Civilization VI is coming!

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Minerva, May 11, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Civilization VI

    Prepare to sink hours of your life into a Civilization you build up from the ground, only to get nuked by Ghandi.

    Get ready to say "One more Hour" at 1:00 AM as friends and loved ones look on, and then abandon you.

    Get ready, because, it's coming in October.

    [​IMG]

    Civilization 6!
     
    • Love Love x 1
  2. Well, I'll definitely be keeping tabs on this.

    New Art Style too... Not sure if I like it though.
    Give's it a very cartoonish vibe (and not in the cool Japanese way).
     
  3. I don't know. It sort of looks like a painting to me.
     
  4. I noticed that the new Dawn of War game also has a lot of bright, colorful, semi-cartoony vibes. I guess it's just that time of the year for industries to cycle into the psychadelic-pandering phase.
     
  5. I'm personally not a fan of it... At least not for this series.

    Then again, I got 700 hours in Civ V so maybe I'm just overly attached to it's art style.
     
    #5 Mistake, May 11, 2016
    Last edited: May 12, 2016
  6. Civ always had a colorfull vibe to its earlier iterations. And this is just vibrant, not very cartoony at all.
     
  7. Let's see what it's bragging about as features... If you use your scouts to discover other people, you can tech faster, just like in IV and V. Dynamic diplomacy is a bragging point? That's been in the game since Civ III, you always had to tech up new diplomacy options beyond war and truce.

    One of its bragging points is that the game has a tutorial.

    They want 80 dollars for a game that doesn't even look better than Civ V?

    brb, laughing. Laughing too hard to write coherently anymore.

    EDIT

    Seriously, read these for yourself. "New tutorial systems are designed to introduce new players to the underlying concepts of Civilization so they can easily get started on a path to victory." <- Literally bragging that the game has a tutorial that's different from previous games.
     
  8. I don't think they want to reveal too much yet, so those are its only bragging points?

    I guess. Maybe I'm giving too much credit, considering I actually enjoyed BE.
     
  9. Well, I dunno. I played Civ III, loved it a lot. Played Civ IV, felt like a bigger, better, more robust Civ III. Civ V was... Weird. Very weird. It was a sidestep and oversimplified a lot of things. As much as everyone may gripe about the 20 knight death stacks in the medieval mid game for Civ IV, Civ V's "one combat unit per tile/one support unit per tile" system was overkill simplifying. It became nearly impossible to lose a city if your forces were at least half as good as those of the invader. Which made multiplayer games into "build 5 melee & 3 ranged, rush science, win game." What it did right though, it nailed out of the ball park. As much as I gripe about one combat/support unit per tile, having combat be far less randumb was highly welcome. Unfortunately, the AI in Civ V wasn't capable of actually playing the game. Which meant that I would watch it throw ranged units ahead of melee units, or run past defenseless cities with a value of 8 to siege cities with a value of 20 + an archer inside. I would regularly win against two, three, or even four AI's at the same time in a single war because it doesn't know how to do military actions properly.

    Heck, I beat the Deity setting AI's by turning off the science, time, and culture victories. Because even with massive handicaps that typically put the AI an era ahead of me at all times, it still can't win military victories.

    The issue with Civilization is and always has been that there is no real way to stop someone from accelerating via exponential stat growth into victory if they secure the early game win. Games are decided within the first 100 turns, the last 300-500 are a simple formality. Combine with a pants on head retarded AI and the game stopped innovating or being challenging after Civ IV.

    Civ V is a good multiplayer game. I have 89 hours on it, I got my money's worth from the multiplayer. I enjoy playing it with the strategically challenged, picking Rome or Byzantium, and rushing science to win by the 1700's each and every time. It doesn't matter what the map is, or the difficulty, I beat it the same way, every time.

    I'm also stuck with the issue of why I should even play Civ V's brutally simplistic mechanics when I have Endless Legend, or Europa Universalis, or Stellaris, or The Last Federation, or other, more mechanically rich and playstyle diverse games. Why should I play Civ V against an AI that doesn't work when I can play Civ IV against an AI that does? Why should I play Civ V's single unit per tile combat when Civ IV can give me the more complex and rich design of two factions balancing MAD-sized death stack armies atop trying to out research each other?

