Your greatest fears

[Babri]

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.

Same thing could be asked about Mongols. How did a small group of people (maybe 100 or 200,000 at the time of Genghis Khan) were able to conquer gigantic nations (China) & then takeover rest of the world? Same could be asked about Arabs during rise of Islam.

Thing is that these empires shouldn't be considered tall once they conquered large swaths of land & expanded like crazy. Everybody started tiny. Romans didn't have half of Europe in their pocket when it was founded.

A good tall empire example could be Aztecs, they had a handful of cities & the rest were their vassals. They regularly waged war for captives, not land.

Historically in most cases a tall empire would love to go wide if they ever got a chance.

 

[Morningcalm]

Greatest fears:
-That the AI will be a pushover.

-That the AI will display robotic-like behavior where the agendas contradict each other and they thereafter make silly mistakes.

-That the leader backgrounds will remain static paintings and not moving animations in the final build.

-That the wonder construction videos will not feature grand majesty like those displayed in the wonder videos of Beyond the Sword (Statue of Zeus or the Shwedagon Paya, for example)

-That the multiplayer smaller maps (for faster play) won't be fun (unlikely to be the case, I think).

-That there will be civ DLC (likely will be the case)

-That the leaders will come with incomplete/inaccurate translations (see my Civ V leader sayings translation thread for a sampling).

-That the musical tracks won't be long enough, or that they will loop around to the start of the track again so that you never hear a full leader track in the game other than your own.

-That the base game will have many bugs and glaring issues with techs (i.e. wild imbalance, no vision on satellites, etc).

-That the lack of techs won't be properly compensated for.

-That new features in the expansions and DLC will be more and more 'choose your own ability' trees (civics, policies, religions, etc--BONUS SALAD). The issue with this is that each ability chosen means less if everything is a bonus that you can choose.

-That the AI won't understand how to fight smartly.

-That the warmongering bonuses won't be balanced, and that you will get penalties for fighting a defensive war.

 

[zwei833]

There is nothing about Civ6 need to fear, if the game is bad enough that just don't play it, no need to fear.

 

[rastak]

There is nothing about Civ6 need to fear, if the game is bad enough that just don't play it, no need to fear.

Yea, the entire notion is baffling.

1-5 provided me with a untold hours of enjoyment. Why would I be the least bit concerned.

 

[EricTheGreat12]

- late game - will it stand up to the rest of the game?

This is probably what worries me the most; I just know that the first big expansion that they release for the game will focus on 'improving the mid to late game'. It won't be the first time that its happened, but its sure starting to become an old tool in the shed (a repeated marketing strategy)

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Yea, the entire notion is baffling.

1-5 provided me with a untold hours of enjoyment. Why would I be the least bit concerned.

Civ is one of those very few games that i can just keep coming back without major issues.

In fact, I know I will enjoy Civ 6 even if it's the worst, and from the little we've seen it's unlikely to be that bad. so that's why I already pre-ordered

 

[GrayingGamer]

OP's first two are pretty much my big ones.

In fact, I know I will enjoy Civ 6 even if it's the worst, and from the little we've seen it's unlikely to be that bad. so that's why I already pre-ordered

I'd like to agree with you, but CivBE is my counterexample. I don't expect Civ 6 to be that bad, but it's always possible that their cool new ideas for Civ 6 will just fall flat.

 

[rastak]

Civ is one of those very few games that i can just keep coming back without major issues.

In fact, I know I will enjoy Civ 6 even if it's the worst, and from the little we've seen it's unlikely to be that bad. so that's why I already pre-ordered

Agree. I haven't pre-ordered just because it's so far away at the moment. The majority of experts here will probably boo it upon release, but I'll be having my usual great time while the crying and gnashing of teeth happen in the background.

 

[Quintillus]

I've only ever pre-ordered one game, EU4. For me to pre-order, the previous game would have to have been really good, and all indications about the new one would have to be really good (such that I'm pretty sure it will be better, or at least different enough to be interesting and as good), and I'll have to expect to be able to play it on release. A pretty high bar. EU4 met it and didn't disappoint, but I didn't preorder Stellaris because I didn't expect to play it soon after release.

Civ6, I can't see myself pre-ordering since I wasn't a fan of Civ5. There's far less risk in not pre-ordering anyway, since if the reviews are poor you can skip/wait, and by pre-ordering you're nearly always paying the highest price. Which reminds me of another reason I preordered EU4 - I got 15% off. I could've got more off later, but not for several months at least, so with all the other indications also looking positive, it made sense for me in that one case.

