|
This game has a lot of great ideas, but it needs a bit of tweaking and balancing... Bear in mind, I put in a good 150-200 hours into Civ V, so it could also just be me having to get used to the new one. - I like districts, but sometimes they can gently caress you over a bit. You actually kinda want to build your city with a few tiles of space between it and any resources to make sure you have room for the districts. Especially if you want to build a bunch of wonders. I like this because it makes city building a lot more interesting. - I feel like there's less unit progression, but that could be me doing a poo poo job of the research tree. I was stuck with Roman Legions (who seem a tad overpowered) for aaaaaaages until I discovered gunpowder. In fact, the research tree confuses me at the moment, but that could be just a lack of familiarity - The AI needs to be less pissy with you for starting wars. I like that there's a bunch of ways to reduce the penalty, but it still seems a tad harsh if you want to kick Spain off your continent because they settled some useless 2 person city on it. - Speaking of which, I was used to having 3 or 4 cities to manage in Civ V, but now I feel like they want you to have a whole bunch of cities? Is it still possible to puppet cities? - The map is cool as poo poo, but I do wish the colours weren't as bright. - For the love of gently caress. Put a "Restart Game" button back in the Escape Menu for the first 3 turns. Having to go through the whole setting up process each time is a pain.
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
So far, I love Civ VI. It's not without its flaws though. - What would speed up the game a fuckload would be the ability to build stuff FROM your districts. It'd be cool to build granaries and poo poo from your city center, but units from your military districts, traders from your commercial district etc. etc. etc. You could develop your cities while building an army at the same time. - Civs need to be a whole lot less lovely about war. I was on a continent with China and Russia. Russia tried to invade me. I beat his army and took control of his capital and another city because then it joined my territory to his. China invaded me with warriors when I had infantry. They lost their capital as well. Even though I did not declare war, every Civ constantly denounces me for being a warmonger. I don't mind a BIT of a penalty, but there's no hope of me getting any sort of alliances or stuff going now. It's a bit too extreme. - The unit progression needs a few more steps because you can seriously get hosed if you don't have the right resource. I went from Roman Legionaries -> Infantry because I didn't have any Ninite. I was a fair way ahead of the other civs in all other scientific respects, but if somebody walked in with Muskets, I would have been completely hosed. There was way too big of a gap between Swords -> Infantry and that resource-specific unit in between can make things awful if you don't have that resource. - UI needs work. The game also needs to be a fair bit more transparent in terms of new mechanics as well. I know we'll get used to it, but it'd be easier to get into the game otherwise. - Jesus gently caress fix loving trade from Civ V. But otherwise, the game kicks rear end. There's a lot of cool ideas here that I hope get expanded in future expansions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
New bug  The game sometimes won't load into the main menu. If I'm lucky and it does that, it won't load\create any new games. It does the whole speechy thing at the start, but then just sits there. I can't alt-tab out of the game or do anything and the only option is to restart. It was working fine yesterday? Was there a patch last night or something?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
There's a big problem with the unit progression. I'm going up against England who have no Iron or Ninite. We're both in the Industrial-ish age. However, I unlocked Infantry before them. That means I'm walking into their territory with Infantry who are being viciously attacked by spearmen...even though we're fairly similar in terms of tech levels (I'm just a smidge ahead)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:The game really could benefit from having some sort of medieval men-at-arms unit that requires no iron, and an early industrial rifleman unit that requires no niter. If only because then the AI can upgrade its units and you don't have to fight warriors any more in 1800 AD. I think they could make it much simpler. Everybody can build Swordsmen or Musketeers without the resource. However Musketeers built in a city which is connected to a Ninite resource will receive a +25% bonus to attack strength. Or Swordsmen who have access to an Iron Resource cost less in terms of unit maintenance. Since Production is such a valuable asset, maybe halved production time? There's value in giving a worthwhile bonus to units if you have the correct resource, but it's a bit poo poo for England to ALMOST be as advanced as I am and to be attacking me with spears when I have Infantry.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
I think a massive improvement would be zoning a district rather than having to build one. EG: When your city has reached <X> population, in that turn you can zone a new district. Make a big deal out of it too so that it feels like you've accomplished something cool with your city growing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
I miss being able to puppet cities. Is there a way you can basically set cities to auto? I give a poo poo about the 3 or 4 cities I start off with, but then when I go conquering, I like being able to puppet them rather than micromanage.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