    What is Civ VI going to give me that gives me a reason to plop 80 dollars on the counter for it that isn't in Civ V? Districts? You mean the feature they blatantly stole from Endless Legend? What's stopping someone from spam stacking research districts and winning the game with science again?

    I'm really hoping they do something to innovate the formula with this one. Because I really do love Civilization. I do. Flaws and all, it's a unique game, with a unique concept, and it was one of the grand daddies to 4X. I bought Civ 5 as a good faith purchase and was greeted with a game that was essentially reduced back to basics for faster multiplayer games, which, well, fine. It's playable, it looks nice, and if they had to go back to basics to figure out a way to breath life back into the formula, I'm all for it. Even if the AI doesn't actually work, fine, everybody gets a mulligan, everybody screws something up, no game is perfect.

    But 80 dollars for a preorder on a game whose primary bragging features so far are largely features that already exist in previous titles, and "it has a tutorial?"

    Man, they gotta do more than that. Just because it has the civilization label on it doesn't mean it's going to be any good. This is what Hollywood does to make money, you know?

    EDIT

    Also, to be clear, yes, I'm still keeping an eye on it, and I'm still interested in it, and I hope it'll be good. I'm just a savvy enough consumer to know that blind glee for these sorts of things usually just results in me making a very poor purchase decision. It's usually a bad sign when a game is begging for money several months before it's released. When it's asking for money before it even promises any significant new features...
     
    #9 Brovo, May 11, 2016
    Last edited: May 11, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
    • Nice execution! Nice execution! x 1
  10. You know what these bragging points and the Art Style is reminding me? Civilization Revolution...

    That was not a good game. :/
    Like I enjoyed it as my introduction to the series (cause I knew nothing better), but compare it to any other Civ game and it falls flat on it's face.

    The only Revolution mechanics I miss was tech trading (which I see why it's gone, it was OP as shit), and Civ's gaining new abilities each era to show how they evolve...
    And those two positives were NOT listed in the bragging points.

    I can't weight into Civ IV vs Civ V though. I've spent an hour or so in Civ IV, a number of stuff like the normal tiles (not hexs), sudden border growth, overly specialized tiles was throwing me off. There's likely something I'm missing though cause everyone I talk to whose played it praises the hell out of Civ IV.

    Though that being said, I'm comparing it to a modded Civ V cause that's the only way I play unless Mulitplayer.

    Beyond Earth? I liked it, it definitely has potential... But it's plagued by a zerg rush mentality. In Civ V you have Happiness to worry about, which is raises as a more slow rate so you have to think about when, why, how and where to expand. In Beyond Earth, it's constant expansion. Yes there is Health, but that is ridiculously easy to raise to the point it's a none issue. And even if you hit the negatives, there's no risk of stuff like revolutions so you can just let it drop as much as you damn well please.

    Like seriously, fix Health and Beyond Earth would be far, FAR better.
    I think it says something when I feel tempted to used advanced loadout mods for the sole purpose of grabbing Health PENALTIES in order for it to feel semi-balanced.

    Aaaaand that last few bits weren't Civ VI related. But given how little we know of it yet the best we can do is look at earlier games and talk about what they should be changing.
     
  11. This isn't a dig. BUt you are prolly the V's target audience. A more casual player who enjoys the simplification.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. If I enjoyed simplification I wouldn't be so obsess with min-maxing in other games. :/

    It just seems... Backwards with Civ IV.

    I could aim all Production, and have no people, aim all food, and have no production or happiness.
    And I can't find any real use for Gold or Culture in it... At all. The tiles expand way too fast for Culture to be that relevant.

    This is from first impressions though mind you.
     
    #12 Mistake, May 12, 2016
    Last edited: May 13, 2016
  13. +1. Couldn't leave it as just a like.

    This is exactly why I don't hate Civ V. I know exactly why it exists, and it never really marketed itself as anything else. Not everybody is going to get into games as heady and complex as Crusader Kings II, and, well, that's okay! Not everybody needs to. (As for an example of modern complex games trying to combat endless min-maxing, Stellaris forces you to create sectors and have AI governors take care of things for you once you go beyond 5 (or 7 depending on government) planets. It's still really complex, it just shifts cleverly from a 4X to a Grand Strategy in the mid game with a single mechanic.)
    It's been a while since I last played Civ IV, but...

