Why Do You Like Civ 6?

Cruor

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
62
Ok, I am not here to troll people who enjoy the game. I am very disappointed, and I would like to hear why you aren't. I am 36, I have played since Civ 1. I would really like a discussion. I waited till after a patch (or 2) to give them a chance but its still a weak product. For the record, I did not like Civ 5 on release, but did after 2 xpacs, patches, and mods.

Here is what I do like:

1) Districts are awesome. I have wanted cities to occupy more then one tile forever.

2) I really like the trade routes, and how they build roads.

3) Districts allow for great city customization.

4) Happiness is per city again, not linked.

5) City states an envoys is a cool system, gives great bonuses, I like it.

What I don't like:

1) The AI is trash, and I mean trash. I'd use another word but I don't want to get too offensive. Whoever programmed the AI needs to be fired, and I mean that. Yes, a human being would lose their income but its too bad, they did a beyond awful job. The AI can't do a naval invasion, can't seem to fall back and regroup, cant use ranged units correctly. I just quit a game (king) where four AI (two of whom were at war the turn before) decared war on me. No warning, no reason. I was neighbor with one of them, the others were far off. Early game. I don't need to say more then whats already been written about the AI but its a 1 out of 10.
IMO its bad enough that single player isn't doable (if you like a slight challenge without rampant cheating)

This is my main grip by far. Its infuriating and unacceptable, and I don't know why more reviews didn't call them out on this.

2) Again with the AI, it just can't handle the one unit hex system. Limited stacks should have come back, or maybe some whole new system, but 1 unit a tile doesn't work. It didn't work for the AI in Civ 5, and it still doesn't.

3) Game didn't ship with world maps or Europe maps... AGAIN. They know this a feature we want, seriously could they not even ask the people who already made those maps to import them, put their names in the credits if they can't make one themselves? How hard is this? Yes, I have the mods adding them. It should have shipped with the game.

4) less customization options then Civ 5. Stop taking steps back.

5) The over simplification of techs and units. The next unit after Knight is Tank.... seriously? Like, really? is this Civ 1? You skip 700+ years of history? Musketmen to Infantry? Am I playing Civ Revolution 2 or Civ 6? This really bothers me, I know Ill get heat for this one but I hate it. I assume this will be "fixed" with expansion packs but it shouldn't have to be.

Continuing with how units work, Destroyer>Battleship in a "melee" fight? On what planet? Battleships were super powerful (as long as they had air cover) their downside was expense. They should have "melee" and ranged ability, be stronger but cost more to upkeep. Same idea goes for other units but I wont list it all.

Anyway, if you are enjoying the game please explain why to me. I just do not understand all the 95% reviews it has. I think the game WILL be good... in late 2017 after an xpac and numerous mods. But for now, sadly, its not in my opinion.
 
Well... this is not specific to Civ6 nor Firaxis.

The game industry is evolving around the concept of kickstarter / indie's maker but also how every game get hacked upon release date.

Releasing half of a working product, on the premise of, if you buy it, you will have access to updates and the full game experiences, is something we are going to see more and more.

The single AI Dev probably need more time to come up with better scripts. It's hardly his fault, imo.


(did you play vanilla diablo 3? it's was the horsehockytiest game ever, and we are talking activisionblizzard billionaire industry / or the latest simcity and I could go on and on)
 
I don't deny the AI problems, and they do aggravate me. But I also understand why Firaxis doesn't invest a lot in AI. It's incredibly difficult to develop, and a lot of people don't want it as much as they say. (They don't want to lose 7 out of 8 games in an 8 civ field. They restart non-ideal starting locations, and reload after bad turns of events. They use cheesy exploits that would never be allowed by human opponents. Customers vary, but all evidence is that highly effective opponents are not as desirable as all that.)

I also despise many aspects of the UI, such as the way religious and settler units make the map utterly inscrutable, and essential information such as hills and districts are often obscured. Rules are often undocumented, and important information in inaccessible places.

But I still really enjoy the game. Especially for the first 150 turns or so. For me, exploring the world and discovering this instance's advantages and disadvantages and adjusting to the situation is just plain fun. For me, anyway. The neighbors, the terrain, and the city states all really matter, at least if I am playing on a fairly high difficulty level.

It's important to say that I am a builder, not a militarist. The road to a cultural victory tends to be competitive, especially if Kongo and Brazil are opponents -- and I usually put them into the game manually. My guess is that if I had bought the game to fight interesting wars, I would have given up on the game rather quickly -- it simply does not work as a war game, case closed. But the game as I play it remains fun for quite some time, and, when I start to gain an insurmountable lead and feel the yawns come on, that's fine, I declare victory and start a new game.
 
let's be honest, the AI was never good and always randomly declared war on people. As someone said, intelligence is very hard to program. The issues with the AI is to be expected, but it seems it could have been fixed if they simply allowed stacks of doom. I think the whole naval game is ruined (despite the graphics which look great) because of the oceans are too crowded with land units that transform into ships (I think I hate this part of civ the most, after 1upt).
 
The AI was never human brilliant, and I never expected to be... I just expect it to be decent. I feel they just have to chance the game based on what AI can handle... for example, they MUST bring stacks back, and as you mentioned Usama84, get rid of embarking and bring back transport ships... that was just a horrible idea and it doesn't work. For example, Stellaris can at least give me enough challenge to keep playing. Is it brilliant? No, but at least it keeps me entertained, and I have not once had a game where I was thinking "why the hell did so and so attack me!?" The trade deals are somewhat fair and you can see who doesn't like you and who does.

I am a warmonger. I do enjoy the building/exploration stage/land grab but once that is done, war is how I win. In Civ 1, the AI was able to send an army over and land it. The fact that the Civ 6 AI can't do that is just sad.

Kel,ort, I have 100's and 100's of hours in Diablo 3. Yes, the base game was terrible. I enjoyed it after the expansion pack and updates however. Simcity was a joke, but I don't think its ok to say "well, they suck, so we can too" Ther AI should have been improved and worked on since 2010, and if its too hard, then they need to go back to limited stacks.
 
Well at least the lesson was learned and the skeleton has most of the limbs this time around. Would you prefer those tech tabs filled, but a day 1 version without the religion, like civ5? At least most of it is in place now and sort of works. Yes, the shallowness can be overwhelming, that's true, but no one forced us to support the game in development that early. You could have bought it on 31 December 2017 like a smart person, but no you did not! You rushed straight in, like a civfanatic you are, knowing full well 100% what's one sale here, Mr CIV1. So welcome to the club, lets just wait and see, no sweat.

What am I enjoying about the game? Well, I go in, play a 100 turns in, you know the thrill of exploration, setting up empire, building a small army, killing a neighbour, and when it all starts to come together, look shiny and ready to take off I exit without saving to start a new one some other time. Learning in small steps, so to speak. It Does look empty, so I don't play much, would like to save my interest until it's more rich.

34
 
Well at least the lesson was learned and the skeleton has most of the limbs this time around. Would you prefer those tech tabs filled, but a day 1 version without the religion, like civ5? At least most of it is in place now and sort of works. Yes, the shallowness can be overwhelming, that's true, but no one forced us to support the game in development that early. You could have bought it on 31 December 2017 like a smart person, but no you did not! You rushed straight in, like a civfanatic you are, knowing full well 100% what's one sale here, Mr CIV1. So welcome to the club, lets just wait and see, no sweat.
I can't put words on exactly why, but I find this attitude incredibly offensive.
 
And damaging, too, supporting this business practice of releasing broken things for full price, squirting out a few DLCs, and leaving the game to rot in peace, having earned some money.

First a 'let's be honest', as if, yeah, the AI has always been bad, you should just admit that to yourself, you are delusional (not at all, there's an incredibly skill gap between Civilization IV and V, and again, between V and VI), and then some kind of odd rant about how it is perfectly fine to release something like Civilization VI. Rushed straight in? A full product was released! Yes, people did know what was on sale; a Civilization game, which, presumably, kept to the standards of a Civilization game (before you bring it up; Civilization IV had a functioning AI in every aspect - though it could have been better at war, as always - and had zero problems with core mechanics, or documentation, or a plethora of other things VI suffers from - that isn't to say IV was perfect on release, for it wasn't, but VI is far worse).

That said, day one DLC and preordering are terrible concepts.
 
That said, day one DLC and preordering are terrible concepts.

Which you can do nothing about. Depends on the developer though. Some put extra effort in to uphold the reputation (Bethesda), but most don't complicate themselves, since the industry is in such a great shape you don't need to look good in order to make money.

Yes, fully agree, a full product was released. In 2016 a full product means a work in progress and a 2 year development plan. It's a win-win. They get the money early and you play the game early. They are not the first to do it and I find it interesting it takes a long time for people to accept that. Think about it - you could wait another 2 years until they polish it or you can buy in and start the beta TODAY, but have to put up with a bunch unfinished stuff. Which option is closer to your heart?
 
