Civilization 6 has been announced!

[Socrates]

Civilization 6 has been announced! Below is the usual, oh-so-interesting trailer. :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18do6-Njcr0

Apparently they’re sticking to one unit per tile, although you could add support units. And cities get to expand on the map itself, so that they can cover several tiles.
More update to the usual*, other site.

Damn, I use the word “usual” way too much here.

[akots]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeMkgoH2iHQ

Graphics seem to be very CivV-like, with cartoonish flavor. Cities will have districts. Research will depend on terrain. AI will have an attitude. There will be some ways to stack units and mutiplayer will be shortened. All summarized in pcgamer:

http://www.pcgamer.com/civilization-6-everything-you-need-to-know/

Not sure what would I do. It seems like the game gets more and more complex and is still hex-based. Cities get even bigger but more specialized. And trailer is pretty lame. Anyhow, we'll know in about 5 months.

[Beam]

The news is all over the place so it is probably outdated if you don't use CDZ is your prime Civ news resource anymore.

[Shabbaman]

It seems like the game gets more and more complex and is still hex-based. Cities get even bigger but more specialized.

More complex? Not quite the version of civ5 I've been playing...

What I think will happen is that the expanded city will use the city tiles as an additional resource: use tiles for buildings instead of resources. So, less tiles to micromanage, faster game progression. I like micromanagement, it makes me feel good about myself.

[akots]

You better micromanage your admin duties. It took you whole week to press that secret button.

You can micromanage in Civ5. But it is hidden and complex and not necessarily works as intended. It actually has more to micromanage as you need to check things every turn while in Civ3/4 you need to check things only when city grows or a tile is improved. Because there is a lot of complex bs that tells citizens to move here or there or do something else as they don't stay put where you left them.

Its like some bad modern action game when you press A to move to the left and you character decides to make a small step to the right first because animation-shmanimation and fall down a cliff and dies.

While Civ3 was possible to understand completely, Civ4 still has some mysterious twerks. Civ5 is full of mysterious things nobody understands. Civ6, I presume, will be a complete mystery to everyone. Same as like Windows 95-98-XP-Vista-7-8 culminated into completely unexplored version 10 that does things on its own. We are going the Cylon path and the Terminator path and the electrodes in your brain path. Civ is no exception.

[Matrix]

I gotta admit I'm still playing Civ4, but will of course give this thing a try. Perhaps I should give Civ5 another try as well, since I didn't like the very first game of Civ4 that I played either.

I'm all for hexagons and against Stacks of Doom, so if Civ6 counters all the things I had against Civ5 - all of which I forgot because it's so long ago, so actually this post doesn't add any value, but hey, I'm still here, guys! - then it would be promising. :) And cartoon-like graphics!! Goody! :D
I like micromanagement, it makes me feel good about myself.
Amen. [lol]

[Socrates]

Thanks Shabba.

I like micromanagement, it makes me feel good about myself.

This should be in a parody of an ad, with this line at the end for comical effect!

While Civ3 was possible to understand completely, Civ4 still has some mysterious twerks. Civ5 is full of mysterious things nobody understands. Civ6, I presume, will be a complete mystery to everyone. Same as like Windows 95-98-XP-Vista-7-8 culminated into completely unexplored version 10 that does things on its own. We are going the Cylon path and the Terminator path and the electrodes in your brain path. Civ is no exception.

That’s why the future is free (as in open-source) games. I have seriously no hope for Civ6.

[Shabbaman]

So civ6 is the start of Skynet?

[Beam]

Will there be a Civ VI subforum or do we have to discuss in other other other other games?

[Socrates]

Civ3: 228 threads
Civ4: 113 threads
Civ5: 28 threads
Do you think it’s worth it?

[akots]

So civ6 is the start of Skynet?

It is already there, in your phone and mine, and soon its gets into your brain. You think you are in control. Well, that is the grand deception, almost perfectly executed on the planet scale.

