How is Civ 6
- Thread starter DoPo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well if you've never played civ 5 then play it with both expansion over civ 6 definitely. Civ always worked the same way, the vanilla version throw some interesting spin at the usual formula but also takes a lot of stuff out of the game compared to the previous instalment with all it's expansion.
So I'd say civ 5 (exp)> civ 6 (vanilla) > civ 5 (vanilla)
Civ 6 introduced some cool concept, but a lot still feel like it need tweaking. The AI is pretty awful, a bit worse than usual AI and diplomacy is kinda broken right now cause if you have a different government from the AI they're almost guaranteed to hate you.
My biggest problem with it is that there's very little incentive to staying small, the more cities you have the better so you end up having to build a ton of city and its become micro management intensive (but very boring). Also this mean that war and conquering city is pretty much just a net positive, especially early game since you can capture city very quickly and there's almost no downside. The various civilizationa are also ridiculously unbalance, with some being almost useless and some ridiculously strong.
The district system (where you build some part of your city out in the world) is really nice, but right now building new districts is prohibitively expensive, so I tend to build few of them and so it's not as big a part of the game as I wish it was. Also the economy is kind of bonker and you can very quickly makes insane amount of money trough trading.
Anyway, overall its a nice (vanilla) civilization, and once they do some tweaking it should be great, but if your wondering if you should buy it now, I'd wait until the first expansion.
So I'd say civ 5 (exp)> civ 6 (vanilla) > civ 5 (vanilla)
Civ 6 introduced some cool concept, but a lot still feel like it need tweaking. The AI is pretty awful, a bit worse than usual AI and diplomacy is kinda broken right now cause if you have a different government from the AI they're almost guaranteed to hate you.
My biggest problem with it is that there's very little incentive to staying small, the more cities you have the better so you end up having to build a ton of city and its become micro management intensive (but very boring). Also this mean that war and conquering city is pretty much just a net positive, especially early game since you can capture city very quickly and there's almost no downside. The various civilizationa are also ridiculously unbalance, with some being almost useless and some ridiculously strong.
The district system (where you build some part of your city out in the world) is really nice, but right now building new districts is prohibitively expensive, so I tend to build few of them and so it's not as big a part of the game as I wish it was. Also the economy is kind of bonker and you can very quickly makes insane amount of money trough trading.
Anyway, overall its a nice (vanilla) civilization, and once they do some tweaking it should be great, but if your wondering if you should buy it now, I'd wait until the first expansion.
Honestly, one of my biggest problems with Civ V was that there was almost no incentive to expand, and over 4 cities was practically pointless. Definitely prefer the incentive to expand, to the forceful "Stay small" of old. There does need to be a happy medium though, which I think Civ has always had problems with.Meiam said:
OT: Civ VI is great. It hasn't taken anything away that was in Civ V [Minus Diplomatic Victory and the ineffectual World Congress], and its added more depth, features and strategy. The downside? At present, the balance is... Non existent. Early game conquest is far too easy, and any civ not geared to early game conquest is relatively weak - even if late game they'd be a powerhouse. The AI, as always, is terrible. That's almost a staple of the series. Diplomacy is simultaneously better, and worse, than Civ V. Its more clear as to why empires are doing everything, especially if you use the gossip system, but that comes at the cost of some civilization or other hating you for almost anything you can think of doing. Too much military? Civ A hates you. Too little military? Civ B hates you. Much harder to actually start world peace, which is maybe part of why the diplomatic victory isn't there.
Which is better? Which would you prefer? The simpler, but more polished Civ V, or the more complex and deeper, but less consistent, Civ VI? Both have their upsides, both have their problems. It largely depends on what reasons you're playing for as to which you'd prefer.
Honestly, I was looking for something not that thought intensive. I actually have Civ 5 with all expansions but I've not played it yet. I was wondering if Civ 6 was more up my alley.Joccaren said:
I probably should note that I've played Civ 4 several times, but I'm by no means an expert. I've also played one previous title (1 or 2, can't remember) but I...wasn't that good at it. I remember that I played that, researched alphabet, mathematics, literature all the intellectual things...and then the AI came in and beat me with its stupid and unsophisticated warriors. Apparently poetry doesn't protect you from swords. Restarted, and the same thing happened, then I quit. It wasn't until I played 4 that I actually learned how to play.
I mostly agree with Meiam above. I've played it, it's allright. It needs patches, expansions etc. It could also use some UI improvements. Some mechanics seem very lacking in transparency and are overcomplicated. Like housing and amenities. They seem like the health and hapiness from civ IV, only their effects are far less clear to me. And if you do play it, just turn it to quick. Normal is even slower than in civ V. I also recommend 6 players on a 4 player map because the maps are large enough to accomodate some 5 trillion cities per player, more than I have the patience to build and manage. I'd certainly play civ V plus expansions and wait a while. In 3 years you can get a far superior version from the merely ok one there is now for 15 bucks.
