Civilization VI? Edit: !

[Cikomyr]

So i have heard multiple references regarding a potential Civ6 in the past days.

I was wondering if someone has heard anything concrete about it, or if there has been any leaks..?

[Narkis]

I've heard rumours from multiple sources, the most concrete being Brad Wardell, CEO of Stardock, saying in his blog he knew Civ 6 is coming out this year.

[Sian]

I'm inclined to disbelieve that a CEO from a competing company (thats currently busy releasing a game) is the one to break any sort of news.

[Cikomyr]

I'm inclined to disbelieve that a CEO from a competing company (thats currently busy releasing a game) is the one to break any sort of news.

He is certainly more in the knows than the average goer. His sales figures are dependant on rival games' releases

[Sian]

He is certainly more in the knows than the average goer. His sales figures are dependant on rival games' releases

yes and no ... one is a RTS, one is a TBS ... the overlap between the player groups is smaller than you'd suspect ...

[Narkis]

yes and no ... one is a RTS, one is a TBS ... the overlap between the player groups is smaller than you'd suspect ...

Generally I'd agree, but Stardock also publishes Galactic Civilizations 3, which is very much a TBS and is getting some expansions this year.

[scottcrowan]

I would also agree with Stardock

[Cikomyr]

He shoots, he scores!!

A new trailer, narrated by yours truly, Sean Bean. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvBf6WBatk0)

[OrcusMcP]

So, I'm currently taking odds on whether their planned October release date will be pushed or not. Who wants in? :smallwink:

In all seriousness, though, this looks pretty sweet. From what I've read so far, I like the emphasis on geography they're going for to shake things up.

[Flickerdart]

He shoots, he scores!!

A new trailer, narrated by yours truly, Sean Bean. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvBf6WBatk0)

Haha, they airbrushed the nipple out of Liberty Leading the People.

Not terribly impressed by the trailer. Bring on the gameplay footage! Or even pre-rendered footage!

[Illven]

Woo!!!!! More Civilization!

So how long till we GMR these games? :smalltongue::smallwink:

[CarpeGuitarrem]

So, I'm currently taking odds on whether their planned October release date will be pushed or not. Who wants in? :smallwink:

In all seriousness, though, this looks pretty sweet. From what I've read so far, I like the emphasis on geography they're going for to shake things up.
Not sure how well it'll work out, but it sounds neat!

Article highlighting the new features (http://www.pcgamer.com/civilization-6-everything-you-need-to-know/)

I don't know if the "terrain is tied to research" will wind up being more annoying or strategically interesting.

[Silfir]

Some information on gameplay. (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/05/11/civilization-vi-details/)

One Unit Per Tile persisting just about obliterated my interest, though. It's possible that they've decided to massively increase the number of tiles and the map and that units can move, since they also announced the abolishment of one city per square, which could make it more palatable. Also, instead of being able to decide on specific tech paths (which led to everyone jumping on the optimal tech route), your research is more or less dictated by the tech boosts you've collected. Guys, the solution you were looking for is Blind Research and it was just one of the many things Alpha Centauri did that make it the best Civ game to date.

Even Civ II had some measure of undirected research - it blocked out some tech choices every time you picked a new one, which occasionally sent you on a detour.

Only being half-serious here, though. The end result could work out. But I'm definitely not buying this one on release.



One very common complaint: The art style. To many, it looks too colorful; there are unflattering comparisons to mobile games thrown around. That's one complaint I don't have; to me the art style is reminiscent of Civ II in a good way.

[factotum]

Only being half-serious here, though. The end result could work out. But I'm definitely not buying this one on release.


Unfortunately, that pretty much has to be the plan for *any* Firaxis game these days. Civ 5 took two expansions before it got any good, and Beyond Earth and Starships were neither particularly great examples of their genre. I'll be reading a lot of reviews and watching some Let's Plays before deciding if Civ6 is for me.

[Cikomyr]

Well, for one I love the idea of terrain-guided research. A civilization living on the core of the mainland shouldn't have nautical tech available. You should only want to research Iron if you actually find the weird stuff. etc..

