Sid Meier's Civilization VI

Zillah wrote: »

Yup, I always felt there should have been more scope/reward for exploration - it just seems to fizzle out too soon. I'd love if there was a map setting to generate a significant continent with no civs on them to allow for a colonial scramble once the tech was available.

Beefy78 wrote: »

Are there not map settings where that effectively happens? everyone starts in the same region and the rest of the map is empty?

I may be dreaming.

Zillah wrote: »

Not that I ever saw. They also tend to scatter the city states on all of the bloody islands.

Beefy78 wrote: »

I wouldn't recommend it though - I tried it over the weekend and it took until the late 20th Century before any of the Civs bothered exploring.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

The biggest problem by FAR with Civ 5 is the AI. It's absolutely abysmal. I couldn't care less about any of the features they're talking about being in Civ 6 - sort the fricking AI out. It's nearly 20 years since a computer beat the best chess player of all time, there's no excuse!

Cormac... wrote: »

Has anyone here played that extensively and how does it stack up to the Civ series?

I stuck a fair few hours into it but for TBS games 30 hours isn't a whole lot. By no means do I regret getting it but it was something I picked up and put down without being hugely impacted.

I think the level of focus that each race has, the lack of units and the small tech tree makes for pretty shallow gameplay.

I really like the districts idea, the way the questing and pacification of lesser civs work and the sheer volume of resources you harvest (giving you massive latitude in how you build and focus your cities) but it's not enough to drive the core gameplay on.
The way combat plays out is possibly a better solution than Civs 1 unit per tile as well, or at least there's elements to it that ought to be taken on board.

They're things I'd love for Civ to explore with it's greater complexity.

Maybe I'm being unfair in comparing it to the champion of the genre or maybe my biases from playing civ are leading me to play it the wrong way, but it was little more than a brief diversion for me.

I ended up picking up Endless Legend at some point during the sales.

Life's too short for Civ 5 to be the only 4X game you ever play.

It's interesting to see some of the relatively subtle differences that I really like, but also how much less I like it as a game on the whole despite those, although I don't want to be too critical because it's entirely possible I've overplayed Civ5 to the point where I don't like the genre anymore in general.

I love the increased granularity of resources - there's much more flexibility in how you manage your cities. The economy buildings give you huge bonuses that vary wildly depending on your terrain.

There's more balance in starting places with even "useless" tiles giving some yields.

Some of the cool faction-specific traits really change how you play the game.

I really hated 1 UPT from Civ5 - possibly the games primary fundamental weakness - so EL's take was a much better compromise IMO.

I liked the levelling system as well, but haven't quite got to grips with the inventory system yet.
And there's the

Butttt.. there's something missing.
Not only are there too few factions, but there are particularly too few "standard" factions for my liking - as far as I can tell, only the Vaulters and Elf-guys (whatever they're called) use the "normal" game mechanics.
There certainly aren't enough standard units. I know that it pushes you towards assimilated units from other factions, but it's not a good enough solution to the problem IMO.

Because of the large quantities of resources availble, the game has a pretty steep learning curve in some respects - not getting the basics, but learning how to play the AI in the same way.
I'm finding it a lot easier to fall miles behind in this, or generally cock things up beyond repair, than I would in Civ 5.

I keep wanting to go back to it, but I'm tending to quit games after about 100 turns.