5 ms·

Did Civ6 end up being good? Civ games usually only beat their predecessors once the last expansion comes out. I stopped playing 6 after the climate change DLC.

Did Civ6 end up being good? Civ games usually only beat their predecessors once the last expansion comes out. I stopped playing 6 after the climate change DLC. Was pretty underwhelmed. Has it matured now like 5 did?

oefrha 4y ago
Districts mechanics is great, I can’t imagine going back to the old everything in city center model. Loyalty mechanics is a mixed blessing, after so many years I can’t say whether I like it or not. I find climate mechanics a nice yet minor addition. AI is crappy as ever. But since you only stopped playing after Gathering Storms you should already know what I said above; the game hasn’t changed much since, even one major bug was left unfixed. Secret societies are fun but not at all balanced.
- corbulo 4y ago
  Everything you said was basically my impression of the game when I left it. I didn't know about the last part, it doesn't surprise me they underdelivered on it.
  - oefrha 4y ago
    To be clear secret societies is an optional game mode, and it’s not half bad for what it is, especially if you enjoy overpowered gameplay.
    - NhanH 4y ago
      Interesting, how is secret societies imbalanced? That wasn’t my impression and I still play the game somewhat recently (certainly no more imbalance than the different civils themselves)
      - oefrha 4y ago
        Vampires combat strength is calculated as base strength of the strongest unit you have trained, plus 1 for every unit that has died in an adjacent tile (bonus from barbarians capped at +10). They don't normally die either, they retreat when brought to 1HP. You can intentionally sacrifice scouts around them to boost their CS. So you can realistically have unstoppable +30 CS vampires by mid game (as comparison, tank is +35 over a knight, two eras earlier), and unlimited CS by end game, as if you need an end game. Did I mention they also gain a -5 CS aura by industrial era? Their only weaknesses are lackluster movement (2, made up by earlier "airports" i.e. vampire castles), weaker passive healing (-5 HP per turn, made up by +50 from pillaging), and inability to form corps/armies (but you can get way more than +17 anyway). Another big source of imbalance is of course the AI's inability to use any of the secret society powers effectively.
- int_19h 4y ago
  I find district mechanics as implemented to be too much of a micro-optimizing puzzle game, especially once you get to late game tech. Make a single mistaken placement early on in city development, and you can block yourself off from important wonders or buildings in that city.
  - atom058 4y ago
    I agree so much with this! I played a bit with friends who were more experienced, and this placement issue is such a negative experience when you notice on that you made a mistake on turn 4, but now it's turn 105 and you cannot correct or adjust to the mistake. And then you know you've already lost, but it takes 100 more turns before the game ends. Couple that with an incredibly hostile UX for new/non-expert players and the massive time commitment, and the experience is one of frustration rather thay joy & escapism. It's like work, but you just get the pain of failures and none of the rewards.
ajkjk 4y ago
It's definitely better than the previous ones .. the previous games feel unplayable now. I can't imagine civ5 (4 cities only to be viable and stupid-as-heck civic options) or earlier (no hexes, stacking units?). But... at the same time, Civ6 feels super phoned-in and underwhelming most of the time. (The AI dialog, world congress, road-building-via-trade routes, and various other stupid things are so annoying that I can't believe anyone who really cares about the game had any input on them.) Mostly I just want the same game, made by a different company that's run by people who are less interesting in churning out DLC for $ and leaving all the quality-of-life stuff to modders.
- badpun 4y ago
  > I can't imagine civ5 (4 cities only to be viable) The "4 cities" may be easiest and most obvious strategy, but there's plenty of people who beat the game on Deity via Warmongering or spamming cities all over the map as well. The game has plenty of depth.
  - ajkjk 4y ago
    oops, I meant to write "I can't imagine going back to civ5". I should have probably clarified anyway. There are other viable strategies that people have found, but I just find it very annoying how much the game shoehorns you into the 4-city strategy through the very-unfun and just... dumb?... happiness mechanic. Imo Civilization-building should be about finding optimal exponential growth based on what you have to work with in your particular game, not about optimizing against arbitrary breakpoints in the rules and/or exploiting degenerate and counterintuitive strategies (such as the mysteriously viable warrior spam).
c3534l 4y ago
Its my favorite so far.
chaostheory 4y ago
It’s more realistic than Civ 5, but it’s not as fun. I feel that they made Civ 6 into a board game so that underpowered systems like the Nintendo Switch can run it. Civ 6 feels like a blend of Civ Revolution and Civ 5. I’m sticking to Civ 5.
- corbulo 4y ago
  I think the art style of Civ6 fits your point.
  - badpun 4y ago
    Yeah, I couldn't make myself switch to Civ 6 from Civ 5 yet because of the art style. The cutesy cartoony style fits Pay-to-Win mobile crapware, not a game where you're the leader of the nation, involved in a "serious"strategic decision making - it breaks the immersion for me.
marticode 4y ago
I have played all of them since the first and this is my most disliked. There's something just not quite right with it for me though I can't put my finger on it.
dagurp 4y ago
It was never fun in my opinion. Religion and espionage is so tedious and I couldn't be bothered with governors ( I would just put them somewhere and not think about them after that). I guess I just wanted a simpler game.
MikusR 4y ago
Civ 6 is essentially Bejeweled masking as civ game
duckmysick 4y ago
I started with Civ2 and played through most of the series. I played a lot of 5 and 6. To me Civ6 is not only the best game in the series. It's my favorite game in general. The biggest difference is that civilizations in 6 feel distinct. In 5, all of them felt generic with cosmetic differences between them - except for Venice. In 6, with each civilization (and leader) it's like playing a different game. Preserving nature with Maori, settling tundra with Canada, cramming cities and districts with Japan, pillaging with Norway, eurekas with Babylon. I can pick the game again after two months and have a fun evening, without getting bored. Speaking of districts, I love this mechanic. It makes sense and I like the extra puzzle and planning. I see how it gives board game vibes and I'm ok with it. Seeing the Civ series as simulation games is a mistake. They never were and they can't be. The reason for that is scale - both in size and time. The map is a grid of either squares or hexagons. Each tile has one feature and units move between them. If I zoom in, I don't get sub-tiles where I can do micro decisions. This constrains how realistic the simulation can be. On a world map, a peninsula of the size of Europe can have only a handful of cities. Time have similar problems. Bronze Age passes quicker than the Modern Era. As a consequence, building the Sydney Opera House can take a hundred of years. And that's fine, because I pick gameplay over realism any time. Even the cartoonish art style doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I find it charming and unique compared to a boring, faux-realistic style of Civ5 which steps into an uncanny valley. If you want a simulation approach, pick Paradox games. I tried them and I didn't like them, but I understand why they have a cult following. They still have board game elements, but the games are designed with constraints in mind. The gameplay takes a couple of centuries at most. The map isn't randomly generated, but it's scalable. The kingdoms and nations have fixed place. These decisions are consistent and make for a fun gameplay because Paradox games don't try to do everything. It's better if Civ stays with a board-game approach. Having a clear identity is better than trying to be both "gamey" and realistic. It won't be for everyone and that's ok. For me, Civ6 is a good foundation. I'd like for Civ7 to use some ideas from Humankind, like elevated terrain, stackable armies with zoomed-in combat phase, the fame victory, and traits of a civilization that evolve over time. I'd also like to delegate parts of the game if I choose to. It would help with tedious parts and let me focus on things I find interesting.

