Which part of the game do you like most? (early-, mid-, endgame)?

[PascalPascal]

Hi there. Which part of the game do you like most?

I like the early game at most, because:
1. You don´t know which nations are on the map (or which nations your friends have picked)
2. You don´t know for which victory conditions your opponents are going for.
3. You haven´t revealed the "whole" map -> you have something to reveal
4. You haven´t a feeling about the one who will win the game
5. You have short turns, but they are meaningful, too(and don´t have to tell >12 dealers, etc. where they have to go next - if you don´t you will loose important things, if you do you will loose a lot of time)
6. You have babarians disturbing you
7. I like the first units (fighting units) and other units like dealers more then the end-game units.

Is there a way to pump up the early-game and shorten the endgame?

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

I like both the early and mid game.
The early one because the decisions I make matter the most, and the middle game because I work to execute the plan I set out for myself.
The late game (esp in civ 6) is pretty poorly implemented - I usually win hard by this point (so it doesnt really matter what I do), and the late game mechanics are overall worse than in civ 5 (world congress/UN, AI clueless at handling aircraft).

 

[UWHabs]

I like both the early and mid game.
The early one because the decisions I make matter the most, and the middle game because I work to execute the plan I set out for myself.
The late game (esp in civ 6) is pretty poorly implemented - I usually win hard by this point (so it doesnt really matter what I do), and the late game mechanics are overall worse than in civ 5 (world congress/UN, AI clueless at handling aircraft).

Yeah, I most agree with this. Early game is fun because you're learning, discovering, and starting to formulate the plan.
Mid-game is good because you can execute, and I find when I hit the mid-game is the first time where I can start sitting back and developing cities. Early game is frustrating because I don't have the gold to buy buildings, I need settlers to expand, but I also need to start getting my districts down. But I want to chop the woods before placing the district, so I need a builder, but I don't have the gold to buy a builder, so... But yeah, by the mid-game, when my expansion has calmed down, I have the core infrastructure down, then things start to really spiral.
End-game can be fun because you are building up these super cities, I'm getting my factories online, planning power, etc... But more often than not, everything is decided, so it ends up just being some repetitive clicking, upgrading units for no purpose, building things I don't need, etc...

Now, every now and then, if the AI is putting up a fight, endgame can matter. I've had cases where I'm counting the turns on my spaceship because the AI has either launched theirs or is getting close. Or sometimes in what I would call the "pre-endgame" phase I need to mount an invasion to kick an opponent down. But if I have executed the early and mid-game correctly, then end-game is a walk in the park.

 

[kaspergm]

I like both the early and mid game.
The early one because the decisions I make matter the most, and the middle game because I work to execute the plan I set out for myself.
The late game (esp in civ 6) is pretty poorly implemented - I usually win hard by this point (so it doesnt really matter what I do), and the late game mechanics are overall worse than in civ 5 (world congress/UN, AI clueless at handling aircraft).

I agree fairly much with this. A big problem with Civ6 is that I feel late game stuff isn't really required to win. I can work through the tech tree perfectly well just on Universities, I can win a cultural victory perfectly with without top level cultural buildings or even a great number of great works, my economy survives perfectly well without stock Stock Exchanges, etc. Factories and power plants certainly a useful, but even those seem to play a fairly minor role, I can easily postpone power plants if I want to prevent pollution without suffering heavy setback.

While Civ6 does have an increasing cost-curve on things through the game, I feel they didn't get the numbers right. Early and particularly mid game, things are way too expensive, making it a real slush to pull through building stuff in new cities. Meanwhile, late game I feel costs for techs and civics should be many times higher than they are now, but similarly yields from late game buildings - and specialists! - should be much higher, to make it so that you can't advance through the later eras without also building the respective buildings from that era.

In terms of "restarting" the game, I feel Civ5 did a decent, if not perfect, job of introducing new features like World Congress and Ideologies that sort of turned the game a bit upside down once you hit those eras, which made them more interesting. Civ6 fails really miserably at this. The late game governments feel very much like exactly the same as the earlier governments just with more slots, and world congress is ... well, don't get me started.

When that's said, I know it's hard, maybe even impossible, not to have snowballing be a thing in Civ. The most fun late games are those where you have an AI really run away so you have to make an active effort to catch up with them, so certainly AI incompetence drags Civ6 down (also on this point). On the other hand, I'm not on the team who wants extreme rubber banding features from for instance spies - I think it quickly becomes frustrating when you are targeted with something that completely destroys what you have achieved in the early game. So yeah, no easy solutions at hand.

 

[PascalPascal]

I like both the early and mid game.

I thought of other combinations but would have made the vote to complicated.

