Civ VI Discussion

[VoxRationis]

So have people seen the preview videos? Played it somehow? What do people think of the upcoming Civilization game?

I personally like how the districts system enshrines in mechanics the urban sprawl that was present in graphics only in Civ V. However, I'm concerned that it will result in the "build tall" strategy being more geographically limited than it was before, as the space requirement for a good city is increased. I do like what I've seen of the new "encampment" district being a secondary defense point, though, and that is a point in the "build tall" strategy's favor. In Civ V, having wide culture borders often meant that you were powerless to defend most of your cities' territory, since the defense range of your cities was static. The strongest defensive geography required building cities as close to one another as possible.

[AdmiralCheez]

I do like that large cities can expand beyond one tile, something that bothered me in older games. I am a little concerned that the different district types will all end up looking the same (like, every science district has the same art asset, every industry, etc.). For something that's supposed to make cities look more organic, nothing would kill that faster than having repetitive districts all over the map.

[GAAD]

The first time I saw the district system, my first thought was "Sweet Kiia, they're ripping off Endless Legend!"

They're not quite, as in EL districts are also responsible for resource collection, but it definitely seems inspired.

Anyway, I might buy it, but I'll wait until all the DLC comes out. Plus, I don't want to get burned like with CivBE.

[anjxed]

Well my first thought is, Sean Bean will not die in this clip.

It really looks nice. Almost the same as Civ 5 but with tweaks.

[LibraryOgre]

My hope is that they ditch the BC/AD year numbering system. How many times have you had Catholicism founded in 1500 BC? I used to like the Ice Age start just to get rid of that.

[Hunter Noventa]

I've been watching some of the pre-release gameplay and I'm fairly excited about it. I was a little worried at first about the changes to research, how you'd need a coastal city before you could effectively research sailing, etc, but it's just a boost, not a requirement, which is nice.

I do hope there's at least some variety in the way districts look, but at the very least you won't be building every district in every city, since a lot of the districts key off of terrain features. Like, Holy Sites seem to benefit from mountains, you're not going to build one for a city with no mountains nearby, which will cute down some on the repetition.

I'm quite excited really.

[VoxRationis]

My hope is that they ditch the BC/AD year numbering system. How many times have you had Catholicism founded in 1500 BC? I used to like the Ice Age start just to get rid of that.

I like it myself; it provides a nice little "ghost" to race against in terms of tech.

I've been watching some of the pre-release gameplay and I'm fairly excited about it. I was a little worried at first about the changes to research, how you'd need a coastal city before you could effectively research sailing, etc, but it's just a boost, not a requirement, which is nice.

I'm quite excited really.

I like how the research boosts reflect the effect circumstances have on the invention of technology. I am worried that it'll make bad start locations worse for a civ (if the resources and circumstances around you don't allow rapid advancement along the route that suits your civilization), but that's not a huge issue if the start bias is well-done.

[Siosilvar]

My hope is that they ditch the BC/AD year numbering system. How many times have you had Catholicism founded in 1500 BC? I used to like the Ice Age start just to get rid of that.

Not gonna happen. At this point it's one of the series's sacred cows to start in 4000 BC.

Then again, I would have thought the same thing about the square grid and unit stacks, and Civ 5 blew both of those out of the water.

[Hunter Noventa]

I like it myself; it provides a nice little "ghost" to race against in terms of tech.


I like how the research boosts reflect the effect circumstances have on the invention of technology. I am worried that it'll make bad start locations worse for a civ (if the resources and circumstances around you don't allow rapid advancement along the route that suits your civilization), but that's not a huge issue if the start bias is well-done.

That's true, if you're a civilization that benefits greatly from ocean access, and you're landlocked, that'll be a problem. But that's something that's always been a factor in civilization.

What might be nice is if some of the boosts had some kind of secondary versions, easier to get requirements that provide a lesser boost,but you only get the greater boost of the two. Like say, if settling a city on a coast boosts a particular tech by 50%, settling on a lake or river could boost it by 25%. If you settle on a river first, and then the coast later, you still only get the 25% boost.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I quite like how different the civs feel now - their bonuses are all powerful and yet quite different. Will make playing with different civs feel a lot different than they used to in the past, I think. For example: Rome gives free roads to new cities, whilst Russia has cities start with 12 hexes, rather than the usual 6.

As to the looks of the districts? Meh, after a while you are sufficiently zoomed out that you'd be hard pressed to see the individual buildings. I do like that the districts are colour-coded (science: blue roofs; faith: white walls; etc.), meaning you can tell at a glance what the city has. Another great innovation: cities not adjacent to a coast can simply build a shipyard in said coast to be able to build ships.

