Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Krajzen, Jun 8, 2016.
My only chief concern is that the AI might not be competent at playing the game.
I am really afraid of its ability to handle district placement.
Hm, given that there's a U.I for maximizing the output, as well as a player-side AI to show what are great city placements, I'd argue that I'd be really bad on their part to screw that up.
It's not as difficult as tactics. AI may be not brilliant at this, but making it good at district placement is not that difficult. We start from having city specialization presets, preferred city specializations for different AI routes (military, science, religion, etc.) and preferred order. Next we evaluate each city as being best fit for a specialization based on nearby terrain. The only tricky point here is - the terrain is not grabbed immediately, so the closer tiles are to the city, the more weight they have. With this evaluation, district placement is really easy as you have small set of tiles to compare.
Such tasks have limited set of things to consider, so they have acceptable solution in reach, unlike 1UPT tactics.
I have no concerns or fears about Civ VI at all.
Not because I think there will be no flaws in it, but because I EXPECT that there will be both major and minor flaws in it.
After all, since I started playing Civ II more years ago than I care to remember, the game has:
NEVER had a competent AI
NEVER gotten the military units right
NEVER had a Tech Tree that reflected the actual flow of events and inventions or their consequences, especially their SOCIAL/CULTURAL consequences.
ALWAYS had artificial rigidity in events and mechanisms.
And, since they have officially announced that 'everything... in Civ V is in Civ VI" I assume that the mistakes made in conception and execution in Civ V will be repeated in one form or another in Civ VI.
I'll still play it, because it's better than Solitaire, but whether I play it for long probably will depend on the Modding community, not 2K/Firaxis.
Kind of a cynical way of looking at it, but not not necessarily a bad way of looking at it. The AI has always had to cheat "more or less" depending on difficulty. While we are not expecting something like Deep Blue, the AI in a strategy game does play a big role. It remains to be seen if this new AI is in fact, smarter, like the claims are.
The rest of the points are debatable, as some people want more realism, and others not so much. I usually tend to shy away from Mods, but over the many years of gaming, I have been warming up to them. This is especially true when extending the life of a game I truly enjoy.
NOTE: For those wondering, I tend to avoid modding until much later in a game's lifespan because I like to enjoy the "vanilla" version of a developer's vision. Sometimes patches fix my personal gripes, and some of it through expansions. It also becomes far less likely that either of the given examples would break a mod I may comes to favorite.
I love submarines so water texture and sparkling liquid surfaces are a big thing for me. My biggest fear is that airplanes and subs will be "meh" aspects of the game.
Also...bigger nuke explosions! I want to see Elizabeth's face when i obliterate her nation.
The city defence is too strong.
That's my only concern.
Naval has always been a weak point, which is something I really hope changes. As far as aircraft, it will be interesting to see how they are implemented.
I have one more very serious fear called "one more turn"
It will be like Beyond Earth.
Ditto that. The world is covered in 75% water (oceans, seas, rivers), yet CIV5 is sorely lacking in terms of naval units (and air units) and game play. I fear CIV6 will be no different.
My biggest fear is that, if they fail to please the fanbase this time, there will be no next time. Every iteration of Civ seems to be moving in a different direction. That makes me apprehensive as to where it will go next. Personally, I'd rather have a more complex challenging game with more game play choices than a simpler one. But that's my opinion.
I think that's because the majority of warfare is conducted on land in real life and in gaming, so naval units tend to get neglected. It's kinda funny and sad at the same time that some of the best naval combat you will see in games comes from sci-fi games that treat space like a giant ocean and portray space combat as if it were naval warfare.
Plus theres only two types of terrain for naval warfare making it doubly boring. Only coasts and ocean which both are actually the same warfare wise past industrial.
Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk
Coming from a UK background, where we had a naval war a few decades ago and have an ancestral history of global domination by naval force, I can put my military historian hat on and say that Civ 5 took conflict at sea in a much more authentic direction than earlier games. If you can forgive Transformer ships that upgrade out of port by growing metal hulls and heavy cannon as soon as they have money thrown at them in home waters.
I would say AI but I already have a feeling it's going to suck. In fact in all of the press I've read concerning the game all that is discussed are the 'districts' and the 'streamlining' of the graphics. Nothing about a mind-blowing new AI and that leads me to believe that good ol'cheating will be the AI we get...
Anyways... what else?
1. It's a base game that is worthless without buying expansions/DLC.
2. Leaders still wear the same clothes throughout thousands of years.
3. The game becomes overly concerned with the 'districts' concept destroying the feeling of running an empire.
4. Nuclear weapons are even nerfed even further or removed altogether.
And one of my small fears has been realized...
Not sure if this has been posted but...
Civ VI will only have 18 leaders (Same as ciV). Not small but to me this means that they're going down the 'base game stripped so we can sell expansions' route.
That it has the same diplomacy as civ revolution because it has the same graphics
Separate names with a comma.