Civilization VI - Now available, so you can sink all your free time into it

[Cael]

How do you make a game called 'Civilization' and have the Incas as a DLC?

Current scholarship generally identifies five sites where civilization emerged independently:[6][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

1. the Fertile Crescent
2. the Indo-Gangetic Plain
3. the North China Plain
4. the Central Andes
5. Mesoamerica

It had Americans as a playable civ from the very first iteration. Probably one of the biggest WTF moment in gaming history :D

 

[oscar]

Incas are the least of the worries. Half of the present civilisations should be represented by barbarians or rebellion states (some did not even exist until 85% of the game is over).

I wonder who exactly the barbarians are meant to represent since most cultures popularly deemed barbaric now have civilisations of their own?

 

[sser]

the modern era looks like such boredom that it won't be worth it.
The idiots still haven't figured out why civ 4 added corporations and global warming(even though they were not utilized fully).

As a lazy Immortal player who tends to get bored about the modern era of Civ since 2, I was bored of it in 4 as well since it's usually the mop-up pace or I have already gotten a winning position by the Industrial age, and most of the tedium related to the modern era (micromanaging production and unit movement in pretty much every turn, massive slowdowns on potato computers, AI incapable of dealing with mass tanks / helicopters / bombardment at all) doesn't really go away. I don't think they ever got it right, the issue mostly stems from that you usually have already won before the modern era rolls around.
And to emphasize that I'm lazy, corporations were pretty much designed to get people away from running State Property as the ultimate end-game civic instead giving you more choice. But since I'm a lazy bastard and they also gave minor buffs to State Property to ensure you do have that late-game choice, I just ended up happily reaping the instant benefits of being a Commie instead of going corporations. The latter choice does get stronger than SP with enough investment, but by that point I probably have a few Cavalry regiments in every major capital in the world.

This is incidentally also why I thought Civ5 had a decent idea for Americans and Germans to no longer tie up their unique unit to an era very few people care about (yeah Navy SEALs and Panzers of IV are strong, but pretty much never end up being the cornerstone of victory in a game where Egypt's bullshit chariots can win before a late game civ's strengths become relevant, and where the first 200~ turns are the most impactful) by giving them the Minutemen and the Landsknecht, which is nice because historically throughout the Civ series a lot of game-winning pushes play out around Renaissance/Industrial when the player suddenly gets a major tech spike that they can utilize better than the AI (massive improvements to the offense stat and mobility, ability to lay railroads). And then in Civ6 you get the Mustang and the U-Boot on either side. For what purpose?

Anyway tl;dr: from a gamist perspective, the modern era has always had design issues in Civ, I always thought it was boring.

Unique unit variety is a red herring. Civ has never treated the military-side with any emphasis or complexity.

Most game concepts start to expand as you get further in. The military is 1:1 upgrades from start to finish with what are, essentially, the most basic of unit options. I've been a long believer that Civ should take ideas from Call to Power and other games in regards to its military side. This is why Civ 5 pissed me off a lot as well -- Civ4 with all the expansions was actually a decently complex game if you flexed it to its limits. But it was all the management side of things. I thought with the change to hexes we'd see a similar extension of mechanics in Civ 5, but this time with combat. Instead they just removed doomstacks and the rest remained rudimentary.

 

[Beastro]

the modern era looks like such boredom that it won't be worth it.
The idiots still haven't figured out why civ 4 added corporations and global warming(even though they were not utilized fully).

As a lazy Immortal player who tends to get bored about the modern era of Civ since 2, I was bored of it in 4 as well since it's usually the mop-up pace or I have already gotten a winning position by the Industrial age, and most of the tedium related to the modern era (micromanaging production and unit movement in pretty much every turn, massive slowdowns on potato computers, AI incapable of dealing with mass tanks / helicopters / bombardment at all) doesn't really go away. I don't think they ever got it right, the issue mostly stems from that you usually have already won before the modern era rolls around.
And to emphasize that I'm lazy, corporations were pretty much designed to get people away from running State Property as the ultimate end-game civic instead giving you more choice. But since I'm a lazy bastard and they also gave minor buffs to State Property to ensure you do have that late-game choice, I just ended up happily reaping the instant benefits of being a Commie instead of going corporations. The latter choice does get stronger than SP with enough investment, but by that point I probably have a few Cavalry regiments in every major capital in the world.

This is incidentally also why I thought Civ5 had a decent idea for Americans and Germans to no longer tie up their unique unit to an era very few people care about (yeah Navy SEALs and Panzers of IV are strong, but pretty much never end up being the cornerstone of victory in a game where Egypt's bullshit chariots can win before a late game civ's strengths become relevant, and where the first 200~ turns are the most impactful) by giving them the Minutemen and the Landsknecht, which is nice because historically throughout the Civ series a lot of game-winning pushes play out around Renaissance/Industrial when the player suddenly gets a major tech spike that they can utilize better than the AI (massive improvements to the offense stat and mobility, ability to lay railroads). And then in Civ6 you get the Mustang and the U-Boot on either side. For what purpose?

Anyway tl;dr: from a gamist perspective, the modern era has always had design issues in Civ, I always thought it was boring.

Unique unit variety is a red herring. Civ has never treated the military-side with any emphasis or complexity.

