EPTSid Meier's Civilization VI - Page 32
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
| ||
|
iamho
United States3347 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
of course that means i can't stop playing it anyway lol | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 02 2016 12:29 DeepElemBlues wrote: there's a lot of little changes that would make this game so much better which i'm sure will be made six months from now even though it shouldn't take that long of course that means i can't stop playing it anyway lol Yeah, the game needs some polish, but the core gameplay is very solid -- much better than Civ 5 in my opinion. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On November 02 2016 10:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Third time that had to force restart computer when I saved then tried to exit to desktop  Also has anyone successfully created a National Park yet? Yes, I found out that the 4 contiguous hexes can't be diagonal. The diamond has to be standing up. Planting a forest doesn't count as an improvement. I managed to put one on my national park. | ||
|
chocorush
694 Posts
On November 02 2016 11:48 iamho wrote: What with the happiness system from Civ V replaced with city-specific happiness, is there any reason not to mass as many cities as possible? I feel like the main deterrent to expansion is that production is so weak in the early game and cities need quite a lot of investment before they pay off (especially because of limited workers). The workaround of course is to just put your hammers into military and take cities from the AI with their ridiculous bonuses that come with all those free districts and improved land. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
When do you guys build a monument in your capital? I've always skipped it but it seems to make sense to get it early as the initial culture is too low and your capital needs border pops the most. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 02 2016 13:22 zulu_nation8 wrote: I built 4 national parks in my last game. It helps a lot if you have enough culture that your borders expand to beyond just the tiles you can work. When do you guys build a monument in your capital? I've always skipped it but it seems to make sense to get it early as the initial culture is too low and your capital needs border pops the most. I usually squeeze in the monument after I've built a settler, builder, and at least 4-5 military units. | ||
|
chocorush
694 Posts
One exception might be if you're playing an extra wildcard civ like Greece. Being able to get double the faith early on seems like it can be advantageous. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
chocorush
694 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 02 2016 14:19 Yoav wrote: Am I missing something? Monument has nothing to do with faith, right? No, you're not missing anything. | ||
|
fishjie
United States1519 Posts
| ||
|
WindWolf
Sweden11767 Posts
On November 02 2016 17:56 fishjie wrote: I played civ 2, 3, and 4 and enjoyed all three. I read that Civ5 dumbed down a bunch of mechanics, and I never got around to trying it out. How does Civ 6 compare with its predecessors? I only briefly touched 4 and played lots of 5,so I cannot compare it to the older games. But almost all mechanics from 5 returned in 6 in some form. And many of them are improved imho The only exception is world congress, but I am glad that is gone. It felt very flawed when I once got a diplo victory without even trying | ||
|
chocorush
694 Posts
On November 02 2016 17:56 fishjie wrote: I played civ 2, 3, and 4 and enjoyed all three. I read that Civ5 dumbed down a bunch of mechanics, and I never got around to trying it out. How does Civ 6 compare with its predecessors? Civ 2, 3, and 4 are more iterative in design, with each game improving and fixing the problems of the predecessors. I would say that Civ 5 is a fundamentally different game (not necessarily dumbed down). Civ 6 is more like an iterative improvement to Civ 5, and by extension is fundamentally different from Civ 4. It does not, however, fix the core problems that many people who don't like Civ 5 have with the game. Specifically stupid AI, slow pacing, and the absolute tedium of 1UPT and lack of roads. These problems are probably even worse in this particular build of the game. Pretty much, if you like Civ 5, you will probably like Civ 6. If you hate Civ 5, you will probably hate Civ 6, but there isn't really a direct relationship between Civ 5 and Civ 4. | ||
|
Yurie
12079 Posts
On November 02 2016 23:52 chocorush wrote: Civ 2, 3, and 4 are more iterative in design, with each game improving and fixing the problems of the predecessors. I would say that Civ 5 is a fundamentally different game (not necessarily dumbed down). Civ 6 is more like an iterative improvement to Civ 5, and by extension is fundamentally different from Civ 4. It does not, however, fix the core problems that many people who don't like Civ 5 have with the game. Specifically stupid AI, slow pacing, and the absolute tedium of 1UPT and lack of roads. These problems are probably even worse in this particular build of the game. Pretty much, if you like Civ 5, you will probably like Civ 6. If you hate Civ 5, you will probably hate Civ 6, but there isn't really a direct relationship between Civ 5 and Civ 4. They did improve on one unit per tile by allowing merging into stronger units and allowing a guarding unit to follow non-combat ones on the same tile. Mass stacking wasn't all that much fun either, this still hasn't hit the happy medium but is closer. I personally feel Civ 6 is a fun game at release that is likely to be much better as time passes with DLCs and similar. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
chocorush
694 Posts
But if you like the carpet of doom versus the stack, then that's completely an issue of taste. I don't feel like Civ 6 really fixes the core problem that moving around a carpet is a pain in the ass, especially with single tile wide roads. Corps lets you have stronger units in your carpet, but the shape that you move around is still the same. For me, the stack is fine, because the AI can compensate for its tactical deficiencies by just building more stuff, while the AI in the carpet is completely incompetent. I also don't get any displeasure moving a stack, while the carpet still pisses me off after hundreds of hours of Civ 5. On November 03 2016 00:25 xDaunt wrote: The biggest problem with Civ 5 were the mechanics that discouraged wide strategies. "Civilization building" was a big step back compared to previous iterations of the game. The hex system and 1UPT were both big improvements, as was the revamping of the economy system (let's face it, the implications of cottage spam in Civ 4 sucked). Civ 6 takes Civ 5 and improves on most everything. The biggest drawbacks are the military tech tree (which frankly was just about perfect in BNW and shouldn't have been changed) and diplomacy with AIs (which is currently a shitshow). Wide strategies only disappeared with BNW because of the idiotic tech penalty. ICS was very much a thing in Civ 5 vanilla and G&K. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
The movement changes increased the traffic jams in Civ 6. A 2 movement unit in Civ 5 can get past a blocking non-hostile unit by moving 2 tiles ahead. With hills, forests and rivers in Civ 6, that's no longer possible. Roads also don't improve base movement at all until the modern age. All they do beforehand is make every tile a 1 movement tile. | ||
| ||
