worth buying?

[joncnunn]

My overall impression : In Civ VI current state, then with the CQUI mod that fixes the UI issues it looks more enjoyable than Civ V + G&K + BNW if not playing with a mod that changes the Civ V rules.
Other threads are dealing with district escalation cost issues and the ongoing AI challenges ; to me even with those issues it looks more interesting than Civ V Community Expansion mod which it geared towards war-mongling, but your milage may very.
Your mileage on the correct price point for Civ VI may also very; it's now 40% off and will revert to full price when the sale ends, but will probably be 50% off in the Black Friday sale in November, and by then the other 2 DLC included in Deluxe should be out.
Some compare the price against movies; I compare the price against other grand strategy games.

 

[Xur]

My overall impression : In Civ VI current state, then with the CQUI mod that fixes the UI issues it looks more enjoyable than Civ V + G&K + BNW if not playing with a mod that changes the Civ V rules.
Other threads are dealing with district escalation cost issues and the ongoing AI challenges ; to me even with those issues it looks more interesting than Civ V Community Expansion mod which it geared towards war-mongling, but your milage may very.
Your mileage on the correct price point for Civ VI may also very; it's now 40% off and will revert to full price when the sale ends, but will probably be 50% off in the Black Friday sale in November, and by then the other 2 DLC included in Deluxe should be out.
Some compare the price against movies; I compare the price against other grand strategy games.

Might just be me, but I kinda do the same thing each game - feels like everything is on rails. When you meet a civ, you know 99% of the time wether or not you are gonna be at war or peace. Chances are that you will be at war for some stupid reason like a landlocked player meeting Norway. Replayability is gone for me sadly. Many other things I don't like, but replayability is kinda important.

Civ5 had replayability from day 1 - regardless of buggy and bland release. I hated civ5 at release, but still played it. I didn't hate civ6 at release, but I just stopped playing entirely because I know what each game will be like. Funny how that works...

So combine the lack of updates and themepark gameplay and you got one super disappointed customer over here. I definately don't consider civ6 a grand strategy game...

 

[Leyrann]

Might just be me, but I kinda do the same thing each game - feels like everything is on rails. When you meet a civ, you know 99% of the time wether or not you are gonna be at war or peace. Chances are that you will be at war for some stupid reason like a landlocked player meeting Norway. Replayability is gone for me sadly. Many other things I don't like, but replayability is kinda important.

Civ5 had replayability from day 1 - regardless of buggy and bland release. I hated civ5 at release, but still played it. I didn't hate civ6 at release, but I just stopped playing entirely because I know what each game will be like. Funny how that works...

So combine the lack of updates and themepark gameplay and you got one super disappointed customer over here. I definately don't consider civ6 a grand strategy game...

This post shows very clearly that you don't know how the game works, and then I do not mean in that you do the same thing every game (which could be the case), I mean that you assume for certain that a certain agenda will net you war or peace. Because that's just not true. I am right now landlocked and next to Norway in my game, I met him around turn... 20 I think. We were best buddies, got a declaration of friendship, I never heard anything about his agenda. Around turn... 70 I think it'll have been, I conquered a city-state that was one tile away from coast, which was the first city where I could build a harbor. And then, when I could build ships, Harald started bothering me about his agenda. Still, however, I'm doing quite fine, as I got a relation boost from the declaration of friendship. That said, I think I'll let the relation degrade and wait to see wheter he declares war on me, as he's getting quite strong, but I kinda wanna win. But it's very doable to manipulate diplomacy to get friends in the right places or even become friends with everyone in some games (I know at least Victoria managed to do so on deity, alliance with every civ met, and there may be other people around here). And then Harald's agenda can be a hard one to meet, as you may not want to invest in a navy. Just compare with, say, Peter (be ahead in science and culture), Cleopatra (have a strong army) or Trajan (have a large empire). All three agendas that may be hard early, but if you're not meeting them later on you're doing something wrong anyways.

The one thing that is very typical to Civ VI and that will repeat itself most games, is an early declaration of war, but this is intended and, in my opinion, a good aspect of the game, as indeed war was viewed differently in ancient times, and was therefore both not judged so harsh and more common. However, all that means is that, on lower difficulties, you need to keep your first two units kinda close to your capital (which is also needed because of barbarians) while on higher difficulties it's best to rush Archery and 3 slingers that you then upgrade for 90 gold. That's as much as a generic start this game has, however. 20 turns and then it wildly diverges even on deity.