With hope, this will bring actual variety to each and every one of the games. Please perhaps steal a page from Stellaris and use the "Deck" of techs? :D

[OrcusMcP]

One Unit Per Tile persisting just about obliterated my interest, though. It's possible that they've decided to massively increase the number of tiles and the map and that units can move, since they also announced the abolishment of one city per square, which could make it more palatable.
They did announce that support units can be integrated into your units, and you can consolidate units into corps. We obviously won't know more until later, but that seems like a pretty solid tip-o-the-hat to the doom stacks of old while maintaining 1unit/hex.

Also, instead of being able to decide on specific tech paths (which led to everyone jumping on the optimal tech route), your research is more or less dictated by the tech boosts you've collected. Guys, the solution you were looking for is Blind Research and it was just one of the many things Alpha Centauri did that make it the best Civ game to date.
Eh, I personally like the idea of the tech boost system, especially if it's tied to your civ's geography. It makes a certain amount of historiographic sense. If nothing else it should help make the early game especially more shaken up, rather than just Pottery->Writing->LuxTech1->etc every game.

[Sian]

the city impovement on tiles, smells distinctly like Warlock: Master of the Arcane (http://store.steampowered.com/app/203630/) which was a competent and strong entry in how Civ V could have made their combat mechanics stronger (at least seen as such by my inner Civ IV Grognand), but otherwise kinda shallow waters in the macro-strategy.

If they manage to siphon off the learned experience from Warlock (and Warlock II) and refining it, I'm probably willing to give it a fair shake

[Silfir]

Why go halfsies?

When it comes down to it, a landlocked civilization shouldn't simply fail to get a tech boost for nautical techs - It should plain be unable to develop them at all, unless it has an exchange of knowledge or trade of some kind with a Civ that does have access to these techs. (Or it ceases being landlocked.)

Even if it's just the tech boosts that can be exchanged as a result of exchanges of culture, it's one way of making diplomacy more interesting. Every people has something to offer another - do you befriend them and hope to learn that way, or do you take it by force, and risk damaging it beyond repair? What knowledge will be lost for thousand years more because someone didn't remember to not burn the libraries and not kill the philosophers drawing circles in the sands?

If they go that route, more power to them. Somehow I doubt it.



Just the notion that Civ VI is intended to start with Brave New World as the baseline puts me off. Including the specific mention of archaeology and tourism. That's not stuff that belongs in a game about building empires in the first place. If this is now part of the core Civilization game, what on Earth are they going to add in the inevitable expansions?

There's not much room to be taking the game in new directions when you get the designer of Brave New World to start with Brave New World as the baseline.



What I'm saying is I'm really not holding my breath.

[Flickerdart]

Why go halfsies?

When it comes down to it, a landlocked civilization shouldn't simply fail to get a tech boost for nautical techs - It should plain be unable to develop them at all, unless it has an exchange of knowledge or trade of some kind with a Civ that does have access to these techs. (Or it ceases being landlocked.)
Why? All ancient civilizations arose near large rivers, so it's not like the concept of large bodies of water (or the desirability of being able to cross them) would be lost on land-locked nations. They may not have a reason to develop navigation technologies like star charts or telescopes, but they can have boats.

[Cikomyr]

Why? All ancient civilizations arose near large rivers, so it's not like the concept of large bodies of water (or the desirability of being able to cross them) would be lost on land-locked nations. They may not have a reason to develop navigation technologies like star charts or telescopes, but they can have boats.

Funny. There's recently been a Quebec kid who discovered a Mayan city because he observed that the Mayan civilization did not established its cities logically (near rivers). (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/forgotten-mayan-city-discovered-in-central-america-by-15-year-old-a7021291.html)

[Cikomyr]

I hate doomstacks.

Hence why I am REALLY happy we are never going back there. I have no problem they try to tweak and solve the 1/tile to make it better, but please, NEVER go back to Doomstacks. They utterly destroyed any joy I had in playing warfare.

[Gamerlord]

It isn't like there can't be a middle ground. Attrition, logistics system ala Gal Civ, increased maintenance costs, vulnerability to certain attack methods like artillery are all good ways to keep someone from stacking all their dudes into a few squares without such a severe restriction.

[Silfir]

Why? All ancient civilizations arose near large rivers, so it's not like the concept of large bodies of water (or the desirability of being able to cross them) would be lost on land-locked nations. They may not have a reason to develop navigation technologies like star charts or telescopes, but they can have boats.

