Pre-Release CIV VI Discussion

[BRickAstley]

Please note, that I'm not actually down on any of the Firaxis choices. Civ5 was a massive success and much loved by a huge fanbase; they would be completely stupid to make it more like Civ4 than Civ5.

I listened to a podcast recently with Soren Johnson and Jon Shafer (I think it was linked on here somewhere?) Where the comment was made that the Civilization series always rode a razor edge between being mechanically deep and thematically rich. With Civ V it took a measured step towards casual appeal and the thematic side, while stepping further from the deep mechanics that we love to exploit and explore on here. Civ VI, as you said, would be silly to not continue down that road.

Since obviously the combination game is too hard, they should just make a storytelling thematic game, and then the deep empire engine game people here on RB would kill for.

[LKendter]

It almost feels like 5 deluxe from the description.

I only got 5 when it came as part of a massive humble bundle for $15. I was not impressed. I've still only played a handful of games. The only good thing was a late game turn took about the same as an early turn. Overall, it was to much sit around and wait for the next item to arrive.
Right now *IF* i could find the time I would rather finish one of a ton of half-complete Civ4 games from RB challenges where I missed the deadline and lost interest, then try 5 at harder settings.

[Rowain]

Sceptical

The map influences tech-choice thing sounds too much like "We will tell you what you can research" taking decisions out of the players hand and making it even more to a the game plays you- experience.

[The Black Sword]

'Having stone makes masonry a better tech, being coastal makes Sailing a better tech' - but the game already works that way!

Looking forward to seeing the whole thing though.

[Bobchillingworth]

Between continuing with the 1UPT and city improvements now occupying map space, the series is increasingly coming to resemble Warlock: Master of the Arcane. Warlock was actually a very solid combat-oriented 4X game, but it was incredibly shallow compared to Civ IV.


Also that RPS article talking about 1UPT as if it was some sort of revolutionary fucking concept is genuinely rage-worthy.

[Jowy]

'Having stone makes masonry a better tech, being coastal makes Sailing a better tech' - but the game already works that way!

Looking forward to seeing the whole thing though.

I think it said you get a research boost towards the tech. It's interesting at least, like say in Civ4 you get a research boost towards Aesthetics from some map element. Since it's now cheaper, you might actually choose to research it earlier than normally.

[Dp101]

It sounds a lot like Endless Legend from the multi-tile cities thing.

[The Black Sword]

I think it said you get a research boost towards the tech.

I know, but the goal is to make your research path map dependent and that's already the case. If I have forests then I'm more likely to research Maths for the chop bonus, if I have stone I'm more likely to research Masonry to build the Pyramids, if I'm coastal I'm more likely to research Sailing for Moai/trade routes/exploration.

It is another way to tune things but it doesn't seem revolutionary.

[Ichabod]

The graphics look like Clash of Clans or something of the sorts...

Ok, I'm done bashing.

----

“You can’t just burn through the tech tree the same way in every game because the map is going to force you to think through things.”

That's worrisome, coming from the lead designer. Forcing people in a strategy/decision-based game seems a bit like an oxymoron.

And I agree on the comment that it sounds a lot like Endless Legend. But what they've said about diplomacy and how cities will work with districts, which get bonus from terrains. To be fair, I haven't played much of that game, but I heard good things about it, so maybe that's a good thing.

They may actually go for the Endless Legend design of making every Civ very different from the other ones, seeing how the designer had good things to say about Polynesia and Venice, in Civ 5.

----

By the way, the guy that wrote the article is terrible. What's this supposed to mean:

"I’m increasingly coming to expect new games – particularly sequels – to act as a foundation for future growth rather than as a continuation of what came before".

If something is a foundation for the future, the next thing will be a continuation of what came before. Saying it's two different things doesn't make any sense...

[pindicator]

So formations are just being able to move a bunch of units around together? I hope the process for moving units around becomes less tedious, that was such a big frustration in V. Support units seem like a good improvement, but I'm just as skeptical as everyone else here.