Civ IV did it pretty well I think. You have a lot of incentive to expand because you'll have more production, though your science takes a big hit if you overexpand before you have currency and courthouses. In addition the maps are smaller, and fill up with cities pretty quickly, so after a while it's conquest, sailing across oceans or making do with what you already have. (occasionally culturepushing) I think one of the problems is that it turns a lot of the game to busywork later on, when you have 12+ cities, a mediocre UI and either 40 turns to wait for a wonder you are building while you wait for the AI to take it's lenghty goddamn turn or large armies and groups of builders to order around.
I used to play wide in civ V as well and it is certainly possible to have a lot of cities. (I got the achievement to get that really longnamed city of the celts, which is their 33th founded city, playing on emperor) Especially versus human players having more cities can help outproduce them during wars. Playing tall is certainly the standard way, but by no means the only way possible to play civ V. Right now, I see pretty much no way to play tall in civ VI besides expecting to not tech very fast at all. You can't really have a few large cities with lots of specialists because, a) more cities is always better, no nuance and b) cities are rather harshly capped by housing and the small amount of tiles which doesn't go away until rather late in the game.Joccaren said:
Civ IV did it pretty well I think. You have a lot of incentive to expand because you'll have more production, though your science takes a big hit if you overexpand before you have currency and courthouses. In addition the maps are smaller, and fill up with cities pretty quickly, so after a while it's conquest, sailing across oceans or making do with what you already have. (occasionally culturepushing) I think one of the problems is that it turns a lot of the game to busywork later on, when you have 12+ cities, a mediocre UI and either 40 turns to wait for a wonder you are building while you wait for the AI to take it's lenghty goddamn turn or large armies and groups of builders to order around.
i think the intention fo the devs was that you build a lot of cities but that you specialize them. depending on what victory yhou want to acheive. so let's say that i go for a scientific victory, i create 3 cities for production, 3 for culture, 3 for gold and 6 for science for exemple... and you build appropriate districts....Meiam said:
I'm pretty sure that was indeed the intention, but in actual fact I just built production, science and gold districts in all my cities. If you have 15 citizens which, lategame isn't that hard you can build as many districts as you need.cathou said:
Yeah but it really didn't work, I think if that's what they wanted they should have made it so we could build multiple of the same district per city and made district slightly cheaper, as it stand once you have access to neighboor every city can have most districts.cathou said:
I'm not quite sure how I would fix the weakness of tall empire, the housing limit is too steep early game so your city very quickly reach the maximum so that would definitely need to be fixed but there need to be some form of negative from having more and more city cause otherwise any loosening of the housing system would also help wide empire. Probably bring back the civ 4 system with corruption increasing on a per city basis. The amenity system is also too weak, I almost never build entertainment district and my city are almost always ecstatic. Maybe there should be a amenity penalty based on how far from the capital a city is. I think commercial district shouldn't each add trade route, or at least have the trade route be tied to that particular city, cause otherwise its just so easy to have tons of trade routes in wide empire (I think the trade system is due for a massive overhaul and I hope the first exp focus on that).
I would also bring back the ability of cities to shoot at enemy early game, right now capturing a city is far too easy and there's almost no reason not to grab the closest city to you, especially if its a city state or weak early game civ.
As a core game, Civ VI is leaps ahead of V. There are base gameplay concepts like unstacked cities, wonder requirements, tech tree splitting, etc that really move the formula forward in meaningful ways. For that reason, I'd recommend it over V, despite the fact V with expansions is a more complete and polished game.DoPo said:
There is one major caveat, though, and that is that VI's AI is presently HILARIOUSLY broken. Not "Civ broken", in the sense that the AI is rock stupid and needs to cheat to compete. That's just the reality of the series. But broken broken. Certain changes to how diplomacy works seems to have fundamentally neutered it in some unintended ways. Game needs a hotfix/early patch badly.
In other Firaxis news, mods have finally allowed for the creation of a semi-Long War experience in XCOM 2.
It is in much better shape than Civ IV or Civ V at this point. The underlying game mechanics have the potential of making it the best iteration of Civ. The AI is a problem, but that shouldn't dissuade a more casual player from getting the game, which is still loads of fun.
BTW, if you haven't played Civ before, consider getting Civ IV with expansions at the Steam Winter sale. It is an incredible game with some great mods that are like getting new games for free. If you don't mind late 90's graphics and interface, get Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri at Grand Old Games. Very challenging with an actual story and, by far, the best treatment of Wonders in any civ game.
BTW, if you haven't played Civ before, consider getting Civ IV with expansions at the Steam Winter sale. It is an incredible game with some great mods that are like getting new games for free. If you don't mind late 90's graphics and interface, get Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri at Grand Old Games. Very challenging with an actual story and, by far, the best treatment of Wonders in any civ game.
well, it's depend of the victory condition you want to try. i'm still in my first game, and i'm around turn 420 in the biggest map. i was getting for a scientific victory, however, turns out that the city with the most production doesnt have enough population to build a new district, so i cannot build the spaceport there. plus i think there's some interresting choice to make sometimes. one city had the only suitable place for the aqueduc over a valuable ressource, and in another i wasnt able to build an encampment because there was no suitable tiles to do it.Pseudonym said:
serioujsly the game need fixing, but so far, i think it's probably the best civ game ever on day one. civ 5 had far more important problems on it's launch version than civ 6
Then yeah, I'd recommend Civ V. Civ V is very, very different from Civ IV, and Civ VI is arguably closer to IV than V was, but V is the easier one to get into. Combat is more forgiving, deathstacks of warriors aren't a thing, early game conquest is pretty damn hard if you're not a civ geared for it, and even then...DoPo said:
LOTS of stuff has changed since IV, but it should be easier to figure out than VI, and is easier to play 'casually' - though in Civ terms that almost isn't a thing.