To summarise, I think the mechanics of Civ VI are awesome, it's just a pity about the AI and implementation and the balancing...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
The pacing in this game is really the death blow. Everything takes way too long to build and get going.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
I reinstalled Civ V (including BNW etc.) And...it's such a better game (at this point). To be honest, I prefer the graphical style of Civ V. I love the narrator and the quotes are better too. I like the progression better and overall it is significantly better balanced than Civ VI. I hope they do release some big-rear end expansions to bring Civ VI up to Civ V level of polish.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
So I've got back into this... I see a lot of AI players laying down TONNES of cities. In Civ V, that would be death. I'm still kinda approaching Civ VI like V in the sense that I go for about 3-4 cities and develop the poo poo out of them. Invading and razing whenever somebody gets too close. It's been working for me, but I'm wondering if Civ VI is more supportive to laying down a fuckload of cities and having a huge empire instead of a...civilisation? The other thing I dislike about having huge cities is the micromanagement aspect. Is it possible to puppet your own cities?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:If you dislike micromanagement, then I feel like this series as a whole isn't really for you. Don't get me wrong, I like micromanagement...but to a point. I like micromanagement when I'm developing something, but not when I'm repeating the same "development" 12 times over.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
CompeAnansi posted:Yeah the optimal count is really in the 12-15 range in Civ 6, which is just dumb. Sure Tradition's 3-4 tall cities in Civ 5 may have been too few, but 12-15 is silly. You honestly can't reliably win on deity unless you have, at a minimum, 8 cities in civ 6. And that's really the upper cusp of the number of cities I am interested in managing late game. They seem to be trying to promote some tall gameplay with the governors, but I doubt it'll work. They need something more to push the acceptable cities count closer to the 6-8 range. Okay, so this is a difference I'm not used to (or understand), but bear in mind that Civ V was my first Civ game. To me, it makes sense to have 3-4 AWESOME cities that are super-well developed. Everything is easily controllable, you don't need a massively huge army to protect the small chunk of land that you have and everything plods along nicely. Especially considering in the early game how long it takes to build settlers and builders etc. Since production cannot be shared amongst cities, what benefit is there to having "a minimum" of 8 cities?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
I actually think it'd be cool if districts expanded your city borders. It's pretty easy to solve the excessive micromanagement of having a shitload of cities by being able to puppet them. Generally in Civ V when I went conquering, I'd puppet every city and just focus on my starting cities.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Playing as Ambiorix at the moment. He can snowball pretty amazingly. Starting unit is more powerful than Barbs so Barbs and getting stomped by an overzealous civ is unlikely (despite the bigger production cost). On top of that, you can get a Industrial Zone super early. You can't get adjacency bonuses from any of your zones, but ones you get all your Industrial Zones up and running, soon you start making GBS threads out wonders like they're normal buildings. So you start off a bit slower, but end up snowballing so hard...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2023 03:52
|
|
|
Civ confession time: I immediately restart a game if I don't think the starting location is pretty enough.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2023 07:16
|
|
|
So I'm a teacher and all my classes are done for the year. At work I'm playing Civ V At home I'm playing Civ VI. MAN. Civ VI really does improve on Civ V in so many ways. I don't think the balance is as good, also I prefer the presentation of Civ V over VI, but when you're playing the two back to back, you really appreciate VI.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
Districts, builders and Eureka moments are such awesome gameplay elements and MAN does it suck to not have them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2023 09:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
 So I'm abandoning this game of Civ because despite these cities being stupid awesome... I'm on a continent where there's basically no oil or aluminium. Y''know, except in dumb gently caress places where I'd have to make a lovely, starving city just to harvest that resource. The other civ on the continent with me is Poland and they have literally no army. So I could take them out super easy, but then I'd just have to wait until the death robots before considering marching over to the next continent. It's one of those games where you get halfway through and to see it out to the end is so tedious you can't be stuffed. It makes me wish for a few things: 1) Simulated ending. Just so I can see the fun graphs at the end and know how it would've turned out (AKA: How much I would've won by) 2) Remote mining. Being able to mine a resource outside your territory. It prevents you from being crippled if you don't have access to a certain resource. Maybe it costs a trade route to ship those resources to\fro your cities. Maybe you need to defend it with units to prevent your mines being taken over. Either way, it's always shat me that you can sorta get hosed over by RNG of not having strategic resources in your territory.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2023 13:58
|
|