What does Sup Forums think?
What do you think will the the base Civilizations in the game? Any improvements you'll like to see
sys.Sup Forums.org/derefer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.polygon.com%2Ffeatures%2F2016%2F5%2F11%2F11653620%2Fcivilization-6-release-date-preview
Other urls found in this thread:
Sorry about the messy looking link, got it off of Sup Forums then just copied it to here
...
Just compare the complexity of the old Alpha Centauri and the shit named Beyond Earth.
Civilization is destroyed over the years, and the VI will be nothing more than a mobile game-tier waste
...
graphics>quality
...
I'm really not in love with the artstyle for this
I'll still buy it though
>So in Civ VI, cities will be split up into sprawling districts occupying multiple tiles. It will be possible to develop 12 districts, but that’s only if you have a large enough population. The more the city grows, the more districts it can support.
>“Right away you've got a small city that may only be able to support two districts at this point in time,” says Beach. “You have to choose which two out of those 12 are going to be right for that city so you're specialising your cities right out of the gate.”
>City specialisations might also be dependent on the terrain surrounding the settlement. “If I started my game up in Civ V and found I was starting by a bunch of mountains, I'd be like maybe it's a nice natural barrier against invasion but it's not very exciting,” notes gameplay designer Anton Stringer. “When I start Civ VI, I'm excited to see mountain ranges because I see all the district possibilities there. So two of the earliest districts that you unlock, one is the campus district which is the sort of science centre, and the second one is your holy site which is your religious centre and both of those get lots of bonuses for being next to mountains.”
everyone on Sup Forums should shun Civ and play EUIV
there I said it
>Firaxis are trying to make the terrain bonuses logical. So mountains provide science and religious bonuses because Firaxis feels like scientists would want to observe the skies, while believers might see mountains as a holy place because it brings them closer to their gods.
>While you’ll start out with only a tiny number of districts, as time marches on you’ll unlock more. So even if you can’t build anything else for the time being, it will still pay to plan for future city expansions. That’s where map pins come in.
>“We went right to our UI team and said we want map pins that look like the icons for the different districts,” Beach explains. “So I can pin the map with a future science district going here, cultural district going here, and now you're the zoning board and planning the city in great detail, sometimes anticipating hundreds of years in the future what that city is going to look like.”
Sounds like they're borrowing from Endless Legend
>Civilization VI will sort of be keeping the one unit per tile rule to avoid stacks of doom, but a new feature is being introduced that will allow would-be generals to customise their units with additional gear, as well as combining units together to create armies and corps.
>Firaxis have been happy with the way the one unit, one tile rule spread battles out and created tactical puzzles, but they recognise that battlefields could get really congested. The solution, as Beach describes it, has been to find a middle ground between stacking and keeping units separate.
>“So there are two ways we did that. The first was that we took a look at all the units in our inventory and found those that really weren't military commands on their own. They're more like military equipment the military units took with them, things like battering rams, siege towers, anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns. In Civ V those were all considered military units and they had to have a tile to themselves... and so what we came up with is those units are all going to go into a new class of units that we call support units. They get their own layer of stacking. You can't have two support units in the same tile, but they can be combined with military units, or civilian units, or trade units, or whatever and not interfere with the stacking.”
>The second change is that units of the same type can be combined into a powerful army or corps. This clears some of the clutter off the map, but also makes the unit makeup easier to read than stacks from earlier Civs. If you see an army and it’s presented as a rifleman unit, you know that all of the units in the stack or combo are going to be riflemen.
Sounds like theyre just adding shit people didnt even ask for. Why not improve upon civ v by adding the variability of civ iv back into something graphically similar? Whats with all the districting bullshit?
Im not autistic enough
>visits Sup Forums
>not autistic enough for EUIV
does not compute
>With cities becoming these sprawling, multi-tile objects, sieges have had to adapt. At its core, a siege is about gaining control of the city centre. If everyone’s favourite bully, Montezuma, and his forces saunter in and take the city centre, then it and all the surrounding tiles will flip to Aztec. But the centre is the best defended part of the city, so it pays to siege districts as well.
>“All those districts you put outside the city are vulnerable to enemy attack independently of whether or not the city centre has been taken,” Beach explains. “So if Montezuma has a whole bunch of fast-moving cavalry in his army, and he knows he's not going to be able to punch through a heavily defended city centre with walls, what he can do is bring those cavalry in and pillage my districts and my science and industrial capacity. He can destroy that and I'll have to rebuild it all, so there's a lot of damage you can do to your enemies without actually taking the city.”
