ArchGhost
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2016
- Messages
- 582
Getting around to trying out Civ5 and Civ6 now that I got them in this year's steam sale after like 8 years of going hard on Civ4. I've had civ6 on console but really only messed with it a bit because of controller drift issues and very long load times on XBone.
Throwing out the whole 1UPT thing immediately because I'll never get over it, and it fundamentally makes a completely different game with or without. But as much as I've always hated it, I'm not going to argue about it more.
Civ6 has great aesthetic. My introduction to Civ was Revolution, so I actually do enjoy the cartooniness and the warm colors and the "soft" take on the map compared to Civ4's ruggedness or the "shiny" realism of Civ5. The map itself, with the brown parchment as fog of war, was something I originally didn't like the look of until getting hands on the game. Actually playing with it, it's pretty charming and draws focus back to what you're doing -- traditional fog of war gray-out gives you enough info to constantly worry over if you're OCD, but the restricted, artsy look of Civ6's pushes me away from "win more" behavior like trying to settle everything. All from a simple coloring and sketching appearance. Neat.
By far my favorite part of Civ6 are the policy cards, and the interaction of civics with global culture (FINALLY it does something empire wide from the get-go). Quite in depth, lots of strategy ties into them, and I actually think most of the effects are good enough at certain times or with certain gambits to actually be tradeoffs with one another. They also can be swapped around rather painlessly, at least through earlier parts of the game. Dicking around in Civ5 as a casual, the social policies seem less impactful themselves and only in terms of what you give up instead do they seem important, and I didn't like earning my way toward them in Civ5's system. Civ4's civics are not only simpler but much more unbalanced to the point that you will actually limit your swapping for most of a game once you unlock the best ones -- the best civic in the game is the earliest one you will unlock in meta-conscious game!
Pretty much everything else I am "meh" about or dislke, but I have a very casual experience with Civ6 and haven't even completed a full game just putting around on my own. I get into restart-itis when I run out of ideas of what to do next, which experience from Civ4 tells me means I am really, really bad at the game lol.
Don't like the Districts. I honestly do not see what districts achieve that the tradtional improvement system doesn't (or couldn't match by simply adding to improvements, like Adjacency boni) other than tying them to a specific city. I especially do not like how they cover up the base tile and remove yields in some (all? like I said I'm inexperienced) cases, or that they conflict with tile improvements. It's a strange choice to look at the traditional Buildings and say "hey, what if they required giving up spots on the map?" It's needlessly convoluted and makes city management feel more like busy work instead of strengthing your position. If this or the damned City-States (which I ALWAYS turn off, due to their annoyance and distraction) never come back in Civ I wouldn't be upset in the slightest.
Governors felt like the social poilicies in Civ5, and they sorta work like GP in Civ:Rev a little bit allowing for a bit of extended city specialization. Mostly indfferent to them.
Not experienced enough with the game to comment on Religion, though it's certainly better than in Civ4...right? It seems like it actually does stuff beyond seperate AIs into blocs.
Diplomacy is a wash for me. Civ4 is much more restrictive up front (as some options are locked behind progression or the AI just flat never does some stuff even if it's technically on offer) so Civ6's more open trading immediately is fun, but there's also something quite useful about how cut and dry Civ4's limitations are, and it remains a brutally powerful tool in that game's meta (abuse of Peace Treaties, trading useless tech for gold and turning into more research for more tech,etc).
Leaders -- not a history buff or anything so I don't really care too much. It did seem quite strange how they seemed to go out of their way to be so inclusive of atypical examples instead of the most significant leaders -- Catherine of Medici instead of Louis XIV or Napoleon, for instance. I didn't even know who she was until Civ6. Likewise an American President like Teddy...certainly iconic here because of his persona, but probably doesn't register on the radar of non-Americans unless they specifically study our history or the Panama Canal.
Didn't mess with GP too much. Can't say. I don't even remember how they work or if the "lottery" was in Civ5 or Civ6 or both. Eh.
City management is pretty bad and I'm lumping in improvements/builders here too. It's mostly consequential due to other poor choices, like needlessly convoluted UI (why an extra step to even SEE what tiles are being worked, let alone assign citizens? WTH is wrong with the person that designed the build queue and said "yeah, that looks readable and informative?") or the extremely poor decision to have both limitied Builder charges ALONG WITH inflation on every build (builder charges alone would been fine...). But overall it very much feels like the game is punishing you for not playing with a min-max mentality and that is exactly the reason I hate Deity difficulty in Civ4. You always feels like your choices are limited or you're playing against an invisible clock and very much NOT peacefully enjoying things as they come along.
AI I assume is referring to the the leader personalities/agendas and all that rather than the piss-poor way it handles the map in terms of using units. I am mostly disaffected, as coming from a background of earlier civ games means you just flat don't trust the AI at face value anyway. I've also seen how the agenda system can apparently make them run counter to what it seems they would do (I played a game where Chandraguptra was not only far away from me, but I didn't even see his borders once as Ethiopia was situated between us...but he still gave me horsehockey for being close to him as -- I guess -- he expanded up against Ethiopia on the other side) so I don't know really what to think about it.
Also it's not listed in the poll just like 1UPT or Era points/Golden or Dark Ages (meh), but the barbs are pretty incredulous in Civ6. Just last night I had an encampment spawn in previously revealed territory 7 hexes from the capitol city center, got instantly scouted, and it proceeded to fart out 3 units in 7 turns as I rushed over to deal with it. I didn't even have a 2nd slinger finished yet. Dunno if that's atypical or just unlucky but DAMN man.
