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

According to steamcharts(dot)com, the average player count in August 2020 was 50% higher than in August 2019 and 100% higher than in August 2018. Just because you don't like the game anymore, doesn't mean the game is dying. That's just false.

As I said, each of us plays our own game, and I might add that there is a big difference in the kind of game desired by the Grognards of Civ Fanatics and average presumably-casual player.
And while there are lots of things about the game that make me cringe, I still enjoy playing it as much as any other game I own (although, hold that thought: I just downloaded Port Royale 4 yesterday and I thoroughly enjoyed PR 2 and 3, so the new version may displace Civ VI for a while!)

 

[Archon_Wing]

Yea I suppose it's funny to see people play expert games but it's like on a faceroll map with 5 CS's nearby. And I've read unironically as strategy here to have science/culture CS"s on the map. Yea...