Why does Civ 6 looks like an expansion to Civ 5?

[stealth_nsk]

Civ 5 is particularly bad for this, it's the first thing I noticed in my first Civ 5 game -that most of the civs didn't seem interesting. In Civ 4 you had tiers as well, but there were a lot more good civ/leader combos.

In Civ5 civs are much more unique, that's great. They are balanced worse, that's downside. I definitely don't want to see Civ4-style leaders made by combination of small boring traits. Probably the best solution would be to limit the number of civs, but make each of them really interesting.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Customization by gameplay is probably better

Have a unique ability (say Rome gets to built a free building when founding cities, so they can start a new city with a Library, or say have Zulu have access to unique promotions for all their units)

And then similiar to BE:RT have unique traits that you add and adopt as time goes on.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The game will build upon many of the mechanics found in civilization 5 but the new stuff such as districts and active research will have very pronounced effects on the gameplay compareable to one unit per tile.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah but over time you will play many games on many different maps, and patterns develop.

Dota is a great example of a game that is well balanced. I can't play all the heroes well because there are over 100 of them and I just don't have the time to practice all of them, but most of them are competitive up to high level public play. Probably about 80% of them are. There are few heroes in the game that are total trash, and even when a hero is total trash it's usually a temporary state and fixed in the next patch or two.

This increases the replay value.

Civ 5 really detracts from its own replay value. I have no desire to play the Ottomans just to steal ships. I don't want to play Carthage just to have a free harbour. The Songhai bonuses are boring and weak. The Huns hardly have a UA at all, they're all about their battering ram. England hardly has a UA.

Compare that to civs like Korea or Rome. Not only are they powerful, but their bonuses require you to adapt your playstyle to make the most of them. If you're playing Korea, you don't just get a flat boost to science. You have to actively get it by maxing specialists, which requires planning and strategy. As Rome, you don't just get a flat boost to infrastructure. Again, you must actively plan out your build to use it.

Civ 5 is particularly bad for this, it's the first thing I noticed in my first Civ 5 game -that most of the civs didn't seem interesting. In Civ 4 you had tiers as well, but there were a lot more good civ/leader combos.

To me, Civ5 has greater replayability because I want to try out every Civ combo. I'm sure there are Civs/leaders in Civ4 I still haven't played (I can't recall ever playing as the Holy Roman Empire, for example). Nothing suggesting the combo is bad, just that I'm not interested enough to care.

 

[Drakarska]

I'm still trying to puzzle out the whole "city customization" aspect of this. In Civ IV, you could city specialize to tailor your civ to meet game/map conditions. Seems somewhat similar to what 6 is proposing. But my question is this; Is Civ 6 going to be an empire management game, or a modified OCC game?

 

[dexters]

I'm still trying to puzzle out the whole "city customization" aspect of this. In Civ IV, you could city specialize to tailor your civ to meet game/map conditions. Seems somewhat similar to what 6 is proposing. But my question is this; Is Civ 6 going to be an empire management game, or a modified OCC game?

Specialization in civ4 and 5 was mostly on terrain specific unique buildings and opportunity costs of building wonders with multiplier effects in one city vs. Another. In many cases you could build every building in every city In the late game.

From the sound of it civ6 will do that on a much larger scale since buildings will be tied to districts which are in turn tied to tiles and the terrain.

So a city with access to lots of mountain bounded tiles will evolve diffently from one bounded by 1 mountain tile. Put another way. It's no longer sufficient to build a city near a random river and specialize it for food. It's no longer enough to have access to floodplains

Obviously we don't know enough of districts and buildings to sat much more but the impression I get is that terrain + districtING will determine your buildings in civ6 whereas in civ4 and 5 you only need to satisfy a requirement to build a city next to a river tike or mountain tile to access a unique building.

 

[manu-fan]

I'm still trying to puzzle out the whole "city customization" aspect of this. In Civ IV, you could city specialize to tailor your civ to meet game/map conditions. Seems somewhat similar to what 6 is proposing. But my question is this; Is Civ 6 going to be an empire management game, or a modified OCC game?

