|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Fanatical is having a sale on a lot of the Civ VI packs, as well as Civ VI for $15.00. You shouldn't pay money for Civ 6. If you must give it a go for curiosity's sake, there's a demo.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
Civ6 is well worth 15$.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Fanatical is having a sale on a lot of the Civ VI packs, as well as Civ VI for $15.00. A lot of posters have a hate boner for VI, but it is definitely worth $15. Personally I own all of the civ packs, and would recommend them each. I have never done a game as Khmer though, but Indonesia is a really fun island / water heavy map civ choice. Persia and Macedon are super powerful military civs. Don't recall which packs add what wonders, I know the viking pack is just a scenario and wonders so possibly an easy skip. Poland is probably the weakest imho (but i have a current game as them, my opinion may change, haven't played before and I don't generally prefer religion bonus civs), Australia is a flat jerk to go up against and have serious snowball potential if they get a good starting area that works well with their unique improvement. Australia also gets a super useful / nasty 10-turn (on standard speed?) 100% production boost when war declared on. I would just recommend them all though, honestly. Game isn't the dumpster fire people say it is, unless you do nothing but play AI expecting something difficult after you've already put hundreds of hours into the franchise learning every single minor detail to maximize output. Play some multiplayer games with humans, either live or via PYDT Hotseat and have fun with it. Or play nothing but AI games and post about how bad the AI is. onesixtwo fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Oct 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
I think it even holds up in singleplayer as long as you know what you're in for. It's excellent as a solo optimization puzzle, just don't expect it to emulate a multiplayer experience (which Civ has never been good at.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:I think it even holds up in singleplayer as long as you know what you're in for. It's excellent as a solo optimization puzzle, just don't expect it to emulate a multiplayer experience (which Civ has never been good at.) Civ4 was great for that. Same with Civ2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
the Civ5 thread spent years praising Civ4 for not having the AI act like it was playing a multiplayer game Civ2 didn't even bother using the same mechanics for AI civs
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
onesixtwo posted:A lot of posters have a hate boner for VI, but it is definitely worth $15. Personally I own all of the civ packs, and would recommend them each. I have never done a game as Khmer though, but Indonesia is a really fun island / water heavy map civ choice. Persia and Macedon are super powerful military civs. Don't recall which packs add what wonders, I know the viking pack is just a scenario and wonders so possibly an easy skip. Poland is probably the weakest imho (but i have a current game as them, my opinion may change, haven't played before and I don't generally prefer religion bonus civs), Australia is a flat jerk to go up against and have serious snowball potential if they get a good starting area that works well with their unique improvement. Australia also gets a super useful / nasty 10-turn (on standard speed?) 100% production boost when war declared on. This guy fucks. Also. Buy the Indonesia pack for their Atomic theme, what a masterpiece.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
Also, buy the Australia pack for the scenario in it, which has such a different set of rules and objectives it’s like a completely different puzzle-game of its own
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 12:23
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Fanatical is having a sale on a lot of the Civ VI packs, as well as Civ VI for $15.00. Civ VI is fine if you like civ games. It's different from 5, but I'm not sure I'd say it is really better or worse. If you're an average player you'll probably get through at least a game or two before its flaws become really obvious. The packs don't add much replay value though. Civ abilities just aren't strong enough to make the game feel different. If there's some particular race you like, go for it, but otherwise save your money. I'd probably recommend getting Endless Legends or Endless Space 2 first if you don't have that though. Endless Space 2 is in space, but it plays more like a civ game. Endless Legend has much more interesting flavor and more unique races, but its combat is even less well balanced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
If you like fun then a CIV game is always a good bet! (except for civ2)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 09:27
|
|
|
LLSix posted:Civ VI is fine if you like civ games. It's different from 5, but I'm not sure I'd say it is really better or worse. If you're an average player you'll probably get through at least a game or two before its flaws become really obvious. The packs don't add much replay value though. Civ abilities just aren't strong enough to make the game feel different. If there's some particular race you like, go for it, but otherwise save your money. After waffling forever on buying civ 6, a friend got it for me as a gift during the last sale. I picked Sumeria for a game yesterday to give it a shot and... Well, it didn't gel. It felt really slow, samey, and convoluted. It takes forever to go anywhere or do anything, and when you are done it doesn't feel like you've changed anything. I can see the good changes from 5 (great person bids, social policy card combos, etc), but they are not enough to make the game hold my interest. I played for 2 hours and it felt like I had been at it for double that time, which is the opposite of how it usually goes for me with games like Civ and EU4 ("Alright, gonna play for a little bit...holy poo poo it's 3AM!") Still going to try to at least finish a campaign, but it's not the kind of game that makes you eager to play it again. Not a Master of Orion 3 kind of letdown, just...fails to hook.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