 

[Acken]

From a value point of view it's worth it. But I'd go for Civ5 or Civ4 if you haven't played those already.

In the end it depends what you're looking for though and what kind of Civ player you are.

How finished is Civ6 at this stage, in the sence that most bugs are fixed and anything that's left is rarely occuring and non fatal?

The game is mostly bug free.

also, this will be the most expensive game i've bought in god knows how long, is it really worth the investment?

You can always look for a discount. Whether it's worth it or not depends on your budget and how much you get out of the game. Even though I'm disapointed by Civ6 it was worth 60 bucks.

Did they really make the AI worth playing against? or is it another game that is either easy to beat at fair levels, and the AI becomes a challange only if the difficult settings give it an insane unfair advantage?

The AI sucks. End of discussion. But it's also expected to give the AI advantages at higher difficulties. The problem isn't the bonuses it's that the core AI is too idiotic to begin with. One of my biggest grip is the DiplomacyAI which is in a mess last time I played.

Do experienced players ever encounter a surprise turn of the game after the mid game? or is every game a forgone conclussion (either you've clearly won, or your only chance is to sqeak a win by a certain condition) by somewhere in the middle and the second half of the game is just a monotonous cleanup operation?

It's a bit similar to other civ games in that regard. Game is won in middle ages/renaissance. Civ4 is the only exception I remember where higher difficulties were truly difficult. Civ5 can be made a lot better in that regard through mods though.
I don't know if there is a mod released for Civ6 that truly makes the game more interesting. The biggest issue is that it'd have to fix both balance and AI.

And also, how likely am i go get my wife interested in this game? i know that's a wierd question (you dont know my wife), but it boils down to how interesting is the game to watch from the side?

My wife is more interested in the game than I am and probably has played it more. She's a casual player and don't really care about the AI issues but appreciate the cuteness and general flow of the game. She doesn't watch me play though if that is what you're asking.

 

[Esperr]

This one is pretty good for RP because there are a lot of filler mechanics. Its not very challenging but it is very fun and pretty smooth. I would also not recommend reading to much into it, the game has been solved and resolved(patches) fairly quickly, a lot of fun in civ games initially is figuring out whats good.

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

Hello. I've played Civ I, II, III and IV but have skipped V. And have not taken an interest in Civ VI yet.

So I do have a question about Civ VI. How many game "versions" does it have so far?

Probably "versions" is not the best word, but I do not know the proper word for it. So I'll explain what I mean.

Civ IV had 3 "versions": Vanilla, Warlords and BtS. I recall that Civ III also had the exact same number of versions. Is it expected to occur the same with this Civ? How many does it have now? Only one or more?

I guess that my real question is: I plan to buy Civ VI, but I would like to buy the "finished" product... is that time now or should I wait?

 

[Leyrann]

Hello. I've played Civ I, II, III and IV but have skipped V. And have not taken an interest in Civ VI yet.

So I do have a question about Civ VI. How many game "versions" does it have so far?

Probably "versions" is not the best word, but I do not know the proper word for it. So I'll explain what I mean.

Civ IV had 3 "versions": Vanilla, Warlords and BtS. I recall that Civ III also had the exact same number of versions. Is it expected to occur the same with this Civ? How many does it have now? Only one or more?

I guess that my real question is: I plan to buy Civ VI, but I would like to buy the "finished" product... is that time now or should I wait?

Right now Civilization VI only has the release version. If you're looking for a "finished" product, as you say it, with expansions, then I'd advice against buying Civ VI right now. Stick with Civ IV, and come back in about a year, once the first expansion is released. The truth is that Civilization games in general need a while to power up, with the last three all being known for a mediocre release but great improvements with the expansions. The general consensus seems to be, at least to me, that Civ VI does have the best base level mechanics, which would then imply it'll be the best game once it's finished. I myself absolutely love those base level mechanics, which means that, for me, it's already better than Civ V (which in my opinion is the worst installment of the series) and it's very close to Civ IV and wins out, for me, by being newer and therefore more polished.