[socralynnek]

I didn't find that much time yet to play Civ5, so the exact date when Civ 6 will come out won't matter to me.
So I'll wait for the first sale. Or second one. At least then I am probably sure it is worth it (although time for playing in that context is maybe the more relevant resource for me than euros)

[Shabbaman]

Compared to the time I put in civ3 it's peanuts, but I've played enough civ5 to make it worth the money. It's an enjoyable game, but it's just too simple to keep me interested. Or maybe I didn't put enough time in it to make it hard, but given how easily I beat deity I doubt that. I don't expect civ6 to be much different. I'm sure it'll be worth the money (as in: 1 euro per hour played), but I doubt it'll be the timesink Crusader Kings is.

And I'm fairly sure no version of civ'll ever lead to stories about concubines. Pop the hut is good though.

[Shabbaman]

I just saw we get the Brazilian civ. Wait, what?

[Socrates]

I just saw we get the Brazilian civ. Wait, what?

Special bonus:

Political messy times: Get a 50 % chance of impeachment every 10 turns.
Olympics general delay: Every entertainment building takes 5 more turns to complete than usual.
Belo Horizonte homefield hazard: Get a 20 % chance of hitting 1 hp while losing 7 hp when a unit is fighting inside cultural borders.

[Matrix]

Any benefits? Like prolonged slavery or so...

[Shabbaman]

Well, the weather is nice...

[Matrix]

The game has been announced a while ago already, but not a single word has been spilled about the next in the Civ series on this site! [:O] Are we such old farts that we have completely lost our ability to produce a little enthusiasm about the next version of the game of games? Or was our disappointment in Civ5 so great that it has quenched our anticipation and we now await it from a distance with our arms folded?

Anyway,
Stacks of Doom are still not possible, but you can combine certain types of units. To be honest, I've never played Civ5 long enough to find out how one unit per tile changed the tactics. But it's not hard to imagine it increases the 'chess' component. Especially with hexagons.

Spread out cities. Actually they're not really spread out. It's just that buildings are now using tiles rather than that you can only use tiles for farming and mining and such. Buildings of the same type can be built on the same tiles, because those tiles are designated districts: science (library, university, laboratory), religion (temple, cathedral, what more)... And world wonders use up a whole tile. Basically, the effect of it is that during a war, severe damage can be done without actually conquering a single city. Plus...how does this effect food, production and commerce? Things that we are used to boost by terrain improvements.

Civilizations their characteristic capabilities seem to be a lot more extensive than in the past! They have a unique unit and unique building, but in addition also some or more other traits that will change the game drastically with every other civ you play. Check out this YouTube playlist (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWj7XnnfbKHGVnZ8iSoETSQ/videos) to see what different civilizations are capable of. I think that will be a more rigorous game changer than the tile districts of cities.

But with the districts and the civ-specific capabilities, I think the way Civilization's trinity (food, production and commerce) is handled will be quite different from what we're used to!

I am definitely curious and...mildly excited. :)
But I'll have to do a demo before I actually buy the game.

[Socrates]

The game has been announced a while ago already, but not a single word has been spilled about the next in the Civ series on this site! [:O]

Just a few words actually. Some even from you! (http://www.civduelzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5499)

[Shabbaman]

Check out this YouTube playlist (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWj7XnnfbKHGVnZ8iSoETSQ/videos)

Yes, they're very good at spamming promotional videos that don't provide any meaningful information.

Just a few words actually. Some even from you! (http://www.civduelzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5499)

Correct. So I'll just merge these threads to prove that.

[Matrix]

Blimey, completely forgot about this thread. [:o)]

Yes, the amount of information you get from the videos isn't that much, but I do observe a trend: Civ3 only had unique units, Civ4 added unique buildings to this, Civ5 I don't know, but with Civ6 it seems the civilization will be given multiple traits that sometimes even pre-determine the type of victory one should aim for. That makes the game a lot more diverse and removes the generic gameplay that all the previous versions had.

Is that good or bad?

[akots]

... Check out this YouTube playlist (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWj7XnnfbKHGVnZ8iSoETSQ/videos) to see what different civilizations are capable of. ...

I understand this is some kind of new marketing strategy. But if you watch all the videos, you don't actually need to buy the game or play it yourself. These things kill the feeling of excitement when trying things by yourself for the first time. For me, it is a huge put down.

[Shabbaman]

multiple traits that sometimes even pre-determine the type of victory one should aim for. That makes the game a lot more diverse

No, it doesn't. It locks players into a predetermined playstyle. This leads to predictable games and dumbs down the game.