>Later in the game, Beach anticipates sieges getting quite hectic, with bombers blitzing cities not to conquer them, but to damage the infrastructure around them, weakening the empire and making it easier for ground units to occupy the battered settlements.
Looks like a mobile game.
Firaxis kept releasing shitty games recently.
Civ 5 was crap.
1 unit per tile is cancer.
Will pirate to check out, hype levels hovering around zero.
>Research is no longer a matter of selecting a subject and waiting as your scientists unlock its secrets. Now you’ve got to be a bit more proactive so you can unlock boosts that will make cut down time spent waiting for the research to finish.
>“When I look at the tech tree in previous Civs now compared to Civ VI it seems like there are scientists up in an ivory tower just churning away, researching sailing even though they've never discovered the ocean before,” Stringer says. “We wanted to get rid of these weird ahistorical things, so what we're doing with the boosts is they're kind of like mini-quests or objectives that are on the map. In the example of sailing, if you settle a city on the coast, you will unlock a tech boost for sailing, so each technology has its own little condition, and it's got some great historical flavour to it.”
>In gameplay terms, this means that, if it normally takes 16 turns to research sailing, a civilisation on the coast will be able to research it in eight, giving them a distinct advantage over land-locked civs when it comes to seafaring.
>The idea behind active research is that it informs and is, in turn, informed by expansion and how you’re playing more generally. The techs you can research the fastest are the ones that make the most sense for the way you’re playing the game and where you’re playing it at the time.
>“If you're in the middle of a continent and all you're doing is developing the mineral resources nearby and butting heads with the barbarians, you're going to find that bronze working and iron working are coming easily for you, but maybe the cultural or naval things you're not making any progress towards,” notes Beach. “But you can circle back, spread your empire to the coast and all of a sudden those will start to open up, and now the tech tree isn't this divorced independent thing up in this ivory tower, it actually feels integrated into what you're doing in the game world.”
>While everyone knows that Montezuma is a dick, Firaxis’ approach to leaders and diplomacy in previous games has been to make it all similar across the board. “There were general rules of thumb,” Stringer says. “They're not going to like you if you do this, they will like you if you do that, they're generally going to want to win and have large empires, their goals were similar a lot of the time”
>In Civilization VI, Firaxis are attempting to shake this up.
>“We've given them each a sort of side agenda that’s their own thing to care deeply about and we tried to tie them to things that the different leaders in the game did very well with their empire when they were ruling it historically,” explains Beach. He offers an example of a leader obsessed with building wonders. If you compete with him, trying to beat him in the race to build the Hanging Gardens or the Pyramids, he’ll become furious until you back off.
>You can use these traits to your advantage as well, however. It’s possible to set it up so that leaders will start butting heads over their agendas, while you do your best arch impression.
>As well as the historical agendas, there’s also a pool of extra agendas that can be attached to leaders. It’s not possible to see these agendas without making contact through trade, diplomacy, or espionage, so there’s still room for leaders to surprise players.
>Case in point: Gandhi and his nukes. While Firaxis wasn’t going into any details, Beach and Stringer promised that they haven’t forgotten about Civ’s version of Gandhi being very different from his historical counterpart.
It sounds cool and I loved civ 5 but I really don't have the energy to learn the ins and outs and mechanics of a new strategy game
10x more detailed graphics
10x shittier graphic design
half as many civs
unbalanced gameplay
100x as much liberal revisionism
>Firaxis say that Civ 6 multiplayer is taking a new approach and they're actively trying to find ways to cut down on how long it takes. Via the Steam page, there'll be a host of modes that aren't week-long affairs, designed to let you "cooperate and compete with your friends in a wide variety of situations all designed to be easily completed in a single session."
>According to PCGamer, these could be as short as one or two hours, and based on specific time periods in history. Maybe you play just the bronze and iron age set of turns, or start with sprawling corporation-laden empires in the information age, immediately capable of blowing each other to hell with nukes. On top of that, there'll be win conditions that aren't standard - whoever has the most money at the end of all the turns, for example, or which religion is strongest. Beach says that these are easy to develop so there will be a lot of them, and they'll be available as standalone missions for single-player too.
And that's basically all that there was. So what are your thoughts? I'm cautiously optimistic about this and hyped about the inclusion of districts in towns
virtually guaranteed to be shit
Im a normie with a job and girlfriends. Civ vi is more suitable. Also, steam badges
30 single/double/triple units a tile is cancer you konie lover
Fraxis has been releasing alright games of late (except for the space civ one)
might try it
the fact that you''ve played some civ in the past means it's very easy to pick up, just dive into the game on the setting, or perhaps one below, you usually play on.
its not like playing one paradox game and trying to pick up another or something, civ is civ.