In which Civ game did crossing a river involve having to research a tech? I always presumed all Civs have access to the basic concept of boats, similar to how they start the game with stone axes for the warriors.

The first nautical tech in Civ V is Sailing. Any body large enough that it can't be crossed with a boat or circumvented should also qualify for researching Sailing. To develop something, you first have to have an idea for why you might need it.

I mean, this is the concept they're going for. They want the player's civilization's surroundings to guide them to different areas of research. Except they're going halfsies; instead of restricting the player's tech choices based on their surroundings in a way that feels authentic, they just hand out the tech boosts.


It isn't like there can't be a middle ground. Attrition, logistics system ala Gal Civ, increased maintenance costs, vulnerability to certain attack methods like artillery are all good ways to keep someone from stacking all their dudes into a few squares without such a severe restriction.

This is going to sound super obnoxious - Civ II got this right, too. Only the strongest defender gets to defend the stack; if you kill it, the whole stack dies. Civ 2 encouraged the same behavior as Civ V did - spreading your forces across the available land to avoid stack extinction - but did it without the maneuvering nightmare that comes with One Unit Per Tile. It also still had legitimate uses for stacks despite their vulnerability, with phalanxes guarding vulnerable catapults rolling up to well-defended cities.

The system they're proposing - that of creating "formations" that allow units to move in unison - honestly is just incomprehensible to me. How is that supposed to help?

[Sian]

The system they're proposing - that of creating "formations" that allow units to move in unison - honestly is just incomprehensible to me. How is that supposed to help?

until further explanation, I'm excepting something somewhat similar to Armies in Civ III

[Dhavaer]

Yes! This all sounds great and I will be buying it ASAP.

[Zevox]

Huh. And here I just picked up Civ 5. Although with my luck despite having gotten a new PC just last Christmas I may well turn out not to be able to play Civ 6 on my PC. It would figure.


I hate doomstacks.

Hence why I am REALLY happy we are never going back there. I have no problem they try to tweak and solve the 1/tile to make it better, but please, NEVER go back to Doomstacks. They utterly destroyed any joy I had in playing warfare.
Personally, it's less stacks and more the "loser always dies" nature of Civ 4's combat that made me hate that. Way too much RNG frustration involved when every battle is guaranteed to be fatal to somebody, and it's just basically a dice roll deciding who it is and how much damage the winner takes. Though stacks didn't help, and I could see them still causing problems with a Civ 5 style combat system (i.e. every army would consist of melee units stacked on top of a bunch of ranged ones that can just mass fire away without limits on how many could be in a tile), so yeah, can't say I really want that back either.

[Aotrs Commander]

Eliminating doom stacks as the end-all and be-all could be done by adding a proper supply system (which no game ever really does, to my knowledge - I mean something beyond force limits and number attrition) and capping out the maximum amount of units which can fight in a given node (tile, in this case). Then nothing prevents you from having a 100 unit stack of doom trotting around, but if you can only engage with five units at a time and your logistics can't handle it bringing tht many tea and sandwichs because there's too mnay blokes and not enough roads and carts/trucks/trains to bring it too them... (Actually, you could get WW1 with that system, where doom stacks spend agaes hitting each other and rotating less wounded unit into a fight because neither sie can achive a breakthrough to break the other guy's supply chain. That's interesting... And would make air power and strategic bombing actually something you WANT to do, as opposed to going "nah, I want it intact for myself.")

If I am to take the exact opposite to what I've been saying in Stellaris about starship tactical combat (to which I am RIDICULOUSLY biased), there is a saying that amateurs concentrate on tactics, professionals comcentrate on logistics. My Dad, author of Manouvre Group, has spent the last few years trying to play campaigns. I say "trying" because they are using real-world army organisations and the terrain system and rules allows then to play on battlefields that mean they can use real-world tactics. It took them ages to work ut what recon actually DOES. And the big thing is, war is only fought over roads (and rivers and railways, whichever is your primary logistics method). Because tea and sanswiches is basically even more important than the actual combat, since if yu screw the former, you can't do the latter anyway.