 

[historix69]

Greatest fears:
- Eureka moments will allow you to rush through the tech tree that epic game speed feels like quick game speed.
- Gamy Boardgame mechanics ruin historical immersion
- Districts will destroy the overall map view of cities and separate landscapes, e.g. neighbouring cities or whole nations look just like one wide XXL city with districts spread everywhere.
- Game allows arbitrary size of maps and players but UI is optimized to 4-8 players with 4-8 cities, so playing with 50 AI and owning 30 cities is possible but unplayable.
(Civ5 can be played with 43 civs but diplomacy is a pain when scrolling the ca. 43x43 = almost 2.000 lines of the diplomatic overview.)
- Game is "fully modable" but a lot of constants are hardcoded and can't be changed without reimplementing the complete game in LUA.
- Pay 60$ for the game + 60$ for DLCs + 2 x 40$ for 2 AddOns until the game is playable. Then the next year (2020?) the complete edition is on Steam Sale for 10$.
- Tiny Earth Map (like in Civ 1)

Spoiler :

 

[SemperFi2382]

1.) No Hotseat at launch.
2.) No Hotseat at all.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I don't have any "greatest fears" but I am still a little concerned districts will cause late game empires to look like one big ugly sprawl of districts everywhere, especially on small maps.

 

[Barathor]

I don't have any "greatest fears" but I am still a little concerned districts will cause late game empires to look like one big ugly sprawl of districts everywhere, especially on small maps.

I actually think it's going to look great. If not districts/wonders, then those tiles would be filled with repetitive basic improvements (plus somewhat repetitive great improvements). Plus, themed colors on them makes it all even better. Also, I believe there's only 12 types, even with overlapping workable areas (4-5 tiles between... the minimum of 3 may start to cramp things) they'll be plenty of non-district tiles.

So far, the whole district system sounds brilliant.

 

[ezysquire]

1. Too high game specs
2. Overly dumbed down gameplay

 

[Mustakrakish]

I do hope we get bigger (actually playable) maps this time around. What with new tech and their talking about real starting locations and how they recognized the importance of that, they must have a world map with big enough Europe to fit France/Germany/Rome/Greece/(Spain?) with at least some room to expand, not to mention Britain fitting more than London.

 

[Arms Longfellow]

-Game will be a bug-ridden mess on release, and it will take several years of patches and two expansion packs for it to finally get good (as was kind of the case with Civ 4 and Civ 5)

-No unique looks to different civilizations

-Still no damn way to select a big group of units at once and telling them all to go move to the same location, for late game wars where you have tons of units but it's too tedious to micro them all individually.

-Lack of strategic possibilities because the way to "play optimally" is too powerful. Example, Civ 5 Brave New World: Rush National College ASAP. Tradition with a mega capital that spammed every wonder, every other city only existed to feed the capital food trade routes and had the bare minimum amount of buildings in order to keep maintenance costs low, except for science buildings of course which had to be rushed immediately. Civ 4 was much more interesting in this regard because you could specialize cities based on surrounding terrain, or do things like Specialist Economy or Cottage Economy, and which strategy was the best was debatable.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

This is probably what worries me the most; I just know that the first big expansion that they release for the game will focus on 'improving the mid to late game'. It won't be the first time that its happened, but its sure starting to become an old tool in the shed (a repeated marketing strategy)

I can't see how this is a fear. We know this going in. By the end game of every version ever released you're likely winning handily, or already lost and restarted. That's not going to change. It's not marketing just human nature.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I can't see how this is a fear. We know this going in. By the end game of every version ever released you're likely winning handily, or already lost and restarted. That's not going to change. It's not marketing just human nature.

The problem is - it never worked well. I really hope this time mid-late game will be filled from the start and if we see any big expansions, they'll have something covering the whole game.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Well unless they can make the game so that new civs can rise say as America on turn 300 too present a brand new challenge, I don't see how the late game can change much. New mechanics at the end of the game will just make you win by more. And if they change that, people will be upset if you play your entire game well just to be "randomed out" at the end.

I'm probably just not creative enough to see how they could make it work.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Well unless they can make the game so that new civs can rise say as America on turn 300 too present a brand new challenge, I don't see how the late game can change much. New mechanics at the end of the game will just make you win by more. And if they change that, people will be upset if you play your entire game well just to be "randomed out" at the end.

I'm probably just not creative enough to see how they could make it work.

The usual problem of Civ games is what starting form the middle game you have nothing to do if you're not at war. Periodically something is built, but more than half of the turns are just skipped.

To fight this, additional things are added to the peaceful part of the game, like religious play, espionage, archaeology and so on. The problem, however, is - if these things are added in expansion, they don't fit that well into the game.