Your greatest fears

[TheMeInTeam]

Isn't this completely contradictory ?

On another thread someone said this as a joke to me, so I want to make sure you're not joking before I say anything other than "no" .

for a feature (MP) that like 3% of the player base enjoy, I would not expect much resource allocation.

I don't care about resource allocation, I care that advertised features actually work.

Not false advertising like paradox's "cross platform MP" which mostly worked until Summer 2014, then got compatibility-shattered in a patch then and has not worked since. False advertising isn't hyperbole; you're not getting more than 1 month into a game that lasts 377 years with cross platform MP.

Civ V vanilla release's MP was similarly bad. I expect better, and the rest of the community should too unless Firaxis decides to scrap Civ MP on release entirely (a disappointing, but more-honest-than Civ 5 route if taken)

EUREKAs already sound like false choices. what next? get a reward for building the first city?

We'll probably have some, hope we don't have too many. In *principle* Eureka's do not have to result in false choices depending on their details.

 

[Mustakrakish]

I didn't buy BE. Obivously not the worst idea not to.. What was wrong about the trade routes?

2 reasons:

1. They provided massive OP yields to the point of everything else you do being pointless, as was already mentioned and you got 2-3 of those per city.
2. Managing those was a nightmare. Imagine every city having 2 (or 3) trade routes that needed to be renewed every x turns. Imagine you having 10 cities and 20-30 trade routes to reassign. Mid-game to late-game it was all you did every damn turn. Also, getting back to reason 1, imagine the OP...ness... of having so many trade routes giving you massive yields... all while your improvements and building granting you pathetic +1 something with +2 something wonders.

Oh my it was a horrible game, more unbalanced and screwed up than vanilla V on release IMO.

 

[Ricci]

This shouldn´t come as fear since Civ V took away any possible fears for decades to come, as far as gaming is concerned.
That being said, I "fear" then to confirm that the Civilization franchise has truthfully derailed from what I could have expected as a natural progression, and that it will never get back on track again.

 

[Liex]

1) That civ's UAs will be uninspired and/or weak, just like CivBE;
2) That unit control will be half as bad as Civ5's;
3) That it doesn't work in my computer; I'm not planning on upgrading it anytime soon.

 

[Guandao]

1) Lack of diversity in Civs (for example, no representation from Native Americans/Southeast Asians)

2) Agendas are boring and don't add much to the game

 

[Chinese American]

Fears:
41. Moving toward RPG and away from strategy genre. More quests and "experience" style of growth than through strategy, planning, and impactful choices.
42. Higher chance of crashing as more turns progress.
43. Limited moddability. Hardcoded mechanics and UI. Inconsistent fields and values from DLCs and expansions.
44. No feeling of "just one more turn."
45. 1UPT making movement and combat tedious.
46. City-states to compensate for weak AI. CS gets more attention than major civs.
47. Civs can have no more than one leader, UA, UU, etc.
48. No ModBuddy or equivalent IDE.

 

[bkn42]

Surprise announcement that the new game will actually be called "Civilization 10"

Or they call it simply "Civilization", require an online connection and to play multiplayer, and wipe out all the features that made it fun to play.


In actuality, it's that the new district system will severely hamper the tall playing style.

 

[Babri]

In actuality, it's that the new district system will severely hamper the tall playing style.

Which is a good thing in a way. Sitting in a corner & turtling being the best strategy is lame & contradicts the philosophy of 4X strategy game. In order to be successful, a civ should both expand their territory as well as develop their infrastructure. A puny 3 city empire shouldn't be able to compete with a 30 civ nation under normal circumstances. I am glad they are addressing this problem of ciV.

 

[Novu]

Which is a good thing in a way. Sitting in a corner & turtling being the best strategy is lame & contradicts the philosophy of 4X strategy game. In order to be successful, a civ should both expand their territory as well as develop their infrastructure. A puny 3 city empire shouldn't be able to compete with a 30 civ nation under normal circumstances. I am glad they are addressing this problem of ciV.

I would agree with this only to an extent. Turtling was probably too powerful in CiV5 but lets not go to the opposite extreme and make wide empires the only viable strategy. I have been playing the franchise long enough to remember the dreaded "Smallpox" strategy. Having been there I can you it isn't a good time. Both tall and wide empires should be viable.

Real life examples:
Greece vs the Persians
- Won a defensive war under King Leonidas
- Wiped the floor with Persians under Alexander the Great 200 years later

How about England:
- How did tiny little England get such a huge tech advantage?
- Then leverage that tech advantage to create an empire on which the sun never sets

Tiny Empires can do big things.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Which is a good thing in a way. Sitting in a corner & turtling being the best strategy is lame & contradicts the philosophy of 4X strategy game. In order to be successful, a civ should both expand their territory as well as develop their infrastructure. A puny 3 city empire shouldn't be able to compete with a 30 civ nation under normal circumstances. I am glad they are addressing this problem of ciV.

OK, but OCC is also a thing. I'll be the first to agree that going at least somewhat wide should be optimal (a hard-coded four city optimum is just stupid and frustrating), but we do want it to be possible to beat the highest difficulty with one city. Which doesn't mean that it has to be easy, or even possible without serious reroll spam.