Right now, I'd summarize it as this:

Civ IV: Best mechanics, best balance, best AI. EDIT: Also most complex game at this point, and it will most likely remain so even after Civ VI's expansions.
Civ V: Bad game. Don't buy.
Civ VI: Most potential, in a better state than Civ IV and Civ V release versions (according to others; I've played neither of them at release).

 

[God of Kings]

Civ VI has potential to become the best Civ game ever made...

...after having two expansions that is.

 

[WillowBrook]

Hello. I've played Civ I, II, III and IV but have skipped V. And have not taken an interest in Civ VI yet.

So I do have a question about Civ VI. How many game "versions" does it have so far?

Probably "versions" is not the best word, but I do not know the proper word for it. So I'll explain what I mean.

Civ IV had 3 "versions": Vanilla, Warlords and BtS. I recall that Civ III also had the exact same number of versions. Is it expected to occur the same with this Civ? How many does it have now? Only one or more?

I guess that my real question is: I plan to buy Civ VI, but I would like to buy the "finished" product... is that time now or should I wait?

Only vanilla (plus some DLC - basically some extra civs and scenarios) exists at this point. No expansions (other "versions") have been announced, but it is almost universally expected that there will be at least one, most likely two, expansions released over the next few years.

If you want to buy it complete, you want to wait.

 

[Acken]

I guess that my real question is: I plan to buy Civ VI, but I would like to buy the "finished" product... is that time now or should I wait?

Wait

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

Right now Civilization VI only has the release version. If you're looking for a "finished" product, as you say it, with expansions, then I'd advice against buying Civ VI right now.

Expansions! That's the 'proper' word!
Thank you for your comment!

Civ IV: Best mechanics, best balance, best AI.

Best AI??? Really?
That is a worrying statement... I would have hoped that all these years of AI development could have brought better news regarding that.

Civ V: Bad game. Don't buy.

I had no intention of buying Civ V but thank you for the warning.

Thanks everybody for the replies. It seems that I will wait and keep on playing Civ IV.
In about an year from now I will came back and make the same question!


.

 

[Leyrann]

Best AI??? Really?
That is a worrying statement... I would have hoped that all these years of AI development could have brought better news regarding that.

It mostly has to do, as far as I am aware (though I'm not an expert) with the change from stacks of units to single units per tile, as that requires a lot more dynamics in where to place which unit. In my opinion, however, the pros of that (added strategy, no stacks of doom, more value per unit, etc) outweigh the cons (carpet of doom, worse AI).

Regarding stacks vs carpets, I've actually never seen something I'd classify as a carpet of doom in the 650 hours I have in 5 and 6 combined, while I certainly have seen stacks of doom in my 70 hours in 4.

 

[neilkaz]

Wait

After trying this game for the first time this year, last night. By all means ... WAIT !!

 

[Archon_Wing]

IV's AI also sucks. It is just less hindered due to simpler mechanics and is actually functional.

That being said, stacks and carpets are way overstated, considering mobility rules iv's meta, and engineering a traffic jam in v is a good way to go broke. Ie., seeing a carpet of doom is good for the defender because they will hinder each other when you abuse range.

That being said, I am glad vi allows for bigger armies since you don't go broke and have to donate units. In other words vi puts the empire back into civ when it comes to scale.

If you ask me, the post stack system's main advantage is actually the reduction of luck as rng early game caused too much variance.

 

[Leyrann]

IV's AI also sucks. It is just less hindered due to simpler mechanics and is actually functional.

That being said, stacks and carpets are way overstated, considering mobility rules iv's meta, and engineering a traffic jam in v is a good way to go broke. Ie., seeing a carpet of doom is good for the defender because they will hinder each other when you abuse range.

That being said, I am glad vi allows for bigger armies since you don't go broke and have to donate units. In other words vi puts the empire back into civ when it comes to scale.

If you ask me, the post stack system's main advantage is actually the reduction of luck as rng early game caused too much variance.

That is indeed a big advantage V and VI have over IV. You don't have to save (and sometimes load) for every battle.

 

[DocRock]

I spend 120 hours so far and deinstalled it a few weeks ago. I think it's pretty boring. I moved to Endless Legend which is a surprisingly great game.

But you can easily argue that 120 hours is a lot and well worth the price. It's just compared to 4 and 5,120 hours is next to nothing for me.