Its certainly possible to play with lots of cities, but its also possible to play with a handful of cities in Civ VI. First game I only founded 2 cities, and captured the rest of the world - a total of 8 cities. It very much depends on the setup of the game you're playing, the map size, layout, and number of players.Pseudonym said:
In Civ V, there was a much harder cap on the number of cities you could build, thanks to luxury resources being far and away the largest source of happiness, and every city you founded drastically reducing your happiness. This meant that for most of the game, the only reason to found another city was if it gave you access to a new luxury resource. If it didn't, you were just shooting yourself in the foot as your larger cities would stop growing, your income would reduce, your new city wouldn't grow, and if you pushed it too hard you'd have rebellions everywhere. In most multiplayer games I played, there also wasn't room for more than 3 cities a player without massively cannibalising your own cities, and this was on medium-large Pangea with 3 players. Cutting out City States would naturally help with this, but that leads to other gameplay issues.
Yeah, Civ IV had the best solution I've seen from Civ to many of these issues. Of course, it also had a pile of its own. And unfortunately, Civ is a game that does just slow down late game. Long turns from hundreds of units and tens of cities, and numbers slowly ticking up, with all your important decisions already made for the next era. To some extent, its where build queues come in handy, automating a lot of that, but that's got its own problems in setup time. The game needs something for the mid to early-late game to keep the busy work at bay, and that's something Civ VI has started towards. Constant pushes for Eureka moments and more complex systems create more meaningful decisions to make, but I think there's still some way to go before we get to things being where they should be.
I couldn't really compare myself. I got civ V some time after launch and civ IV when it was in its current condition. Didn't play it before that. If what you say is true, I would like to see it in a few years to say if it is then the best civ game. And if not, it's still good enough.cathou said:
If you mean that you can cavalry rush your opponents, sure. But if you are looking long term, well, I couldn't make less than 10 cities work.Joccaren said:
Really? I've mostly played 12 player matches versus AI's where there is more space. I have played matches with not a lot of space, but only space for 3 cities? That doesn't match up with my experience except for some rare cases. As for hapiness, I agree that was the main factor keeping empires small. You could push it with religion though (in the expansions, that is) and once you have enough cities, just building some hapiness buildings could get you a lot of hapiness.Joccaren said:
It also irradiates the area so severely that sending units in to take the zero defence city tends to kill them.cathou said:
this.Meiam said:
It seems like the AI fucks like rabbits and sends cities everywhere in civ6, because there is no major penalties...not to do that, while in civ V you pay attention to your "happiness" meter and expand your empire from there. It's certainly alot different in how you approach civ 6 vs civ 5, and I think in the long run I'll enjoy civ 6 alot more, but for now it's probably worth it to play civ 5 as it's a much more polished and complete game.
I hope they overhaul trading and city state relations, it's really annoying getting warmonger penalties up the ass but the computer goes to war all day with city states, and there is no way to defend them when I don't have enough points/alliance with them.
There's a lot in its favor. It doesn't drag as much as V does (though sometimes it feels a bit too quick, in my first game I ended up reaching the Medieval Era around 500 BCE), the Civics Tree and Government System work far better than the Social Policies and Ideologies of Civ V and the game, as a whole, seems far more interesting.
On the other hand this is a Vanilla Civ game, while Civ V is done and dusted. If you have the BNW and G+K expansion packs, you'll be getting your money's worth with Civ V.
There's other problems as well. The AI is pretty broken and I'm told the multiplayer is similarly fucked. And Balance is still a major issue. Germany, Sumeria and Scythia are ridiculously OP.
If you don't mind a lack of content, by all means, get Civ VI. Just be aware that there's definitely more to Civ V in its current state.
On the other hand this is a Vanilla Civ game, while Civ V is done and dusted. If you have the BNW and G+K expansion packs, you'll be getting your money's worth with Civ V.
There's other problems as well. The AI is pretty broken and I'm told the multiplayer is similarly fucked. And Balance is still a major issue. Germany, Sumeria and Scythia are ridiculously OP.
If you don't mind a lack of content, by all means, get Civ VI. Just be aware that there's definitely more to Civ V in its current state.
How OP are we talking here? We're not talking Civ: Revolution Aztec's OP, are we? As in, if they get ahead early game it actually becomes impossible to beat any one of their units, OP? Because I've got my eye on this for the sales, but that would be a deal-breaker...Rangaman said: