FWIW Civ-VI is currently on sale on Steam for $3 (base game, DLC costs more). That’s not free but near enough. I prefer Civ-V but for $3 it is hard to say no to Civ-VI.
A PSA if you want to take advantage of that Civ 6 sale. It was apparently at some point one of Epic Game’s free games of the week so you should double check your Epic library and see if you already have it before buying (or be like me and get the same game twice).
At least the DLC for Civ-VI is also on sale on Steam so, if you are enjoying the game, you can still get some deals for buying it twice (and being out $3 isn’t the worst thing ever).
Here is the opening trailer but the full feature announcement will be announced in August so I figured while were waiting lets say and possibly debate what should and shouldn’t be in the game
First thing I want back is the old workers/engineers that were in 1-5 which ties into the district idea must die…
Also, id like the Wonders to do something useful so many of them didn’t seem to do much, especially in the later games…
whats yours ?
Have they brought back Stacks of Doom? I thought that was a huge mistake in V and VI. Yes, a really big enemy army is difficult to deal with. And?
There is another thread on this. Don’t know if they should be merged.
there is? i didnt seen it the other day when I ran a search …
Probably because I used Roman Numerals.
I’ll merge them if you want.
A really big army is easy to deal with. Just have an even bigger army. That’s the problem with the stack’o’doom mechanic: war should have more gameplay elements than just, “Who has the bigger number?”
I agree that going to one unit per hex was overall a mistake, but it wasn’t a bad idea to try something new. The maps aren’t big enough to make something like Panzer General style combat to work. At higher difficulties there are too many units causing traffic jams. But most importantly the AI is absolutely absolutely incompetent at the new combat system in Civ 5.
The AI was also incompetent in Civ 4, but this could be offset by the massive bonuses to production they got on the higher difficulties like Immortal/Deity. You were usually not going to produce a bigger doomstack than the AI on Deity, so winning required more clever tactics. I personally didn’t find outmaneuvering the brain dead AI in Civ 5 to be fu.
I can see why a lot of people like Civ 5 overall even if it was a disappointment for me. It’s definitely more accessible than the previous titles.
sure i don’t mind
Well, there were other factors involved in war. Like having a better transportation network and more mobile units so you could move your forces to more effectively counter where the enemy was attacking. And putting up things to slow down enemy movement, and grow your borders, so the enemy units had to stop in your territory before they reached their targets (and so they’d be forced to fight using their defensive stats, rather than their offensive stats, which mattered in some games). And using artillery to soften them up. (And using the types of units that were the counters to those units, in games with that mechanic). And making alliances with other nations, so your enemy is forced to fight on two or more fronts. And having more advanced weapons than your enemy. And cutting off enemy resources, so they can’t continue to build and maintain their military. And managing your people’s morale, and trying to damage the morale of the enemy’s people. All of those are, or at least closely resemble, things that have been valuable in real, historic warfare.
As is, yes, having a larger army. But even there, it’s not like having a larger army is just a button you can press. You get that larger army by claiming more territory, and improving your economy and industry, and deciding when and how to switch from emphasizing growth to emphasizing military strength, and in general doing all of the things that constitute the actual core of a Civilization game.
By contrast, the one-unit-per-tile thing does add another gameplay element to waging war, but it’s not a gameplay element that particularly ties in to the rest of how a Civilization game plays, nor does it particularly resemble anything done in actual war, beyond in the most abstract way.
Count me among those who think IV was by far the best, and I’d like to see a move back towards that. I didn’t much like V, and never bothered with VI. I also occasionally still play IV.
Improve the combat mechanics. It was dumb in IV that catapults/cannon/artillery got consumed in their attacks.
Could a Mod remove the question mark from this thread title? When I created it, it was a rumor (that got quickly confirmed a day later). Thanks.
Done.
now i play a bi t differently as i never go for a "War " victory since they nerfed the espionage potion i go for the peaceful options and it was nice to have other options even if some were obnoxious ie the religious option, (Spain and Portugal can die )
heres a question : are the city states necessary ? i can take em or leave them really …
I’ve played games where I don’t actively pursue or nurture any city state relationships and others where I actively seek them out. Either way I always use my available envoys.
Some of the city state bonuses can be very helpful. Valletta is popular because it gives you the ability to purchase city center and encampment buildings with faith. Cardiff gives you power for every harbor building in your cities. Others give production, gold, culture, faith, military, or science bonuses:
They just dropped a short gameplay reveal trailer on YouTube. Looks pretty good. Better than Civ-VI I think but it doesn’t really tell us anything about how the game will actually play. Still, a fun peek (2 minutes).
It seems along with the gameplay trailer release Firaxis also let some YouTubers who are big into Civilization release videos on their experience playing the game for a few hours at the Firaxis studio. Here is one (15 minutes) but there are others as well.
I gotta say I am not at all keen on what I am hearing but, maybe it will all work and be great. I will try a summary of the main points from that linked video.
- There now only three eras (antiquity, exploration and modern) as opposed to the five in previous games (ancient, classical, Renaissance, industrial, modern).
- You start the game by choosing a leader and then a civilization. The two are separate. Caesar could rule China if you want (or whatever). Also, the choice of leaders are not only historicaal leaders but can be other famous people (e.g. Ben Franklin).
- When you come to the end of an era there is a “crisis” which sounds like barbarian camps spring up all over and you have to defeat them.
- No builders. You just improve a tile you want improved.
- Army stacks are (sort of) back. You can have commanders which can pack in 4-6 units in one tile. So, no stacks-of-doom but still some stacks.
- When you switch to a new era you can switch to a new civilization. Which civilizations will be on offer is limited by how you played the just ended era. So, if you were (say) big into horses you could become the Mongols but not the British (who are into boats). A bit fuzzy on how that works.
- It also seems you can only build one wonder per era (I hate this…I loved building wonders). Also not 100% clear on that one.
Grain of salt with all of the above. If anyone gets more detail please share.