Civilization 6

[woodjer]

Quote: Originally Posted by pietasterp

I've played them all since the original Microprose Civilization on my 386 way back in the day. Other than it being 2-D and the units literally being tiles w/ icons in them for infantry, tank, etc., it's pretty remarkable how little has changed in 25 years or so. Until Civ V, the strategy was basically build up a gigantic stack of innumerable spearmen/warriors/whatever and spend an entire turn sending units at a city until the dice rolled in your favor. Even if the city you were attacking had tanks and you had partisans, you'd eventually win given enough rolls of the dice. I do agree with the interview on the Polygon preview that basically talked about how everyone settles into playing the same way every time. I've been doing essentially the same thing in that game across 5 versions for a quarter century. It's probably time they re-thought the whole "found a city --> build a granary --> build an aqueduct --> build walls --> etc." rut that most people find themselves falling into immediately.

I've played them all too. I had limited exposure to the first one because I had to get to a friend's house who had it but was hooked from that moment on. This is great news, especially since I expect that my laptop could probably handle it on day 1. However, I'll ultimately find myself waiting for the inevitable Gold/Complete/Ultimate edition to arrive with all of the extras included. Although, to be honest, I didn't read the article...maybe something has changed there?

[donkey33]

Loved IV, even with the stack of doom issues, but didn't like V at all. The diplomacy problems completely ruined it for me.

Hopefully VI is much improved or I'll just stick to IV.

[half-fast]

I found they improved the Diplomacy issues in BNW, of course it still could be better. Its better than almost every other strategy game ive played anyway. Diplo almost always sucks

[SyracuseJet]

V was good but it took a lot of expansions to get there. Hope VI is better out of the gate.

[pietasterp]

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

That's one thing I try to avoid. I try and change how I'm going to build my empire each time I start a new game, but old habits die hard it seems. I do love the sound of how research is going to work. Coastal cities having more naval research done and whatnot is music to my ears. Hopefully we can get back to buying and sharing techs with other nations so that we have even more reason the befriend other leaders. The more content that adds to the political and diplomatic side of the game, the happier I am.

Agree with most of the posts here. As much as I try to play a different way each time, in the end there almost seems to be a 'best way' to play, and that seems to inevitably funnel me into the same decisions every time. But that's probably just me being a creature of habit.

I'm glad they at least are trying to address the diplomacy thing - the AI civilizations are so predictable in that they race ahead of you so (artificially) quickly, then you spend your time placating them until you build a strong enough army that enables you to stop bending over for them, and then get your knights/trebuchets/archers ready for the inevitable hostilities. The computer civs basically have no complicated or longer term ambitions other than seemingly trying to specifically hinder you and you alone. It's been this way since the original, and I'd like to see some variations on that behavior in the next game.

[Graphik]

Quote: Originally Posted by choadler

I have played them all since Civ 2. I liked 5 quite a bit Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

V was good but it felt more streamlined compared to IV. I understand they were trying bring in new players but it seemed they scaled back a bit for veterans.

[pietasterp]

Quote: Originally Posted by Graphik

V was good but it felt more streamlined compared to IV. I understand they were trying bring in new players but it seemed they scaled back a bit for veterans.

Agree, but I have to be honest, I actually liked the streamlined nature of V. To me the game had become too much micro-management (especially the endgame) and I never understood a lot of the systems in the game (like religion and most of the diplomacy). But by the time Brave New World expansion hit, it basically had everything in it that the prior versions had. And which I again more-or-less ignored...

I was disappointed in how the changes to the battle system turned out, though - it basically replaced the "stack of doom" with another highly predictable (and boring) strategy, which is the never-ending siege bombardment to get the city's hit points down to zero, then simply move a land-based unit into the city. I understand siege weapons are important, but there's basically no reason whatsoever to bring a melee unit into range until you catapult/trebuchet/artillery the city to zero HP. It sorta makes for not-very-interesting combat. I think the ability to embed siege units with melee units and stack a (hopefully limited) number of units into a "corp" might bring something interesting to the combat. I'm not looking for a return to the stack-o-doom days, but I don't think the changes in "V" were entirely successful....

[dickey1331]

I have never played Civilization. I might have to check this out when it releases.