Very true, that. It's why I have waited two - or even three, once - years before playing certain games. But I suppose most people don't have this kind of patience. I truly hope people will remember how many are now disappointed that they preordered Civilization VI, but I bet approximately the same amount of people will preorder the next Civilization.
 
"Think about it - you could wait another 2 years until they polish it ..."

I do wait, until 'I think, it will be alright' (mainly based on what I can read here in the forum) ... and boy, it IS hard to wait! ( & to read :D )


"But I suppose most people don't have this kind of patience."

This is ok, 'they' need a lot of money to get the whole thing started and lift off a bit above the ground ... and it is good, that 'they' know: out there is still more money, waiting to be harvested, so the whole thing becomes more refined, learns to navigate itself; some day ready to cross the ocean ... (or so)
 
Cruor I agree with what you wrote. I am 37 and been playing Civ since I on Amiga.

Still my favourite is IV. I bought V and had couple of games, but went back to IV. I decided to give VI a longer try, but already thinking about going back to IV.

What I don't like (playing on Emperor):

-AI - total trash...

They attack I kill all units that they send and then they give you ridiculously generous peace treaty...

Leaders showing up all most every turn and telling me what I do right or wrong. i don't care what they have to say. i want to play!!!

Why can't I change trade options when they come up with it like it was in IV? The trade window disappears if I say no to a trade and I have to go and visit them to offer a different one.

They settle far form their other cities. There is no higher support for cities far from the capital? Then they build their cities close to each other. How do they expand? Or they can settle close to my capital and my boarders don't "swallow" them... Why?

Religion

I don't understand it. In IV it made a lot more sense to me. I found a religion and sometime later my religion is whipped out by of my holy city by other religion so I can't spread it anymore. Why is it even possible? I don't see a reason to find my own anymore. What are benefits from it apart from faith and some special buildings?

The ending

Most of the games I win with culture, but if I lose it doesn't show to whom I lost and how they won. Or am I missing something?

Where is Hall of Fame?
 
Yes, fully agree, a full product was released. In 2016 a full product means a work in progress and a 2 year development plan. It's a win-win. They get the money early and you play the game early. They are not the first to do it and I find it interesting it takes a long time for people to accept that. Think about it - you could wait another 2 years until they polish it or you can buy in and start the beta TODAY, but have to put up with a bunch unfinished stuff. Which option is closer to your heart?

Actually, I wasn't given that choice. I was sold a product that claimed to be fully functioning. I don't buy a lot of other games -- I'm a chessplayer who loves Civ. Therefore, what other games do is irrelevant to my current purchase.

Had I been given that choice (beta vs finished), I would look at this in a completely different light. In my case I would have waited, but had I purchased anyway at least the company was honest with me and I wouldn't feel somehow cheated.. But they weren't, and so now I do.
 
Kudlaty, Civ 4 was my favorite of the series as well. Civ V became "ok" AFTER both xpacs came out and I added mods. Civ IV with its xpacs and Rise of Mankind mod was the best of the series by far however. What really bugs me however, are the steps back. How does the AI take a step BACK and get even worse? How do you have a decent tech tree, and a decent unit line up, and then STEP BACK and go back to Civ 1's Heavy Chariot-Knight-Tank-Modern Armor? If you had an early copy of the game and told me it went Knight-Tank I literally would not have believed you. If you had told me the AI can't take a city or do a naval invasion, I wouldn't have believed it, I would have though "oh hes over critical, it can't be that bad".... how wrong I would be.
 
Here is what I do like:
1) Districts are awesome. I have wanted cities to occupy more then one tile forever.
2) I really like the trade routes, and how they build roads.
3) Districts allow for great city customization.
4) Happiness is per city again, not linked.
5) City states an envoys is a cool system, gives great bonuses, I like it.

to 1) yes, the question where I should settle the next city was always one of the most important and tricky decision in civ games. Now with the Districts this question is extended and has become a nice puzzle game:goodjob:
to 2) trade routes/roads are good but it is fare to expansive to build a road by yourself with military engineers (building a road should cost 1/3 point or so)
to 3) like 1)
4) local happiness is much better than the global happiness from civ5, but it should be possible to influence the distribution of the luxury goods
5) CS boni are good. Envoys are good, but money should be an opportunity too