Edit:
Re: starting positions: I suspect that civilizations with strong terrain bonuses will start in that terrain (Russia has a bonus for Tundra, it'd be silly if you were dropped in the equator)

Grey Wolf

[Hunter Noventa]

Edit:
Re: starting positions: I suspect that civilizations with strong terrain bonuses will start in that terrain (Russia has a bonus for Tundra, it'd be silly if you were dropped in the equator)

Grey Wolf

That's like to be weighted towards it, yes. Russia wont' start inthe tundra 100% of the time, no, but 60% of the time they'll be right in it, 20% of the time it'll be easy to get their second city into it, and 20% of the time they won't have it at all. Weighted RNG is still RNG, and that's what makes playing 4x Games INTERESTING.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's like to be weighted towards it, yes. Russia wont' start inthe tundra 100% of the time, no, but 60% of the time they'll be right in it, 20% of the time it'll be easy to get their second city into it, and 20% of the time they won't have it at all. Weighted RNG is still RNG, and that's what makes playing 4x Games INTERESTING.

[citation needed], especially on those 60/20/20 percentages. Also, that's not what I find interesting, or even INTERESTING, about 4x games.

GW

[factotum]

From everything I've seen this looks like it's going to be the most "complete" Civ game at launch we've had in a while. Civ 5, and to a lesser extent Civ 4, were not great at launch but later became much better--this one looks like it might actually be worth getting straight out of the gates. I like the updated UI and the district system, and I'm interested to see how the split between science research and civics research works out.

[VoxRationis]

From everything I've seen this looks like it's going to be the most "complete" Civ game at launch we've had in a while. Civ 5, and to a lesser extent Civ 4, were not great at launch but later became much better--this one looks like it might actually be worth getting straight out of the gates. I like the updated UI and the district system, and I'm interested to see how the split between science research and civics research works out.

That split was due a long time ago. Having things like "Drama and Poetry" linked behind purely material technologies was ridiculous. You couldn't imitate cultures with advanced material culture but little social organization, or the reverse. I also like the "card"-style policies, since it allows for a culture that actually changes and evolves, rather than just adding (mutually contradictory) social policies.

[moossabi]

All in all the game looks good (although I won't get it at release and just wait until the holiday season rolls around), but the wonders seem less worth building than they were in civ 5. The policies (IMO) are better than in civ 5, and there's actually some ideological conflict potential from the get-go.

However, and this may just be me being a conspiracy theorist, it's rather odd that so far nobody has recorded encountering Venice or Sydney as a city state. This is interesting because both were ideal candidates for the system (Venice probably being one of the most famous city states in history), and yet they were intentionally left out. Maybe this means that they'll be some of the initial 1-civ DLC packs?

It'd be cool to have an Australian civ in the game (since many have been requesting it for a while), and Venice was really unique and fun to play back in Civ 5 so they'd be fairly cool with the more extreme civ abilities. Thoughts?

(Then again, maybe they were cut because there are wonders based on them and it'd be really weird to have Rome build the Sydney Opera house when Sydney was a thousand miles away)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

(Then again, maybe they were cut because there are wonders based on them and it'd be really weird to have Rome build the Sydney Opera house when Sydney was a thousand miles away)

Hasn't stopped them from throwing in Oxford University, even though I'd be surprised if Oxford isn't one of England's pre-defined city names.

GW

[moossabi]

Hasn't stopped them from throwing in Oxford University, even though I'd be surprised if Oxford isn't one of England's pre-defined city names.

GW

Makes sense.

Also, I just realized that the Sydney Opera house and the city state itself were both present in 5, so my 'of course' doesn't actually hold up at all.

[Hunter Noventa]

[citation needed], especially on those 60/20/20 percentages. Also, that's not what I find interesting, or even INTERESTING, about 4x games.

GW

Oh I was just pulling numbers out of thin air as an example of the rough proportions you might see, not trying to provide exact data. And that's fine that it's not the part that engages you. I personally enjoy trying to adapt to different scenarios that don't necessarily play to the strengths of whatever Civilization I'm controlling.

I know that some Civ games have had a setting where it tries to place civilizations near their contemporaries (i.e. placing Greece, Egypt and Rome in the same area), but I don't recall if there's ever been one to encourage appropriate terrain for starts. It wouldn't be a bad setting to have mind you, but I'd like to be able to turn it on or off at me leisure.

[factotum]

I know that some Civ games have had a setting where it tries to place civilizations near their contemporaries (i.e. placing Greece, Egypt and Rome in the same area), but I don't recall if there's ever been one to encourage appropriate terrain for starts.

Civ 5 already has that--civilizations have a terrain preference which is taken into account when the game places your first settler at the beginning; so, you're more likely to be near a desert when playing Arabia, and almost certain to be coastal when playing England or Carthage.

