5 ms·

6 is a decent rethink of the core rules and mechanics, that still doesn't stray too far from 5. I would recommend taking a look at it on youtube at the very lea

6 is a decent rethink of the core rules and mechanics, that still doesn't stray too far from 5. I would recommend taking a look at it on youtube at the very least, it's definitely the better recent title. Civ is one of the very rare strategy multiplayer games where AI mode is a lot of fun; different than PvP, but still a challenge and a mostly fresh experience. My main issue with it is the exceedingly annoying political behaviour of the ever-complaining AIs. (You're expanding too much! You're not expanding enough! Your army is too large! Your army is weak! One of your units stared at me wrong!)

ryandrake 10y ago
I also find it a good thing that they try, with subsequent versions, to balance out the play so that you can't just use one strategy and win all the time. Anyone who remembers Nod Bikes knows how little fun that ends up being. Also [1] The thing that's always been a bummer about Civ's single-player-vs-AI games is that, like most games, the difficulty level simply controlled the amount of handicapping rather than made the AI smarter or more cunning. The difference between hard and easy mode was that they'd just give the player more money, stronger units, better bonuses, etc. 1: I just searched Google for Zerg Rush and holy moly that is awesome. Great job whichever Googler thought of that.
jsmthrowaway 10y ago
With V, Gods & Kings and Brave New World really completed that experience, though. One could argue both for and against the religion mechanic and the adjustment to culture, but expanded V is like night and day compared to vanilla V, and I like it better. I genuinely think Firaxis is treating vanilla releases as a somewhat "early access" period to observe how people play then tweaking accordingly, while slipping in more-complex mechanics that didn't make gold to keep the metagame interesting. They know to weather the shit reviews now, too, because V got them as well; people hated V against IV when it came out. Some still do, but I find most of them never tried fully expanded V. I'm assuming VI will end up similar, and potentially diverge a bit more from V. I'm excited to see what the first, and maybe second, gameplay expansion do to the game, because there are some corner cases (such as the difficulty with tall strategies being discussed). Whenever I recommend V, I say "make sure you have the complete expansions," because it's really a different game. Vanilla VI didn't hook me like expanded V does, but I suspect expanded VI will, and I'm looking forward to that. This article says it well, too, and also includes a bunch of stuff I hope they consider. The "break-up of nations/empires" point they make about Civ late-game in general is particularly salient. I've always liked the thought of the modern era looking more like the modern era, because late-game does get boring on occasion as everybody rushes toward their victory. https://www.pcgamesn.com/civilization-vi/civilization-6-expansions-dlc https://www.pcgamesn.com/civilization-vi/civilization-6-expa...
robotmay 10y ago
I got incredibly annoyed with people denouncing me in Civ 5, to the point where I would invade and completely wipe out their nation just because they wouldn't stop whining about me (looking at you, Austria). The only problem I have with 6 is a bit of an odd one; I don't really like the nation/leader options. They feel a bit stilted in comparison to 5, though there are a few exceptions. The music in 6 is fantastic, however, and I love how it changes as your civ progresses.
RugnirViking 10y ago
My issue with the civ AI was that the tactic of paying them to declare war has always been too powerful. The civs only ever will by choice be in one war at a time, so if you bribe a warlike nation a (pitiful) about of gold to declare war on your closest competitor then you can keep them off your back and squabbling with each other to a cheap victory even on the hardest difficulties.

ryandrake 10y ago

I also find it a good thing that they try, with subsequent versions, to balance out the play so that you can't just use one strategy and win all the time. Anyone who remembers Nod Bikes knows how little fun that ends up being. Also [1] The thing that's always been a bummer about Civ's single-player-vs-AI games is that, like most games, the difficulty level simply controlled the amount of handicapping rather than made the AI smarter or more cunning. The difference between hard and easy mode was that they'd just give the player more money, stronger units, better bonuses, etc. 1: I just searched Google for Zerg Rush and holy moly that is awesome. Great job whichever Googler thought of that.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago

With V, Gods & Kings and Brave New World really completed that experience, though. One could argue both for and against the religion mechanic and the adjustment to culture, but expanded V is like night and day compared to vanilla V, and I like it better. I genuinely think Firaxis is treating vanilla releases as a somewhat "early access" period to observe how people play then tweaking accordingly, while slipping in more-complex mechanics that didn't make gold to keep the metagame interesting. They know to weather the shit reviews now, too, because V got them as well; people hated V against IV when it came out. Some still do, but I find most of them never tried fully expanded V. I'm assuming VI will end up similar, and potentially diverge a bit more from V. I'm excited to see what the first, and maybe second, gameplay expansion do to the game, because there are some corner cases (such as the difficulty with tall strategies being discussed). Whenever I recommend V, I say "make sure you have the complete expansions," because it's really a different game. Vanilla VI didn't hook me like expanded V does, but I suspect expanded VI will, and I'm looking forward to that. This article says it well, too, and also includes a bunch of stuff I hope they consider. The "break-up of nations/empires" point they make about Civ late-game in general is particularly salient. I've always liked the thought of the modern era looking more like the modern era, because late-game does get boring on occasion as everybody rushes toward their victory. https://www.pcgamesn.com/civilization-vi/civilization-6-expansions-dlc https://www.pcgamesn.com/civilization-vi/civilization-6-expa...

robotmay 10y ago

I got incredibly annoyed with people denouncing me in Civ 5, to the point where I would invade and completely wipe out their nation just because they wouldn't stop whining about me (looking at you, Austria). The only problem I have with 6 is a bit of an odd one; I don't really like the nation/leader options. They feel a bit stilted in comparison to 5, though there are a few exceptions. The music in 6 is fantastic, however, and I love how it changes as your civ progresses.

RugnirViking 10y ago

My issue with the civ AI was that the tactic of paying them to declare war has always been too powerful. The civs only ever will by choice be in one war at a time, so if you bribe a warlike nation a (pitiful) about of gold to declare war on your closest competitor then you can keep them off your back and squabbling with each other to a cheap victory even on the hardest difficulties.