[barbu1977]

Blimey, completely forgot about this thread. [:o)]

Yes, the amount of information you get from the videos isn't that much, but I do observe a trend: Civ3 only had unique units, Civ4 added unique buildings to this, Civ5 I don't know, but with Civ6 it seems the civilization will be given multiple traits that sometimes even pre-determine the type of victory one should aim for. That makes the game a lot more diverse and removes the generic gameplay that all the previous versions had.

Is that good or bad?

Are we talking about Sid Meier's Alpha Century?

[Lt. Killer M]

If it is not better than Civ IV BtS with Buffy mod, I ain't even going to take a longer look at Civ VI

[Shabbaman]

If it is not better than Civ IV BtS with Buffy mod, I ain't even going to take a longer look at Civ VI

But how would you know without playing?

[Matrix]

If it is not better than Civ IV BtS with Buffy mod, I ain't even going to take a longer look at Civ VI
Is Battlefield III better than Civ IV BtS? [tongue]

I already suspect Civ VI is going to be a different game altogether. You might enjoy both.

[Shabbaman]

While civ5 is in some way enjoyable, it feels like the raped body of civ3. It looks like it (if you're blind), feels like it (unless you bought a new mouse in the mean time) but doesn't play like it. No, actually I really liked civ5, but there was little challenge playing it. In that aspect, it was unlike any previous civ. Playing civ5 at the highest difficulty was about as challenging to me as playing Cities Skylines is. Civ3 otoh was actually quite difficult.

Maybe civ5 is fun in multiplayer, I don't know. But while the mere existence of this site shows that multiplayer in civ is actually a thing, to it's core it has always been a single player game to me. Even in multiplayer you play the AI, and with it's city states (a concept completely unsuited for multiplayer) that's even true for civ5 in all-human games.

But Cities Skylines is an enjoyable game, so why not civ6? It might not be the game, it might be me that has changed. Playing civ5 continuously reminded me of what civ5 isn't. Finding exploits in civ3 was fun, but in civ5 it only felt as finding another design flaw.

The funny thing is that writing this rant actually makes me want to play civ5 right now. Heh.

[akots]

@Shabba: My feelings are somewhat on the similar side. I played a lot of TBS and RTS when I was younger. Now, I'm more into RPGs and maybe even shooters. It should be the opposite. But I don't like the clicking, it is too intense and really, really stupid. In RPGs, the clicking load is much less intense and in shooters, you have to use the keyboard. It is as simple as that.

Civ3 is actually the only game that was enjoyable to play against the AI. Also, it had very friendly modding interface. Civ4 was less challenging but more time consuming especially troop movement. For me, Civ5 is tedious and not fun. Civ5 is also unruly and things on autopilot are not really controllable. And diplomacy and AI makes even less sense that in Civ3. Actually, Civ4 had a reasonable diplomacy system.

Civ1 and Civ2 were also good games, just sort of somewhat on the primitive side.

I've watched a few Civ6 videos, maybe 20 minutes all together. I'm not excited and I'm not going to preoder or buy. I'll wait for reviews and bug fixes for a few months. If it goes well, I may buy it. If it does not, which is quite possible, I won't.

tldr: We'll see how it goes.

[Lt. Killer M]

But how would you know without playing?

I will take a short look. Just not a long one.

[Shabbaman]

Civ1 and Civ2 were also good games, just sort of somewhat on the primitive side.

A different era.

[akots]

A different era.

Not really. Criteria do not change. The game has to look good, work well, and be interesting with addictive gameplay. It should not be too tedious or grindy and player must not lose track of what was going on in previous sessions. Some publishers make short action games these days. Like, 5 hours total gameplay time. In RPGs, usually, there is little problem of keeping track. And to be honest, Civ2 was published around 1996 and should be compared to something published around the same time. I'm talking maybe Baldur's Gate and Fallout 2. Neither of these are as primitive and both are way more enjoyable and have higher replayability. Which is surprising because Civ should have more replay value. Well, even Warcraft 2 is better and it was made in 1995.