Most game concepts start to expand as you get further in. The military is 1:1 upgrades from start to finish with what are, essentially, the most basic of unit options. I've been a long believer that Civ should take ideas from Call to Power and other games in regards to its military side. This is why Civ 5 pissed me off a lot as well -- Civ4 with all the expansions was actually a decently complex game if you flexed it to its limits. But it was all the management side of things. I thought with the change to hexes we'd see a similar extension of mechanics in Civ 5, but this time with combat. Instead they just removed doomstacks and the rest remained rudimentary.

It's a huge reason why I gave up on the series after CivIII.

 

[Cael]

Unique unit variety is a red herring. Civ has never treated the military-side with any emphasis or complexity.

Most game concepts start to expand as you get further in. The military is 1:1 upgrades from start to finish with what are, essentially, the most basic of unit options. I've been a long believer that Civ should take ideas from Call to Power and other games in regards to its military side. This is why Civ 5 pissed me off a lot as well -- Civ4 with all the expansions was actually a decently complex game if you flexed it to its limits. But it was all the management side of things. I thought with the change to hexes we'd see a similar extension of mechanics in Civ 5, but this time with combat. Instead they just removed doomstacks and the rest remained rudimentary.

You can have civ specific units up and down the entire ladder if you so wish, you know. Civ3 and Civ4 supports that kind of diversity. You can, for example, have a different tank for every civ. Leopard for the Germans, Merkava for the Israelis, Abrams for the Americans, Challenger for the Brits, T80 for the Russians, etc. You just need to get the animation for them and mod it in. In Civ3, I created an entire line of Mithril units that works in parallel with normal units. The systems are robust and moddable enough to do that. Hell, after seeing what they did with FFH2 for Civ4, I don't think there is anything you can't do with Civ4.

The problem is that the later makers of Civ were just to plain fucking lazy to do it.

 

[Red Rogue]

Posting in both threads, need a bit of insight.

For $31, I can get either:

-Xcom 2 + WOTC/dlcs
-CIV6 Gold + Rise and Fall/dlcs

Does anyone have strong feelings either way about which I should get? CIV6 has the brighter future it seems but it's more of an investment due to the new expansion not being released yet.

 

[Agame]

Civ6 is a steaming turd.

Xcom 2 I disliked vanilla, but with WOTC its great. Highly recommended if you enjoyed the first 'nu-xcom'.

 

[GrainWetski]

Neither.

If you have to get one or be killed, FiraXCOM 2.

 

[Gerrard]

I wonder who exactly the barbarians are meant to represent since most cultures popularly deemed barbaric now have civilisations of their own?

Rapefugees.

 

[Fedora Master]

Ever wondered how there could be "ruins" with advanced technology in Civ5 when you're clearly the first civilization to emerge??

 

[vonAchdorf]

Ever wondered how there could be "ruins" with advanced technology in Civ5 when you're clearly the first civilization to emerge??

Alien precursors.

 

[SpaceWizardz]

moneyman time
time for the money

 

[vonAchdorf]

He became fat since Civ V.

 

[barker_s]

The guy definitely changed a lot since I last saw him.

 

[Pope Amole II]

Best part of Sweden's trailer is their religion.

 

[GrainWetski]

This game is such a joke.

 

[Bliblablubb]

2 years later and this game is still alive and prosper? Sheeet, Firaxis' customers are even more starving for their fix than Bethesda's.

And now with even more unknown womyn leaders for great diversity!

Heh, I wouldn't put it past them to add Queen Nzinga of NotAngola in the next DLC.
You know, the independunt young womyn who did not take shit from anyone, and heroically kicked out the portugese slavetraders out of her country! The internets say so, it must be true. And the UNESCO funded and hosts a glorious comic about it, so teens in touch with their african ancestry have a rolemodel to look up to and stuff... yeah...

Except maybe..

Spoiler

Aside from probably poisoning her own family to get into power, she actually kicked out the Portugese to control the slave trade herself. Because, every ruler did that at that time. Modern historians are pretty thankful for Dutch trade records. And once the trade relations with the Dutch became shit, she went back to selling her people to Portugal. The comic of course leaves those parts out. Or where she got the money to field such a large army from... Nah, female african rolemodels are rare, don't let facts get in the way of heroism!

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Hahaha, picking a woman instead of Gustavus Adolphus the Great. What a fucking a joke.

 

[Reinhardt]

Sweden YES!

 

[laclongquan]

Gustavus' daughter is awesome. Command personal troops to shoot cannons at revelers around her villa is inspiring.

Of course, the daughter of the champion of protestant cause then abdicated and converted to Catholicism would have her father rolling around in his grave like a spinning top~

 

[cvv]

This bitch stole a bunch of our painting and other bling when her snowniggers plundered Prague in 1648.

Gib back our paintings!

 

[kris]

This bitch stole a bunch of our painting and other bling when her snowniggers plundered Prague in 1648.

Gib back our paintings!

I dont think she was there. Swedish nobles though, they got their share...

 

[Beastro]

I'm finding the leader fetish thing cropping up more and more in Civ creepy. Originally they were just a face to put to a civilization, but what's the point of adding traits to the leaders specifically if you're not going to allow for a choice of several for each Civ to allow for different play styles (I dropped the series after III, and at a glance I assume that's what leaders served in CivIV)?

 

[Fedora Master]

Best part of Sweden's trailer is their religion.

Looks like a man. Not that I would expect anything less of Nu-Civ.

 

[Beastro]

Best part of Sweden's trailer is their religion.

Looks like a man. Not that I would expect anything less of Nu-Civ.

You don't know anything about Queen Crissy, do you?