oefrha 4y ago

Districts mechanics is great, I can’t imagine going back to the old everything in city center model. Loyalty mechanics is a mixed blessing, after so many years I can’t say whether I like it or not. I find climate mechanics a nice yet minor addition. AI is crappy as ever. But since you only stopped playing after Gathering Storms you should already know what I said above; the game hasn’t changed much since, even one major bug was left unfixed. Secret societies are fun but not at all balanced.

corbulo 4y ago
Everything you said was basically my impression of the game when I left it. I didn't know about the last part, it doesn't surprise me they underdelivered on it.
- oefrha 4y ago
  To be clear secret societies is an optional game mode, and it’s not half bad for what it is, especially if you enjoy overpowered gameplay.
  - NhanH 4y ago
    Interesting, how is secret societies imbalanced? That wasn’t my impression and I still play the game somewhat recently (certainly no more imbalance than the different civils themselves)
    - oefrha 4y ago
      Vampires combat strength is calculated as base strength of the strongest unit you have trained, plus 1 for every unit that has died in an adjacent tile (bonus from barbarians capped at +10). They don't normally die either, they retreat when brought to 1HP. You can intentionally sacrifice scouts around them to boost their CS. So you can realistically have unstoppable +30 CS vampires by mid game (as comparison, tank is +35 over a knight, two eras earlier), and unlimited CS by end game, as if you need an end game. Did I mention they also gain a -5 CS aura by industrial era? Their only weaknesses are lackluster movement (2, made up by earlier "airports" i.e. vampire castles), weaker passive healing (-5 HP per turn, made up by +50 from pillaging), and inability to form corps/armies (but you can get way more than +17 anyway). Another big source of imbalance is of course the AI's inability to use any of the secret society powers effectively.
int_19h 4y ago
I find district mechanics as implemented to be too much of a micro-optimizing puzzle game, especially once you get to late game tech. Make a single mistaken placement early on in city development, and you can block yourself off from important wonders or buildings in that city.
- atom058 4y ago
  I agree so much with this! I played a bit with friends who were more experienced, and this placement issue is such a negative experience when you notice on that you made a mistake on turn 4, but now it's turn 105 and you cannot correct or adjust to the mistake. And then you know you've already lost, but it takes 100 more turns before the game ends. Couple that with an incredibly hostile UX for new/non-expert players and the massive time commitment, and the experience is one of frustration rather thay joy & escapism. It's like work, but you just get the pain of failures and none of the rewards.