civ 6 is actually complete poo poo. amateurs regularly make better games on their very first try.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Prav posted:civ 6 is actually complete poo poo. amateurs regularly make better games on their very first try. Ok I'll call your bluff. What indie game is better than civ 6 in its category?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Pewdiepie posted:Ok I'll call your bluff. What indie game is better than civ 6 in its category? FTL. Speulnky. The entire roguelike genre. Unless you meant "in the Civilization genre" in which there are no good indie entries to my knowledge, so sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
do the endless [x] games count as indie? cause as many problems as i have with those i'd rahter play them than civ 6
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Civ 6 is pretty broken, too bad because the "city improvements built on the map" concept was a good idea. In fact, civ 5 and 6 are basically a series of good ideas bungled by awful execution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
For all the "game feels the same" complains about Civ6, you beat EL once with each race and that's it. Civ6 has replayability in MP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
Endless Legend is such garbage and the AI is even more broken than Civ 6.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
That's very true about EL/ES2, but that also means about 4+ playthroughs before the casual player bores of it, which is generally "your money's worth". I played god-knows how many civ5 games, but only 2-3 civ6 games before finishing it on deity and losing all interest. I probably played that great many civ5 games because I came back to the series to a completed civ5 after not touching it since civ2, so I was willing to learn its ins and outs. The transferable skillset made civ6's errors quite glaring imo. Civ as a multiplayer game is an alien concept to me still, so no comment there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
Serephina posted:FTL. Sounds like amateurs do not in fact regularly make better games than civ 6.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
True, but amateurs aren't charging $60 for their mediocre games and trading on the name brand of a once proud franchise
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
Pewdiepie posted:Sounds like amateurs do not in fact regularly make better games than civ 6. I'm not sure if you're a troll, or are wearing that name legitimately and actually are the internet's biggest fuckwit, no small achievement. But personal attacks aside, let's run it down; Civ6 has 66% on steam. This is thirty one thousand fans, and even if we hand-wave the literal clientele aside, other review aggregators aren't generous either. Metacritic gave it an 88, and this is including all of the inflated scores that come with major review sites and their tendency to highly rate AAA games, games journalism yadda yadda. Point is, Civ6's not been well received. Many, many, indie games are. "Regularly", even. Now, the first post made a strong claim of "amateurs regularly make better games on their very first try." which I won't try to defend. I don't really know how many attempts it takes ever dev to strike gold, but where I did respond was to you asking: Pewdiepie posted:Ok I'll call your bluff. What indie game is better than civ 6 in its category? So, for that last thing you said, you're either claiming a game that's been slammed by its player base and at it's best only faintly praised, is somehow still better than any innumerable indie games, or are pulling some No True Scotsman poo poo as a weak burn against famous games you personally didn't like, or (imo the real case here), you're just a wanker with poor taste pulling out one-liners and dashing off. Who's named himself after Barney-turned-hitler-youth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Civ 6 is pretty broken, too bad because the "city improvements built on the map" concept was a good idea. In fact, civ 5 and 6 are basically a series of good ideas bungled by awful execution. Seriously, and I hope they keep that district system
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
I think that basically civ's best form was IV and every attempt to freshen up the series in later games inherently detracted from the thing civ is, which is a get about efficient resource generation using a crude spatial map to designate the allocation of raw materials on the map. Tech, war, espionage and everything else is inherently about defending resource generating nodes (cities). Civ 5 fundamentally failed when it decided to enlarge the tactical picture with 1upt, and civ 6 kept this flawed system. Even far more war focused 4x games than civ do not clutter up the strategic layer to add tactical depth. Master of magic, age of wonders and endless legend just add a secondary tactical map. Because "flanking" at the operational scale is not a thing, and because the demands of an interesting chessboard for tactical maneuvering and the demands of an interesting logistics puzzle map for resource gathering do not pair well. Culture generation as a secondary tech tree was a good, poorly balanced idea in civ 5 for a long time. The trade goods added some diplomatic depth. Adding districts in civ 6 is a good idea, but the developers failed to reconcile the necessity of production versus everything else. Eureka moments for tech are good, but they're too farmable, and dictate your strategy because of the gated tech tree structure of civ. (Civ could stand to lose it's "tree" structure and perhaps have a bag of tech each era) Civ 5'a modders did a great job justifying this system, and modded civ 5 is amazing, but 1upt in no way adds to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
Reminder that CIv6 had "Positive" reviews until that weird file thing that supposedly exposes my Peruvian secrets to the devs. Civ6 multiplayers always has like 8 games at all times tho so it is very much alive (2min fixed timer at online speed most of them).