Also I like of what is new...
6) optics and graphics
7) day-night cycle (another seasons every turn would be great)
8) often the music (much to less unit sounds)
9) mostly the first 150 turns
10) versatility of the civs unique abilities
11) system of government cards (regardless, there should be more legacy boni, that was good in civ5)
12) heurekas (should be more than one per tech but weaker or more difficult to get (difficulty dependent)
13) still 1UPT (but not for naval transportation)
14) support units
15) cliffs (need also reefs and shallows)
16) in the diplomatic screen, that I can see if the other part likes the diplomatic offer without pressing an offer button
17) religious battle
18) great persons with different effects
19) barbarian raids
20) that fighting barbarians brings 1 exp at least
21) scouts gain exp for discovering the map
22) slinger, ranger, feld cannon, bombard,
23) siege system
end
 
Last edited:
What I don't like:
...
5) The over simplification of techs and units. The next unit after Knight is Tank.... seriously? Like, really? is this Civ 1? You skip 700+ years of history? Musketmen to Infantry? Am I playing Civ Revolution 2 or Civ 6? This really bothers me, I know Ill get heat for this one but I hate it. I assume this will be "fixed" with expansion packs but it shouldn't have to be.

Continuing with how units work, Destroyer>Battleship in a "melee" fight? On what planet? Battleships were super powerful (as long as they had air cover) their downside was expense. They should have "melee" and ranged ability, be stronger but cost more to upkeep. Same idea goes for other units but I wont list it all.

I agree with the AI thing, but that's a given, and also with the big jumps between unit upgrades that I have quoted you here. Someone has made the point that the Destroyer in the game is more modern than the Battleship (i.e. with enhanced capabilities) but I still agree with you. Given we get two upgrades for aircraft now, you'd think there could be a WWII era destroyer before the "info age" one!

And yeah...the UI needs work. A wait key...the numpad keys for movement.
And lastly large and huge maps need to be bigger!!

What I love:

Movement, & trade routes building roads
Amenities & Housing instead of Global Happiness
Districts
The greater differences between each civilization
The leaders who show lots of emotion (even if most of it is negative :undecide:)
The two research trees, & their boosts
Governments/social policies
The greater differences between city states, & the envoys
Flexibility to change key commands to suit me
The wonderful varied music (depending what civs are in your game)
The day/night cycle & the graphics
Being able to link units that can share the same tile!
 
Biggest mistake is comparing vanilla versions with the dlcs and mods boosted games. Apples with apples. Everything outside that is a bit clumsy.
 
[QUOTE="
...

5) The over simplification of techs and units. ...

Continuing with how units work, Destroyer>Battleship in a "melee" fight? On what planet? Battleships were super powerful (as long as they had air cover) their downside was expense. They should have "melee" and ranged ability, be stronger but cost more to upkeep. Same idea goes for other units but I wont list it all.

.[/QUOTE]

Anyway it is better than iirc Civ 3 where spear-men could beat tanks.:lol:
 
I don't know why more reviews didn't call them out on this.

MONEY!

See firaxis make good games and 2K (the publisher) can and do embargo people who give bad reviews

If you can be bothered, go look at every 2K game pre-release review ever, ever. I said civ:be was trash and do you know where my pre-release review of civ6 went? It never came. This is common in the gaming industry and if its your source of income then as the saying goes "don't bite the hand that feeds you".

As for civ6 I think its trash and well deserved. I know this is controversal but civ6 is an alagram of every past civ game and some of the past games were just not made for the mainstream audience and folding them into civ6 has the effect you would expect.

As a celebration of civ franchaise I think it is spot on for the very above reason but as a follow on to civ5:bnw, it fails. As the next entry in the civ series even ignoring civ5 it fails to be better than civ4 or civ2. certainly better than civ1 though and borrows nicely from civ3 in subtle ways.

Ironically I find myself saying that civ6 didn't do enough to be different despite how bad civ:be was. I don't have rose tinted glasses for civ5 and civ6 has things i do like for example the support units but sadly civ6 is just a hodgepodge of systems that don't gel well with each other and instead are just here because 'hey reference'.

You will notice i don't point out any one system as being a flaw or complain about any one system at play and that is because it tends to devolve into "you don't like x? you just don't get or; its the best part; i like it" so on and so forth and it just becomes a mess.

One thing i hope we can all agree on though is that managing so many trade routes is super annoying! Come on firaxis, gives us an infinite option for those already.
 
Top Bottom