ajkjk 4y ago

It's definitely better than the previous ones .. the previous games feel unplayable now. I can't imagine civ5 (4 cities only to be viable and stupid-as-heck civic options) or earlier (no hexes, stacking units?). But... at the same time, Civ6 feels super phoned-in and underwhelming most of the time. (The AI dialog, world congress, road-building-via-trade routes, and various other stupid things are so annoying that I can't believe anyone who really cares about the game had any input on them.) Mostly I just want the same game, made by a different company that's run by people who are less interesting in churning out DLC for $ and leaving all the quality-of-life stuff to modders.

badpun 4y ago
> I can't imagine civ5 (4 cities only to be viable) The "4 cities" may be easiest and most obvious strategy, but there's plenty of people who beat the game on Deity via Warmongering or spamming cities all over the map as well. The game has plenty of depth.
- ajkjk 4y ago
  oops, I meant to write "I can't imagine going back to civ5". I should have probably clarified anyway. There are other viable strategies that people have found, but I just find it very annoying how much the game shoehorns you into the 4-city strategy through the very-unfun and just... dumb?... happiness mechanic. Imo Civilization-building should be about finding optimal exponential growth based on what you have to work with in your particular game, not about optimizing against arbitrary breakpoints in the rules and/or exploiting degenerate and counterintuitive strategies (such as the mysteriously viable warrior spam).

c3534l 4y ago

Its my favorite so far.

chaostheory 4y ago

It’s more realistic than Civ 5, but it’s not as fun. I feel that they made Civ 6 into a board game so that underpowered systems like the Nintendo Switch can run it. Civ 6 feels like a blend of Civ Revolution and Civ 5. I’m sticking to Civ 5.

corbulo 4y ago
I think the art style of Civ6 fits your point.
- badpun 4y ago
  Yeah, I couldn't make myself switch to Civ 6 from Civ 5 yet because of the art style. The cutesy cartoony style fits Pay-to-Win mobile crapware, not a game where you're the leader of the nation, involved in a "serious"strategic decision making - it breaks the immersion for me.

marticode 4y ago

I have played all of them since the first and this is my most disliked. There's something just not quite right with it for me though I can't put my finger on it.

dagurp 4y ago

It was never fun in my opinion. Religion and espionage is so tedious and I couldn't be bothered with governors ( I would just put them somewhere and not think about them after that). I guess I just wanted a simpler game.

MikusR 4y ago

Civ 6 is essentially Bejeweled masking as civ game

duckmysick 4y ago

I started with Civ2 and played through most of the series. I played a lot of 5 and 6. To me Civ6 is not only the best game in the series. It's my favorite game in general. The biggest difference is that civilizations in 6 feel distinct. In 5, all of them felt generic with cosmetic differences between them - except for Venice. In 6, with each civilization (and leader) it's like playing a different game. Preserving nature with Maori, settling tundra with Canada, cramming cities and districts with Japan, pillaging with Norway, eurekas with Babylon. I can pick the game again after two months and have a fun evening, without getting bored. Speaking of districts, I love this mechanic. It makes sense and I like the extra puzzle and planning. I see how it gives board game vibes and I'm ok with it. Seeing the Civ series as simulation games is a mistake. They never were and they can't be. The reason for that is scale - both in size and time. The map is a grid of either squares or hexagons. Each tile has one feature and units move between them. If I zoom in, I don't get sub-tiles where I can do micro decisions. This constrains how realistic the simulation can be. On a world map, a peninsula of the size of Europe can have only a handful of cities. Time have similar problems. Bronze Age passes quicker than the Modern Era. As a consequence, building the Sydney Opera House can take a hundred of years. And that's fine, because I pick gameplay over realism any time. Even the cartoonish art style doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I find it charming and unique compared to a boring, faux-realistic style of Civ5 which steps into an uncanny valley. If you want a simulation approach, pick Paradox games. I tried them and I didn't like them, but I understand why they have a cult following. They still have board game elements, but the games are designed with constraints in mind. The gameplay takes a couple of centuries at most. The map isn't randomly generated, but it's scalable. The kingdoms and nations have fixed place. These decisions are consistent and make for a fun gameplay because Paradox games don't try to do everything. It's better if Civ stays with a board-game approach. Having a clear identity is better than trying to be both "gamey" and realistic. It won't be for everyone and that's ok. For me, Civ6 is a good foundation. I'd like for Civ7 to use some ideas from Humankind, like elevated terrain, stackable armies with zoomed-in combat phase, the fame victory, and traits of a civilization that evolve over time. I'd also like to delegate parts of the game if I choose to. It would help with tedious parts and let me focus on things I find interesting.