[Alcibiades]

Yeah, terrain bias was a major thing in Civ V, to the extent that communities who play a lot of multiplayer and have tier lists consider coastal and tundra start biases a con for a civ because those tiles are usually worth less. (Desert is a gamble because of petra)

[Hunter Noventa]

Civ 5 already has that--civilizations have a terrain preference which is taken into account when the game places your first settler at the beginning; so, you're more likely to be near a desert when playing Arabia, and almost certain to be coastal when playing England or Carthage.

Ah that would do it.

I might be thinking of a 'Culturally Appropriate Stating Location' setting that might have been in Civ IV or one of the mods for that I played.

[VoxRationis]

From what I've seen thus far, I can note another change which I like—the removal of the diplomatic victory and the World Congress, which was a whole pile of ridiculousness. The entire affair came down in effect to how well one could bribe city-states, and no good reason was ever given for why the other nations would pay any heed to the workings of so obviously rigged a system. Membership in and obedience to the World Congress was obligatory, regardless of previous isolationism, which also made no sense—and to add insult to injury, most of the World Congress' time was spent trying to ban your luxury goods for no reason except spite. I have no reservations in seeing that feature removed.

[Hunter Noventa]

From what I've seen thus far, I can note another change which I like—the removal of the diplomatic victory and the World Congress, which was a whole pile of ridiculousness. The entire affair came down in effect to how well one could bribe city-states, and no good reason was ever given for why the other nations would pay any heed to the workings of so obviously rigged a system. Membership in and obedience to the World Congress was obligatory, regardless of previous isolationism, which also made no sense—and to add insult to injury, most of the World Congress' time was spent trying to ban your luxury goods for no reason except spite. I have no reservations in seeing that feature removed.

Yeah I'm certainly not going to complain about that. I never liked the Diplomatic victories or Religious victories, and usually turn them off.

The other awful thing about the World Congress, at least in V, was that if you controlled it, you HAD to propose something. There was no option for 'No I don't want to do any of this stuff.'

[VoxRationis]

The other awful thing about the World Congress, at least in V, was that if you controlled it, you HAD to propose something. There was no option for 'No I don't want to do any of this stuff.'

Good point; I had forgotten about that. Leading, of course, to situations where you vote against your own proposal, because it was against your interests.

[moossabi]

Another Greek leader announced, but with the City-State bonuses replaced by the Aztecs' ability from 5.

[VoxRationis]

Seems kind of a strange ability to accord the Greeks (I thought it worked well for the Aztecs), but it's good that we're seeing alternate leaders. I hope they release an alternate Egyptian leader soon. Cleopatra is an awful choice.

[Hunter Noventa]

Seems kind of a strange ability to accord the Greeks (I thought it worked well for the Aztecs), but it's good that we're seeing alternate leaders. I hope they release an alternate Egyptian leader soon. Cleopatra is an awful choice.

I'm rather glad to have multiple leaders again, that was something missing from V I feel.

I just hope VI is as mod-friendly as V was.

[moossabi]

Seems kind of a strange ability to accord the Greeks (I thought it worked well for the Aztecs), but it's good that we're seeing alternate leaders. I hope they release an alternate Egyptian leader soon. Cleopatra is an awful choice.

Well, the Spartans were historically a warrior culture and gained honor through battle. Here it's represented with culture upon victory over your opponent, which fits Sparta pretty well IMO.

Cleopatra is probably the most recognizable Egyptian leader that isn't Tutankhamen (who would make a far worse choice since all he did was die with a bunch of stuff in his tomb), so technically it's an alright pick. Then again, maybe they were trying to dodge backlashofthesortwhichimnotsureisappropriatetotalk aboutonthisforum^TM, which would actually explain a lot of the more bizarre choices (we need Napoleon back!).

[VoxRationis]

Well, the Spartans were historically a warrior culture and gained honor through battle. Here it's represented with culture upon victory over your opponent, which fits Sparta pretty well IMO.

Cleopatra is probably the most recognizable Egyptian leader that isn't Tutankhamen (who would make a far worse choice since all he did was die with a bunch of stuff in his tomb), so technically it's an alright pick. Then again, maybe they were trying to dodge backlashofthesortwhichimnotsureisappropriatetotalk aboutonthisforum^TM, which would actually explain a lot of the more bizarre choices (we need Napoleon back!).

All Cleopatra did was back the wrong side in a Roman civil war and get her country annexed for her trouble. She wasn't even Egyptian. Rameses II, Thuthmose, or Hatshepshut would be more appropriate.

[moossabi]

All Cleopatra did was back the wrong side in a Roman civil war and get her country annexed for her trouble. She wasn't even Egyptian. Rameses II, Thuthmose, or Hatshepshut would be more appropriate.

Actually yeah, Hatshepsut would've been better. I fully support your analysis.