Civ5 is just a laggy, buggy, glitchy mess of a game that neither looks good nor has enjoyable gameplay process. I'll take Fall from Heaven or even vanilla BTS anytime every time over it. It does not have good modding tools and does not have fixed assets mode. Lack of it means no real competitive play or real cheat-proof mutiplayer. Succession game are essentially impossible and not very popular because there is so much meaningless BS going on that players need to write up pages and pages of text just to describe what was going on during their sessions. It is hard to concentrate and I completely lose track of what I was doing two days ago and need half an hour just to force myself to continue the session. Endless aiming-clicking is just icing on the cake that kills it. Any modern phone runs more resource-consuming games 5-10 times faster due to sloppy programming and inadequate graphics. They should consider making it for android so I at least can use my finger instead of mouse.

I think I'm getting old and starting to rave and rant too much. But really, there are a lot of better, more manageable, and more realistic online MM strategies than that Civ 5 bs.

[barbu1977]

I always like the way civ2 took great use of windows enabling real easy moding and playing while in windows, unlike many other games of the time.

But for me civ2 stands out from the others by some adding epic events to the game. Wonders movies and the end movie were never equaled in any civ game.

[Shabbaman]

Not really. Criteria do not change. The game has to look good, work well, and be interesting with addictive gameplay.

Yet what actually "interesting" is changes over time. A reboot of civ2 in a civ6 engine wouldn't be as interesting as civ2 once was, because civ2 existed before. Nobody would play Pong nowadays. But in a different era, people have.

So I wonder if civ used to be interesting because it was "fresh", and current civs suck because, well, I've seen it before?

[akots]

Yet what actually "interesting" is changes over time. A reboot of civ2 in a civ6 engine wouldn't be as interesting as civ2 once was, because civ2 existed before. Nobody would play Pong nowadays. But in a different era, people have.

So I wonder if civ used to be interesting because it was "fresh", and current civs suck because, well, I've seen it before?

IMO, a new version should have something different in it. If the basics don't change, yes, it is what I've seen before. Considering how complex some modern games are and how well they generally work, Civ is something of a Pong type for me. But younger generation will always play it. It is also educational and fun.

However, I do hope I'm wrong and Civ6 turns out to be great and enjoyable.

[Shabbaman]

Just so nobody can complain there's no civ6 content on this site: there's been a sudden influx of previews, like this one (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/09/29/civilization-vi-brings-the-series-back-to-its-best/). Some sort of NDA has been expired I guess

I haven't found a negative one, but previews usually are nothing but hallelujah anyway. I'm not sure many game journalists can spot the flaws, or maybe they don't write about it because the majority (source: 1.9% of players have beaten deity) can't spot them either so who cares? Anyway, what's not in the previews (because of NDA I guess) is performance, late game interturns specifically.

[akots]

Performance should be OK at least on my current PC. The main hiccups of previous versions were linked to 2Gb memory limit that was apparently draining for larger maps and memory leaks as well as broken pathfinding and interating optimization for the AI. Modern programming tools should automatically check for these. Graphics should be tunable down to some reasonable level. I'm mostly concerned by glitchy mouse which does not want to go or does not want to click as clearly seen in some of the movies.

I'm not sure it depends on NDA. It looks like some new marketing strategy. Aka let the people salivate and make sure they preorder. It is also a different version. The actual graphics will be probably substantially worse as these fancy things tend to be removed to make the final version. Even Witcher 3 people could not keep it all because it just won't start with all these nice graphics they had been advertising their betas.

[socralynnek]

For me Civ5 was hard to judge; I didn't had nearly as much time to invest in it as in Civ 1, 2, 3 or 4.

So, I haven't seen much of the depth or the flaws. It is possible that I have yet to finish the first game (a symptom I had with Civ2 as well that I started many games where the buildup was fun, but didn't continue until the end).
But probably this is due that if I have some hours as time window, it might be that the other game is months old and thus I'd rather start new.

Somehow all versions have their pros and cons and are worth playing because they are different enough from the version before, in my opinion.
Which one is the best is another question, but I'd rank III and IV above V (but V above I and II although both were great for their time)

[Beam]

Who else has pre-ordered? Couldn't resist to order the deluxe version. [jump]

[Shabbaman]

Who else has pre-ordered? Couldn't resist to order the deluxe version. [jump]

Didn't pre-order: civ5 simplicity bummed me out enough not to buy into unreleased DLC. Did buy it though. Even installed and played it.