What puts you off Civ VI?

[PPQ_Purple]

Also, the carpets of doom are inefficient solution stemming from bad AI and players stuck in the old mindset. I found that small, properly commanded groups (about 9-12 units+GG) are more cost-effective. Of course you might need a trail of reinforcements for meatshield troops, but that's not different from Civ4. And there's no reason why the game couldn't be balanced around smaller army sizes.

That's another thing. I got CIV4 on the day it came out in stores where I live. And to this day I am yet to see a 100 or even 50 unit doomstack the sort of which people complain about. With the exception of one FFH scenario where I let demons who have infinite spawning mechanics spawn unmolested for too long. In virtually every game I played stack sizes were always in the 5-20 units range. And I would be quite fine with a 15 or even 10 UPT system.

And frankly, I do not feel that it diminishes other aspects. There are 4X games with more complex battle systems that work well, like for example Master of Orion 2.

I found MOO to be unfun. I much preferred Space Empires IV.

 

[Sarin]

That's another thing. I got CIV4 on the day it came out in stores where I live. And to this day I am yet to see a 100 or even 50 unit doomstack the sort of which people complain about. With the exception of one FFH scenario where I let demons who have infinite spawning mechanics spawn unmolested for too long. In virtually every game I played stack sizes were always in the 5-20 units range. And I would actually be quite fine with a 15 or even 10 UPT system.


I found MOO to be unfun. I much preferred Space Empires IV.

Your choice. I liked MoO 1 and 2.

Stacking multiple units on one tile just trashes the tactical options like formations, flanking, focus, zones of control and range. I prefer having those rather than RNG combat of 1-4.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Your choice. I liked MoO 1 and 2.

Stacking multiple units on one tile just trashes the tactical options like formations, flanking, focus, zones of control and range. I prefer having those rather than RNG combat of 1-4.

That's the thing. I don't think tactical options are really required in an X4 game. Strategy yes but tactics just get in the way.

 

[Sarin]

That's the thing. I don't think tactical options are really required in an X4 game. Strategy yes but tactics just get in the way.

I prefer having the control over that. Compared to the managing possibilities in other areas where you can (and often have to) literally play foreman to a gang of workers and so on, the combat is really lacking the tactical depth for me.

 

[Freaky]

I think the ideal 4X game is a Jack of all trades, master of everything. I liked the theory of Endless Legend's combat (stack on map, unroll the stack on combat), but the execution was wonky with dead spaces and odd combat boundaries. Theee should of course be the option to skip tactical combat, just like being able to automate workers or production queues for people who dont find certain parts fun

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Automation is the devils tool.

 

[Matsuda123]

Virtually everything put me off.

1. Uninteresting Clash of Clans type art. 2. A selection of leaders that make no sense except to appeal to hyper political people who don't even know what the game is. 3. Asian leaders not looking like actual Asian people even remotely. 4. Lack of good mods. 5. Terrible city system where buildings now hog up huge swaths of the map (have fun trying to be Korea on a real world map). 6. Civs that should've been in the game by now not getting a chance again (Ancient Israel, Tibet). 7. "Diverse" units only being slight costume and weapon changes to units instead of using their imaginations to theorize what they would have looked like if nations developed these things independently. 8. Those changes only running up to early Renaissance units and not through to the present day units. 9. Little sense of the epic scale of time and technological advancement as in previous games. 10. No interesting scenarios, or scenarios that have been done better before in the past.

Overall, it just sucks. Civ IV has issues, but with its highly versatile modding abilities, you can fix nearly everything. It also has close to two decades worth of content that can be added in now, and while it is still in need of proper city sets for other nations (which I've made but have no idea how to texture or rig), it's still much more interesting than Civ VI's boring cities. I love how in Civ V they actually bothered to make different city sets up to the present day for the major culture groups, which makes it more exciting and like you're doing what the game advertises, rewriting history. But in Civ 6? Nope. Don't even bother to make the modern stuff different, Conform it all, like in real life, despite that I'm literally changing history from the ground up.

I get it. Israel and Tibet are controversial. I don't care. Stop capitulating to foreign markets and their ridiculous contempt for these groups. People surely hated the Mongols too in Medieval times, yet here they are in the game. They, like Israel and Tibet, still contributed to history as civilizations.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

While we are at it can we just pause and appreciate the fact that CIV4 is such a good game that to this day, 17 years after its release, we can still have debates on how we'd want to tweak it to make it even better?

 

[Freaky]

While we are at it can we just pause and appreciate the fact that CIV4 is such a good game that to this day, 17 years after its release, we can still have debates on how we'd want to tweak it to make it even better?