turboraton fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Oct 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
I enjoy Civ 6.John F Bennett posted:If you like fun then a CIV game is always a good bet! (except for civ2)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 08:33
|
|
|
Serephina posted:I'm not sure if you're a troll, or are wearing that name legitimately and actually are the internet's biggest fuckwit, no small achievement. But personal attacks aside, let's run it down; "Are there good indie 4X games that are similar to the Civ series" is a perfectly fair question, and I'm not sure why you feel the need to go off on a big tangent about a bunch of unrelated genres. Nobody said a bad word about indie games as a concept.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 11:02
|
|
|
turboraton posted:Reminder that CIv6 had "Positive" reviews until that weird file thing that supposedly exposes my Peruvian secrets to the devs. Civ6 multiplayers always has like 8 games at all times tho so it is very much alive (2min fixed timer at online speed most of them). It's interesting that Civ 5 has more players than Civ 6 and has done for most of the game's lifespan, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 11:24
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:True, but amateurs aren't charging $60 for their mediocre games and trading on the name brand of a once proud franchise It's all the DLC packs that annoy me, I want to play the "complete" game, but after paying individually for the main game and then the expansion*, it's very grating that you're then expected to pay for new civs (and the wonders etc. that come with them). *Not much in either case but enough that I expect to have the game's contents included!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Civ 5 fundamentally failed when it decided to enlarge the tactical picture with 1upt, and civ 6 kept this flawed system. On the other hand, 1upt is the best decision strategy games ever made in my opinion. I've never been able to go back to games with unit stacks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
I do like 1UPT in general but I don't really think it's essential and the game would probably be better without it. Conceptually it's fine but it's not at all AI-friendly. I don't think the little bits that it adds are worth the crippling the bad AI or putting up with the busywork of sorting out log jams.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
1 UPT would be fine if the AI could play with it, and if it didn't apply to civilian units.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
Ranged units in Civ are also a very bad idea
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
Absolutely. Retaliation-free bombardment was a bad idea in Civ 3, and 1UPT magnifies the problem massively, since it means much fewer ranged units are needed for critical mass. In wargames, 1UPT works for me, since they have a much larger hinterland-to-objectives ratio, and upped unit speeds to match. But no wargame I've played has the option on engaging the enemy without taking damage. If Civ 7 implements those parts, and scraps ranged attacks, I might well find the combat fun. That'd be a first for a Civ game. IME their combat systems are mostly a question of bad and worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
VI's greatest fault is that it carries over every mistake from V. There are many very simple things, that a competent player will notice only after hours of playing, yet Firaxis refuses to address them. Religion is a mess. We have weird poo poo like great prophet points being useless after the last great prophet is born, yet there are still abilities that allow you to generate great prophet points much later than they would ever be needed. Add the religious victory to that and nobody has any reason to allow the spread of religions that aren't their own, even when they would otherwise not have any reason to object to the religious spread in their territory. What is the point of city-states if the AI will just roll over them in the first 15 turns of every game? There's also the fact that trading barely helps the target city. It's giant step down from V, where you could actually influence the balance of world power by trading with smaller nations, or by not trading with larger ones. It also made trading less powerful in other ways because you had to actually help another playing if you wanted to trade with them. Trading is just a one-way street in VI, so you're just making trade routes and printing money with no real interaction with the other players. The game is so close to being good, but the problems are so glaring yet easily fixed, that one must wonder if they've only made a game as "good" as VI by accident. Seriously, why can't they even fix something like this two years after release? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
Gort posted:It's interesting that Civ 5 has more players than Civ 6 and has done for most of the game's lifespan, though. Not really. Its a budget game that's been out for like 10 years - of course it has a larger userbase. However, no accounting for taste, as Civ 6 is objectively better in multiplayer... Or do you people really like settling only 4 cities, doing the exact same thing every game? Civ 5 has some insanely boring multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Civ5 barely has functioning multiplayer, and a lot of the time not even that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
Pewdiepie posted:Not really. Its a budget game that's been out for like 10 years - of course it has a larger userbase. However, no accounting for taste, as Civ 6 is objectively better in multiplayer... Or do you people really like settling only 4 cities, doing the exact same thing every game? Civ 5 has some insanely boring multiplayer. Most 10-year-old games don't have the staying power that Civ 5 does. It's hard to deny that it's just straight up more popular. Which, yeah, is kind of baffling. Civ 5 and 6 have equally crippled AI, the difference is that Civ 5 also has a crippled game for the AI to play. The AI in Civ 6 also feels more competitive if you restrict yourself to 4 cities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
There are plenty of people for whom the AI understanding how to play or not simply doesn't matter. I'm one of them. I play 4X games to sit back, relax, and build a pretty looking empire. Combat is merely a sporadic and unwelcome annoyance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
I fully agree with that, Cythereal. IMO, the discouragement of expansion in Civ 5 is a far bigger problem than the problems with the combat. Civ 6 sounds like it has better peacetime gameplay than 5, but it doesn't sound like enough of an improvement to 4 for me to spend money on it. Especially not since Civ 4 has so many good mods to vary things up. As for multiplayer, I must admit I'm surprised if Civ 6 has a significant multiplayer userbase. I've never had the impression that that was the case for any of the prior Civ games. Admittedly, It's not something I've looked into, since multiplayer generally isn't my thing at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 19:12
|
|