But more often than not, everything is decided, so it ends up just being some repetitive clicking, upgrading units for no purpose, building things I don't need, etc...

And even if not all things are decided, it feels boring to me to manage 10 cities. And the buildings are build to quick, so you have decide a such a lot things which are not very heavy.

For me the late game would be more fun, if there weren´t such a lot cities to manage(quite the same things to do). Isn´t there a malus by having a lot of cities? Is there a mod which can do this?

 

[reddishrecue]

I like mid-game because it's the decision maker to end or continue into the end.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

My favorite "x" is eXplore. So early and to a lesser extent mid.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

I greatly prefer the mid-game in Civ VI. To some extent I like the early-game too, but in general I find it very easy to stress over and not enjoy to the same extent. By the mid-game production, faith, and purchasing strategies come into force and it's very easy to develop the vast majority of city sites. I quite like that about CIV VI. Even if I dread low-yield starts, most of the map can be exploited and brought up to speed by the mid-game. Additionally, the mid-game is where I'm most likely to get a sense of overarching culture. For example, I am likely to have filled out a tectonic sub-region or colonized a coast/inland region.

 

[Ordnael]

Early to mid for me...late game has way too much micromanagement for me, I stop paying attention to all little details (forgetting to trade extra luxuries, checking on city growth and so on and that's why i am getting the habit of settling only if I need resources...thus i usually end up with less than 10 cities. Late game i am just expecting for the win...getting DV way too easily...guess I should turn it off! I fear going deity and getting my ass handed to me to easily
Also don't really like much of the late game music.
I would like a mode peaking by the 1960's with moon landing being the Science Victory goal. No last version of each unit.
Late mode needs another wave of exploration...like rare earth minerals prospecting both land and sea, maybe a rush for the arctic or the desert, managing a society of tomorrow with cyborgs and stuff...the dream would be continuing the game on mars or the exoplanet, with all the new exploration involved...but I digress.
I like CIVVI so much i dream of modes

 

[reddishrecue]

I liked early game because its start and decides whether you would want to continue for later eras or not.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I like early game because the turns are quicky. Don't have too much things to mind... In late game one turn can takes one hour (just to move troops).

 

[Buktu]

Midgame kinda. At the start exploring is great but there is not much else to do. Once you got a few cities up and running there are a good ammount of decision per turn and those are still somewhat important for the outcome of the game.

 

[jdevo]

The first 100 turns of Civ6 are the best of any Civ game. After that it becomes a boring slog with too many clicks and decisions. There needs to be ways to automate your empire like there was in Civ4. Also, managing 20+ trade routes for yields like +3 culture, or +8 gold is completely pointless. I much prefer the way trade routes were handled in Civ4.

 

[Diktaattori]

Hi there. Which part of the game do you like most?

I like the early game at most, because:
1. You don´t know which nations are on the map (or which nations your friends have picked)
2. You don´t know for which victory conditions your opponents are going for.
3. You haven´t revealed the "whole" map -> you have something to reveal
4. You haven´t a feeling about the one who will win the game
5. You have short turns, but they are meaningful, too(and don´t have to tell >12 dealers, etc. where they have to go next - if you don´t you will loose important things, if you do you will loose a lot of time)
6. You have babarians disturbing you
7. I like the first units (fighting units) and other units like dealers more then the end-game units.

Is there a way to pump up the early-game and shorten the endgame?

What unit is dealer? Neverheard that. Is it slinger?

 

[Disgustipated]

I voted all. Partially because I can't decide, but also because lately I've come to enjoy the late game somewhat. What I do is set goals for myself and try to grow my cities as large as possible. None of which is required to win, but I find it fun to "build".

Early game is the most dangerous so it has more of a thrill. Middle game is about consolidation and getting those cities to be productive after your expansion phase is done. Middle game is usually when I start to focus on wonders. I generally ignore early game wonders.

 

[qouigv93027]

Early game for me, because I like scoping out and strategizing my plan for future cities and districts.

 

[KayAU]

The early game is great, the early mid game is good, everything after that is very tedious for me.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The early game is great, the early mid game is good, everything after that is very tedious for me.

I turn off everything but score victory and limit turns to have the game end somewhere around the start of the industrial age for this reason

 

[vorlon_mi]

Science / space victory has been my favorite since I started playing Civ2. That means I need to work through nearly the whole tech tree, manage my empire for long-term growth (not just a massive cavalry rush in Civ3 or elepult rush in Civ4), and deal with diplomacy throughout the game. I voted "all phases" because they're all needed to get my ship launched.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I love the era of colonization, especially on the terra map type, which is what I usually play. In the words of Anakin Skywalker, "This is where the fun begins!"