Yep, it's not even my favorite civ game, but it's an absolute masterpiece. I like Civ V with Vox Populi the most still (says the guy with 3x the hours in CivIV actively modding it).

 

[Freaky]

Virtually everything put me off.

I agree with all of this. I've only played the demo of it and watched videos, but until they include proper mod support, it won't be any more enjoyable than the previous 2 iterations. I'm an Iseaeli Jew, so maybe I'm a bit biased, but I'd say Israel was the most influential civilization for the overall effect of how things would have looked had it not existed for the last 2000+ years. More of the butterfly effect than direct influence (like modern America). If they wanted to please Israel haters and be more accurate for ancient history, they could call the civ the Hebrews. Israel (he who wrestles with God) was the new name Jacob got, so before that (at least back till Abraham), it was the Hebrews anyway.

 

[Fippy]

Something maybe not mentioned yet puts me off the most..all those DLCs.
When i feel like a company hacks their game into bits so they can milk more money, rather than fixing big issues like terrible AI for the base game, they lost me.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I agree with all of this. I've only played the demo of it and watched videos, but until they include proper mod support, it won't be any more enjoyable than the previous 2 iterations.

Until, in this case, being more of an IF to which the answer is NOT. Or do you think it a coincidence that every single CIV6 DLC is basically something a relatively low tier modder could do in previous titles?

As long as they rely on lazy DLC that add new leaders, civs and similar "babies first mod" level additions they can't well allow something like Fall from Heaven or RFC to happen and blow them out of the water.

 

[Freaky]

Until, in this case, being more of an IF to which the answer is NOT. Or do you think it a coincidence that every single CIV6 DLC is basically something a relatively low tier modder could do in previous titles?

As long as they rely on lazy DLC that add new leaders, civs and similar "babies first mod" level additions they can't well allow something like Fall from Heaven or RFC to happen and blow them out of the water.

Yeah, as soon as I saw their original response to modding at release, it was essentially "We want to make bits of DLC for the next few years, and allowing mods ruins that business model". At least they were honest. My response was "I'll see you in 5 years". Once they've moved on and want modders to finally give people a legit reason to buy their game and keep it afloat like they did with all previous iterations.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Yeah, as soon as I saw their original response to modding at release, it was essentially "We want to make bits of DLC for the next few years, and allowing mods ruins that business model". At least they were honest. My response was "I'll see you in 5 years". Once they've moved on and want modders to finally give people a legit reason to buy their game and keep it afloat like they did with all previous iterations.

Which they won't. They'll just move on to making the next one.

 

[Freaky]

I checked the Civ VI kod forums and it looks like there's a lot more there than the last time I checked. What's currently holding it back? No access to the core AI code?

 

[Sarin]

That's another thing. I got CIV4 on the day it came out in stores where I live. And to this day I am yet to see a 100 or even 50 unit doomstack the sort of which people complain about. With the exception of one FFH scenario where I let demons who have infinite spawning mechanics spawn unmolested for too long. In virtually every game I played stack sizes were always in the 5-20 units range. And I would be quite fine with a 15 or even 10 UPT system.

I have to ask about this, because in my game, on mere Prince difficulty, Justinian just pulled a 40 unit doomstack of cataphracts and trebuchets on me. So 50-100 seems quite likely on higher difficulties. So I have no problem believing that further in game and on higher difficulties, the stacks can be much bigger.

 

[Freaky]

I have to ask about this, because in my game, on mere Prince difficulty, Justinian just pulled a 40 unit doomstack of cataphracts and trebuchets on me. So 50-100 seems quite likely on higher difficulties. So I have no problem believing that further in game and on higher difficulties, the stacks can be much bigger.

I play deity and regularly see the top dog sending 30-40 my way, but nothing like 100

 

[Matsuda123]

I play deity and regularly see the top dog sending 30-40 my way, but nothing like 100

Not to mention, you can just make everything a national unit to limit how many they can build at one time... So stacks can be fixed.

 

[Reg Pither]

I play deity and regularly see the top dog sending 30-40 my way, but nothing like 100

I've just been playing on Monarch and had 3 armies of 120-140 and the enemy sent in a stack of 350... but then I do play on marathon on huge maps with tech slowed down even more, so that game lasted 79 hours. I regularly see stacks of over 100 from the AI playing this way.

 

[D64]

The escalating disconnect between the grand strategic scope of the map and the tactical nature of the units. 1 unit per hex (oh, you can make "armies," but they're still weaksauce), and ESPECIALLY the fact that archers can shoot TWO HEXES. Really? They can shoot 80 miles or whatever? Ridiculous.

Also, I just got bored playing it. I got tired of constantly creating religious units to fight off other religious units. Ugh.