Still Empire Management. You just get to tailor your city a bit more than you did in Civ 5. And attack and defense of cities (and their surroundings) will be different too.

 

[Hail]

I'd also argue the combat system is as much a change as there was between Civ2 and Civ3.

the addition of ranged bombardment and air units' overhaul are changes of the same magnitude as allowing melee to stack with siege/AA/AT?
I did not misunderstand your point?

Anyway I don't think a lot of people actually got the point of what I was saying.

The series isn't really growing much, and isn't very simulator like anymore. It is still much more focused on action and steam-lining it for a broader audience. I was just hoping that when this is released it doesn't feel stripped down, and require an additional 2 expansions to get a full game experience.

Overall this game looks very much like they are just making a minor update, and a graphics change from Civ 5.

Meaning in summary:

They are adding the tile system used in other similar games.

They are changing the tech tree.

They are adding something similar to their army system in Civ 3.


-----------------------------
That's about all I was saying.

I get what you are saying: civ6 = civ5 + Warlock + civ3 armies.
there is no attempt to explore new ground. probably never will, as with civ franchise too much is at stake.

Specialization in civ4 and 5 was mostly on terrain specific unique buildings and opportunity costs of building wonders with multiplier effects in one city vs. Another. In many cases you could build every building in every city In the late game.

wat?
how about specialist vs cottage economy?
how about national wonders that have +100% multipliers?
how many terrain specific unique buildings civ4 has?

 

[dexters]

the addition of ranged bombardment and air units' overhaul are changes of the same magnitude as allowing melee to stack with siege/AA/AT?
I did not misunderstand your point?


I get what you are saying: civ6 = civ5 + Warlock + civ3 armies.
there is no attempt to explore new ground. probably never will, as with civ franchise too much is at stake.


wat?
how about specialist vs cottage economy?
how about national wonders that have +100% multipliers?
how many terrain specific unique buildings civ4 has?

Specialist vs. cottage is a choice yes, but a boring one and you usually make it before you even load up a map.

What Civ6 is trying to do is decouple canned strategies that people keep using over and over again and forcing them to use all viable strategies based on how their starting position is.

I'm guilty of this myself (reusing cannced 'guaranteed to win' strategies) but have spent much of the last year playing different Civs in Civ5 to get different flavours since there are Civs in there there are so different to play (Venice- cannot settle cities, only buy city states and conquer other cities) or the improvement heavy Civs like Incas.

I feel like you don't know much about what Civ5 is, or what they want to do with Civ6.

 

[Jarru]

I wish Civ 6 be Civ 5 + smarter ai, more much more complex diplomacy, more interesting espionage, new fresh aproach to city-states concept and damn it firaxis - get rid of workers already and implement some kind of public works system!

 

[Genesis_26317]

I wish Civ 6 be Civ 5 + smarter ai, more much more complex diplomacy, more interesting espionage, new fresh aproach to city-states concept and damn it firaxis - get rid of workers already and implement some kind of public works system!

Yeah a system like Call to Power's would be a REALLY nice change. Especially since they are trying to lower the tedium of moving stacks of units around.


Plus it is a bit more realistic than a late game city being made where suddenly there pops up an Indian Subcontinent sized network of infrastructure overnight.

 

[Genesis_26317]

I'm still trying to puzzle out the whole "city customization" aspect of this. In Civ IV, you could city specialize to tailor your civ to meet game/map conditions. Seems somewhat similar to what 6 is proposing. But my question is this; Is Civ 6 going to be an empire management game, or a modified OCC game?

Nah in Civ 4 you specialized a city until the endgame when you can eventually just build everything.

In a tile/district system you have an upper limit due to only have so many tiles.

Think how New York is compared to say the corn fields of the midwest. You can't add millions of fields of corn when you already have the tiles filled up with business districts.