Throwing out the whole 1UPT thing immediately because I'll never get over it, and it fundamentally makes a completely different game with or without. But as much as I've always hated it, I'm not going to argue about it more.
Civ6 has great aesthetic. My introduction to Civ was Revolution, so I actually do enjoy the cartooniness and the warm colors and the "soft" take on the map compared to Civ4's ruggedness or the "shiny" realism of Civ5. The map itself, with the brown parchment as fog of war, was something I originally didn't like the look of until getting hands on the game. Actually playing with it, it's pretty charming and draws focus back to what you're doing -- traditional fog of war gray-out gives you enough info to constantly worry over if you're OCD, but the restricted, artsy look of Civ6's pushes me away from "win more" behavior like trying to settle everything. All from a simple coloring and sketching appearance. Neat.
By far my favorite part of Civ6 are the policy cards, and the interaction of civics with global culture (FINALLY it does something empire wide from the get-go). Quite in depth, lots of strategy ties into them, and I actually think most of the effects are good enough at certain times or with certain gambits to actually be tradeoffs with one another. They also can be swapped around rather painlessly, at least through earlier parts of the game. Dicking around in Civ5 as a casual, the social policies seem less impactful themselves and only in terms of what you give up instead do they seem important, and I didn't like earning my way toward them in Civ5's system. Civ4's civics are not only simpler but much more unbalanced to the point that you will actually limit your swapping for most of a game once you unlock the best ones -- the best civic in the game is the earliest one you will unlock in meta-conscious game!
Pretty much everything else I am "meh" about or dislke, but I have a very casual experience with Civ6 and haven't even completed a full game just putting around on my own. I get into restart-itis when I run out of ideas of what to do next, which experience from Civ4 tells me means I am really, really bad at the game lol.
Don't like the Districts. I honestly do not see what districts achieve that the tradtional improvement system doesn't (or couldn't match by simply adding to improvements, like Adjacency boni) other than tying them to a specific city. I especially do not like how they cover up the base tile and remove yields in some (all? like I said I'm inexperienced) cases, or that they conflict with tile improvements. It's a strange choice to look at the traditional Buildings and say "hey, what if they required giving up spots on the map?" It's needlessly convoluted and makes city management feel more like busy work instead of strengthing your position. If this or the damned City-States (which I ALWAYS turn off, due to their annoyance and distraction) never come back in Civ I wouldn't be upset in the slightest.
Governors felt like the social poilicies in Civ5, and they sorta work like GP in Civ:Rev a little bit allowing for a bit of extended city specialization. Mostly indfferent to them.
Not experienced enough with the game to comment on Religion, though it's certainly better than in Civ4...right? It seems like it actually does stuff beyond seperate AIs into blocs.
Diplomacy is a wash for me. Civ4 is much more restrictive up front (as some options are locked behind progression or the AI just flat never does some stuff even if it's technically on offer) so Civ6's more open trading immediately is fun, but there's also something quite useful about how cut and dry Civ4's limitations are, and it remains a brutally powerful tool in that game's meta (abuse of Peace Treaties, trading useless tech for gold and turning into more research for more tech,etc).
Leaders -- not a history buff or anything so I don't really care too much. It did seem quite strange how they seemed to go out of their way to be so inclusive of atypical examples instead of the most significant leaders -- Catherine of Medici instead of Louis XIV or Napoleon, for instance. I didn't even know who she was until Civ6. Likewise an American President like Teddy...certainly iconic here because of his persona, but probably doesn't register on the radar of non-Americans unless they specifically study our history or the Panama Canal.
Didn't mess with GP too much. Can't say. I don't even remember how they work or if the "lottery" was in Civ5 or Civ6 or both. Eh.
City management is pretty bad and I'm lumping in improvements/builders here too. It's mostly consequential due to other poor choices, like needlessly convoluted UI (why an extra step to even SEE what tiles are being worked, let alone assign citizens? WTH is wrong with the person that designed the build queue and said "yeah, that looks readable and informative?") or the extremely poor decision to have both limitied Builder charges ALONG WITH inflation on every build (builder charges alone would been fine...). But overall it very much feels like the game is punishing you for not playing with a min-max mentality and that is exactly the reason I hate Deity difficulty in Civ4. You always feels like your choices are limited or you're playing against an invisible clock and very much NOT peacefully enjoying things as they come along.
AI I assume is referring to the the leader personalities/agendas and all that rather than the piss-poor way it handles the map in terms of using units. I am mostly disaffected, as coming from a background of earlier civ games means you just flat don't trust the AI at face value anyway. I've also seen how the agenda system can apparently make them run counter to what it seems they would do (I played a game where Chandraguptra was not only far away from me, but I didn't even see his borders once as Ethiopia was situated between us...but he still gave me horsehockey for being close to him as -- I guess -- he expanded up against Ethiopia on the other side) so I don't know really what to think about it.
Also it's not listed in the poll just like 1UPT or Era points/Golden or Dark Ages (meh), but the barbs are pretty incredulous in Civ6. Just last night I had an encampment spawn in previously revealed territory 7 hexes from the capitol city center, got instantly scouted, and it proceeded to fart out 3 units in 7 turns as I rushed over to deal with it. I didn't even have a 2nd slinger finished yet. Dunno if that's atypical or just unlucky but DAMN man.