    The idea behind culture is if your culture is oppressive enough against others, in combination with religion, you can actually cause the settlements of other people to rebel and join your faction voluntarily without a declaration of war. Your culture spreads behind the scenes into other people's cities too, and it spreads further the stronger it is, so you can also convert a German city to a French city and then as France, demand that Germany "liberate" the French in that city. It makes you look like the good guy if you declare war, which is fucking huge.

    Later on in the tech tree in Civ IV you unlock additional civics, and one of these replaces slavery if you wish so you can instantly buy new strucutres, or units. This is highly useful in Civ IV since it lets you instant-buy an army to defend yourself against an attack. You can also make yourself intentionally appear weaker than you really are to the unsuspecting player or AI, who might only see 6 military units to their 15, then they declare war, and next turn, you instant buy 20 military units and steamroll them. Later in the game it makes for a very intelligent cold war mechanic.

    The AI is merciless. If you ever declare war and wipe out another culture entirely they will never forget it, and never forgive you. They also build massive death stacks, same as you, and if the AI is not confident enough to attack your cities, they will happily ruin your countryside, destroy all your improvements, and camp out on your tiles to prevent your citizens in the cities from working those tiles, thereby sieging your cities until they're too weak to defend themselves. They especially like doing this on higher difficulty settings, where they have a built-in combat advantage to off-set human ingenuity.

    When you take over another settlement you have to combat the pre-existing culture there. You don't simply "get to have it" at 100% efficiency after 3-8 turns of revolts, no, they'll continue resisting you until you convert them to your culture/religion, and if you don't station military units there, they may even rebel back to their original faction. If you make friends with their original faction you don't have to convert them, they'll work for you willingly. This means cities actually have distinctive cultures, and these cultures shape future conflicts and construction queues. You don't just build a courthouse and automatically make them happy.

    Concerning production vs food, it's a serious decision in Civ IV. You can either grow quickly or build quickly, you don't get to do both arbitrarily. There is still a settlement automanage mechanic if I recall correctly for citizens, so it will automatically attempt a balance between production and food at all times. You can override this.

    This is why I find it more mechanically rich than Civ V. Because there's a lot going on behind the scenes that you only get to see if you look for it, like the culture mechanics. Meanwhile, everything you need in Civ V is accessible through a single menu in the upper left corner. This makes it easier to understand, but also takes away a lot of the inherent complexity that was in IV that made it clever for its time. There's also little things, that didn't get transferred over from Civ IV to Civ V. Like if you do a new worlds continent map in Civ IV, and you colonize the new world with 10 or more colonies, there's a chance in the mid to late game for something to trigger that causes the new world to agitate for independence. You can give it to them to make a Canada-like buddy state, or try to chokehold them as an America-like independence movement rises to fight you. And instead of a piddling 5 units each on a single tile, there's like, 3 20 unit death stacks that march on your (probably undefended) new world colonies.

    If you drop enough nuclear weapons in the world, it actually triggers global warming, causing tiles to turn into deserts. Keep doing it and you can actually create a post apocalyptic nuclear winter world, where a solid 80-90% of it will be dead earth tiles like snow and desert.

    If everyone signs a treaty to not build nukes, you can still build them. The game doesn't stop you unlike in Civ V, but you incur significant diplomatic penalties for it. Just like in the real world.

    Again, Civ V is a good game, it is, it's just... Brutally simplistic compared to Civ IV. :ferret:
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  14. Y'all are caught up in the graphics and content, all I could think about was how much the trailer looks like a beer commercial. I was half-expecting it to end with a slogan.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Oh, also, for anyone who wants to play Civ IV, the entire Civ IV collection is on sale for about 9 bucks Canadian Dollar right now. If you have a potato computer and want a super dense and rich strategy game, go for it.
     
  16. My favorite part was the use of the Sunshine Adagio.

    Like, it's a good song, but couldn't you have chosen something else? Maybe composed your own song?
     
  17. Huh, I didn't realize Civ IV went that in depth... The tutorial mislead me... >:C

    *Notes to give the game another shot today*
    All I could imagine here was a computer being powered by a potato. XD
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.