EU4 is by far the easiest of all paradox Games, and one of the most enjoyable.
Just play kébab and conquer the world
Why should you only be able to fit one unit in a tile the size of France
EUIV has steam achievements, it is much more historically correct plus:
>implying Civ does not suck your time
Plus mods like Meiou are the bee's knees, even better than the vanilla experience. You really get the feeling you are leading a nation and not just playing an arcade game in which all nations start out more or less the same.
Normies with jobs and girlfriends are the cancer killing gaming.
Devs and publishers realized there's a huge market that's far easier to cater to and now we're all stuck with simplistic shit for people who "just want to unwind".
Also EUIV is seriously piss easy. It's not even a tiny bit deeper than Civ.
Didn't they fuck it up after Common Sense though? I stopped playing after El Dorado came out.
Because a 'unit' is a command of a dozen fighters or so not three fucking people stacked over and over. I hated the stacking in 4, took forever to cycle through repetitive units
No
>historically correct
Top fuckin lel
It's good for having a board general knowledge of the geography of Europe and (sometimes) the world, it can be good for introducing you to less-known history nations (like the PLC) if you read all flavours texts and it's ok for learning a thing or two about the year 1444, but apart from that it's useless
Thanks to Civ 4 I know at least 30 quotes from famous people by heart
It's debatable. Common sense made the game a bit less gamey and more boring to some.
teach a man to fish
ps speculation that sean bean will be the voiceover given he did the trailer. not quite star trek matey for 4 but sounds good.
This shit looks comfy, but then I remember how much time sink civ 5 was and how poor it was once you know the game so I'm not sure, maybe I wait price drop
Last game of this kind I enjoyed was Fallen Enchantress, city building was really comfy, in fact everything in the game was
Beyond earth wsn't comfy, endless legend neither, aow3 neither
Enjoy moving a trillion units every turn while combat still has all the tactical depth of a puddle
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
(litteral traduction from the French : "It is a fact that the Masses buy more easily a big lie than a small one.")
- A German Dictator (who wanted to make Germany great again)
I dislike games that are historical limited. Civ offers the cultural advantages that cary by each civilization as opposed to playing out the same scenarios with small degrees of differentiation
Ya, you can fuck off. Ive been playing games since I was a kid, Im just not a total loser otherwise. Try not to project.
I loved playing EUIV so much. Especially when Art of War had just come out. But after El Dorado I stopped giving it that much attention. And when I read that you actually needed to buy Common Sense for the game to function I just flat out stopped playing. Paradox went full money jews. Plus, Common Sense is shit. Are The Cossacks and Mare Nostrum good? I really want to start playing again. In my last game I got the Je maintiendrai achievement and it felt so good. No game achievements give me the same satisfaction as the EUIV ones.
let me rephrase it:
It is as historically correct as you can expect from a game. It is at least a 1000 times more correct than CIV (obviously) and I as a history major love seeing largely unkown countries appear on the map. I especially loved expansions like conquest of paradise which made the game much more flavoured in the America's. And I think that EUIV is getting more and more precise with each expansion etc. The first EU's were much less focused on asia for example, they really improved on that imho.
Plus it gives you a feel about early modern warfare and diplomacy. Maybe I am blinded by my eroticized love for EUIV but I think this game is as good as it gets. Especially with Meiou (dei gratia included
I've got the full version, it was expensive, even on sale recently. It's a fun game but quite 'same-y' in a way I don't think civ is. civ is also better suited to MP imo, so hopefully they make that more stable & a bigger focus rather than an afterthought.
don't really dig eu4 as a multiplayer since you have to pause occasionally etc.
t. normie fag that plays with friends
Its literally just slamming units into each other in every civ game whats the god damn difference. In civ v at least it lookes more like an actual battle as opposed to the 3 person archers firing into each other with the same animation 5 times until one finally falls down (get ready for that x20 thanks to unit stacking in civ iv).
dont care, civ 4 was the best
I agree with this rephrasation. EU4 non-ironically made me obsessed with the history of Poland and Russia, it has also droved me into reading an history book of Nations and Nationalism which is interesting to put to perspective with rebels and so on
>What is quick resolution
What the hell, it looks like shit compared to V.
>(get ready for that x20 thanks to unit stacking in civ iv).
that's why i changed to medieval total war. and I was reaaallly good at civ (god), but quite seldom played it with friends, so all civ-players here get a life!
>Most recently played game was Crusader Kings 2
My autism has ascended into giga autism, that game has requirements such as a lack of a social life or moral obligations in addition to the severe autism.
