2 ms·
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 civ
by 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 agooops, 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).