 

[Acken]

Meh. I'm not sure how you can achieve both the game being challenging and OCC being doable at Deity. The two are just usually incompatible.
Chosing between the two, I'd sacrifice OCC feasability anytime.

 

[m15a]

Meh. I'm not sure how you can achieve both the game being challenging and OCC being doable at Deity. The two are just usually incompatible.
Chosing between the two, I'd sacrifice OCC feasability anytime.

Just play with one opponent on a duel size pangea map and 40 city states and keep restarting until you spawn close enough to your opponent to kill their settler on turn 1. Perfectly feasible OCC at any difficulty. [emoji14]

 

[Commodore]

I do a first time install after downloading it from Steam & spiders start crawling out of my keyboard and speakers and I open my mouth to scream but my teeth fall out

Well...that escalated quickly.

 

[Quintillus]

That it will be, fundamentally, just like Civ5.

Admittedly, there's some good signs. But I think if it release and the consensus was that it was Service Pack 3 to Civ5, I'd pretty much lose interest in the Civ series permanently, barring a completely revolutionary future revision.

Stuff like poor AI, long turn times, etc. definitely factor in there too, but fundamentally I want a game that's not Civ 5.5. Civ 3.5 or Civ 4.5 I could've handled just fine and likely been perfectly happy with, but Civ 5.5... not interested.

 

[Arilian]

My greatest fear is that they skip hot seat again, I we cannot play with my wife together...

Turn times will be always slower, that I would like to have them. Which is strange a bit, as civ 1 was able to run quite fast on my 286 pc... (16MGHz)

 

[Mustakrakish]

People, DO try "quick turns" mod if you haven't already. It's...

Spoiler :

 

[bison21]

My only worry is that Civ6 will try to return to Civ4 ways too much. I hope that FA are looking at the steam game stats. Civ5 is one of the best titles of the decade. Less decision making, more crucial decisions=way to go imho. So far it's looking good- but yeah that's my only "fear".

 

[Babri]

I would agree with this only to an extent. Turtling was probably too powerful in CiV5 but lets not go to the opposite extreme and make wide empires the only viable strategy. I have been playing the franchise long enough to remember the dreaded "Smallpox" strategy. Having been there I can you it isn't a good time. Both tall and wide empires should be viable.

Real life examples:
Greece vs the Persians
- Won a defensive war under King Leonidas
- Wiped the floor with Persians under Alexander the Great 200 years later

How about England:
- How did tiny little England get such a huge tech advantage?
- Then leverage that tech advantage to create an empire on which the sun never sets

Tiny Empires can do big things.

British Empire was the largest empire in world history. I don't see how you could call it a tiny empire. It was in fact a very definition of a wide empire, with some core cities in British isles & rest of the their territory provided them much needed strategic & luxury resources in terms of civ.

In your comparison of Greece Vs Persia, it was the exception not the norm. It was rare that a tiny empire could defeat such a massive empire, same is the case with Russia Japan war in early 20th century. This doesn't mean that tall empires should be able to regularly able to beat the crap out of large empires. Only with some luck & amazing tactics should this be possible.

And your point about Alexander, guess what he did? He turned a tiny tall empire into a wide empire. Conquering lands & expanding territory was a no-brainer if it could be done with minimal losses. That is why Europeans rapidly conquered & colonized Americas. That is why people like Genghis Khan, Alexander, Tamerlane, Cyrus were into conquering large swaths of lands.

It makes no sense having some empty land next to you with resources & yet you don't settle it because settling it would give you huge penalties. That is exactly what happened in civ 5. Settling new cities after 5-6 cities was mostly a net loss of science, culture, happiness etc.

I am not against tall empires, all I say is that wide empires should be much more viable if handled properly instead of giving loads & loads of penalty to them. If you are deliberately limiting your expansion, then you are handicapping yourself. It is fine to delay expansion a bit for more developed infrastructure but I am against rewarding no expansion kind of play.

 

[bkn42]

I would agree with this only to an extent. Turtling was probably too powerful in CiV5 but lets not go to the opposite extreme and make wide empires the only viable strategy. I have been playing the franchise long enough to remember the dreaded "Smallpox" strategy. Having been there I can you it isn't a good time. Both tall and wide empires should be viable.

Real life examples:
Greece vs the Persians
- Won a defensive war under King Leonidas
- Wiped the floor with Persians under Alexander the Great 200 years later

How about England:
- How did tiny little England get such a huge tech advantage?
- Then leverage that tech advantage to create an empire on which the sun never sets

Tiny Empires can do big things.

My thing with England is how did such a small country support such a large empire? (Thinking as it relates to Civ mechanics here) Obviously it eventually broke apart, but it did maintain itself for a while.


Back to tall vs. wide, I would like to highlight that I used the word "severly" in it.

 

[Hail]

I don't care about resource allocation, I care that advertised features actually work.

you should care because in software depelopment there are varying degrees of "it works" ranging from it works for 20 mins & crashes to works like a charm but has grammatical errors in the pop-up message(s).

in what state MP will be released is largely decised by feature priority. I can already tell that FoW is getting more love than some other features.

We'll probably have some, hope we don't have too many. In *principle* Eureka's do not have to result in false choices depending on their details.

much will depend on tech research times.
imo if a Eureka will shove off eight turns or more, it is a false choice.