Vicky 2 is more autistic imo
CK2 brings in GoT normies
haha got is epic user so much intrigue and backstab
Sooo good XD
BRIAN BORU CELTIC LEADER WHEN
>vicky 2
>autsitic
I have CK2, I got it with EUIV when I bought it. But I understand it has it's charms, and I cannot say I see the depth of it fully, only played it a couple of hours. But I like controlling a nation, not a dynasty. But maybe I have not been giving the sims: medieval the love it deserves.
I just felt bummed by the fact that vanilla only offers you Christian kingdoms, and I did not wish to cash out on a game I did not really know if I liked it or not since the original one was not really my thing, and I feared that in 2 they switched statesmanship for family drama.
Loved vicky e, wish that in the next installment that they put more effort into nationalistic uprisings. It is very unrealstic that there are barely any nationalistic uprisings of disgruntled ethnic groups and almost constantly ideological uprisings. Sure they existed, but the balance seems of.
I've never even touched anything game of thrones. Also, it takes a certain level of autism to buy 200 dollars worth of dlc and play a game for hundreds of hours without mods. The game is just too complicated for them. Normies won't do a grand campaign with all the dlc starting as the zoroastrian bavandids.
I've honestly never messed around with marriage and all that. It's an overhyped aspect of the game and is really only something that applies to Catholics during really niche situations and times. It also won't do much if you're playing a big nation. With dlc the concept of the feudal system is shown better. It isn't about "lol got backstabbing". It's more about keeping a realm full ungrateful vassals together. Basically cat herding simulator.
But it feels a bit for me that you are stuck in a feudal system, you have no real way of getting out of feudal drama and become something like a republic or a much more centralized kind of kingdom. (but please correct me if I am wrong, I am mostly basing this on ck, with only a glimpse of knowledge of ck2). I don't want to see the game die if my last heir dies, I want to see my country flourish and go into different directions, they make history books primarily about nations, only ever so few about dynasties.
"A HORSE, MY KINGDOM FOR A HORSE"
IMO Civ with mods is best civ, pic related
>true start location
>43 civs
>extended eras
>info addict
>ingame editor
>180 x 100 tile world map
bump t b h
wew *civ 5
the fuck is with this casual mobilecore art style? seriously?
blech
>1UPT
Utter shit bro
1UPT would be great if maps were as large as CIV IV, but they aren't
Literally all they have to do is combine CIV IV maps and scale with 1upt then you can have some real combat tactics, instead CIV V devoles into focus fire enemy main-line, punch through it and then continue to focus fire and roll up the line
It's tedious and terrible
There, i just fixed CIV V and CIV IVs combat problems in one fell swoop.
>1UPT would be great if maps were as large as CIV IV, but they aren't
except mine is, see the post you just quoted
Grand Strategy > turn based cartoons
So what Civs and leader are gonna be shown in the game?
From what the trailer shows its confirmed Ghandi and maybe Teddy, pretty sure all the basic Civs like the Aztecs (Montezuma) and France (Napoleon) are confirmed. Any other leader you want to see take over a civ that was already in the game?
TRAILER:
youtu.be
Your map is tiny as fuck dude, look at the distance on Continental Europe. It's litearlly 5 tiles from Red civ to grey Civ, that's cramped on a degree it never was in Civ IV
Given the ways that cities operate like giant defensive machine guns it totally fucks up any sort of cool army v army combat you could have
desu thats mainly due to europe being small, most civ-like games expand europe compared to other continents
africa for example at the level of saguntum in my previous pic, is roughly 30 tiles across, and same with distance from new england to pacific NW
also i did 43 civ map, which means like 20 civs spawned in continental europe wew
I know, but you get what I'm trying to say about cities right?
The degree to which they are in proximity with each other and the fact that they are a machine gun really prevents any sort proper combat from occuring
Honestly the onyl way I feel this could be solved is if each instance of combat had an option to go down into a tactical map ala endless legend style. it would allow for the game to be as cramped as it is whilst still giving proper combat.
Shitty graphics, not gonna buy if it isn't changed.
maybe, i really only play maritime nations so i dont deal with much inland fighting
but from what ive experienced, cities dont really seem that OP, i can just bumrush maybe 2 infantry and an artillery in a city's vicinity and hold with back up forces, its not like they can just wreck anything in one turn
they need to stop making civilization games
they've milked everything they can out of the franchise, idea-wise
Well they basically redesigned everything from the ground up.
Hopefully that means mechanics that actually work well with the engine, instead of the hot garbage clusterfuck we saw in BE.