So if as much effort was put into the logistics system and to the actual combat (not that Civ's combat has ever been THAT deep...!), you could very easily strike a balance between stacks o'doom and one-unit-per-hex.

But there is a possible drawback of doing that, though.

The more real you try to make it, the harder it gets; in the real world, this stuff is HARD. Like, really hard, as any real general will tell you. And not necessarily data-manage-complexity hard, but decision-making hard, where you can't rely on the game mechanics to tell you how to win. By which I mean, there is no optimum numerical advantage to something that tells you, say "that's the best place to put people, because they get a +10 bonus" it's more like "which road to I deploy my reon units to watch?" And for some folks, that level of decision-making is not fun. (Dad describes Manouivre Group as a "geeky" system even with the contraints of th wargaming community.)

And sometimes, you do just wanna roll over spearman in your modern armour Civ 2 style, slowly while laughing. (I know I do.)

[J-H]

Huh. I only got Civ4 a year or two ago. It's pretty fun, but doomstacks do take the fun out of things. I like to run low-military while teching up fast and if the AI catches me at a bad time, it's essentially unrecoverable.

Not a big fan of the graphics, but that may change when they put out some screenshots that show the grid lines; right now, it's too chaotic and busy.

I will agree that Alpha Centauri was the best Civ game... actually, you know, I think I still have it on my hard drive. I may see if it still works.
Leonard Nimoy was fun, but the AC tech quotes were just super awesome. A decade and a half later, I still have some of them memorized.

[Grif]

Some information on gameplay. (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/05/11/civilization-vi-details/)

One Unit Per Tile persisting just about obliterated my interest, though. It's possible that they've decided to massively increase the number of tiles and the map and that units can move, since they also announced the abolishment of one city per square, which could make it more palatable. Also, instead of being able to decide on specific tech paths (which led to everyone jumping on the optimal tech route), your research is more or less dictated by the tech boosts you've collected. Guys, the solution you were looking for is Blind Research and it was just one of the many things Alpha Centauri did that make it the best Civ game to date.

Even Civ II had some measure of undirected research - it blocked out some tech choices every time you picked a new one, which occasionally sent you on a detour.

Only being half-serious here, though. The end result could work out. But I'm definitely not buying this one on release.



One very common complaint: The art style. To many, it looks too colorful; there are unflattering comparisons to mobile games thrown around. That's one complaint I don't have; to me the art style is reminiscent of Civ II in a good way.

Hm. 1upt. I guess I'll keep this on the backburner then.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I personally prefer the one-unit-per-hex. Makes the whole thing feel more like a strategy/board game and less like a sim. I figure, if I'm going to play a sim-like empire game, it'll be a Paradox game like Europa IV or Crusader Kings II.

the city impovement on tiles, smells distinctly like Warlock: Master of the Arcane (http://store.steampowered.com/app/203630/) which was a competent and strong entry in how Civ V could have made their combat mechanics stronger (at least seen as such by my inner Civ IV Grognand), but otherwise kinda shallow waters in the macro-strategy.

If they manage to siphon off the learned experience from Warlock (and Warlock II) and refining it, I'm probably willing to give it a fair shake
Yeah, it's also in Endless Legend. Neat way to restrict a city's improvements, and it makes for more difficult decisions, which I'm a fan of.

[J-H]

I hope they back off of using Mao & Stalin as leaders (they're in Civ4 BTS, not sure about Civ5). They both killed just as many of their own people as Hitler did, and should be in the "too evil to use in fun" category like he is.

[Androgeus]

I hope they back off of using Mao & Stalin as leaders (they're in Civ4 BTS, not sure about Civ5). They both killed just as many of their own people as Hitler did, and should be in the "too evil to use in fun" category like he is.

They weren't in Civ V, Russia had Catherine and China had Wu Zetian.

[snowblizz]

In which Civ game did crossing a river involve having to research a tech?
Civ2 actually. Needed Engineering to get roads to cross rivers. Not what you meant but I was immediately reminded of this.


The first nautical tech in Civ V is Sailing. Any body large enough that it can't be crossed with a boat or circumvented should also qualify for researching Sailing. To develop something, you first have to have an idea for why you might need it.
You sail on rivers, and lakes of any size really.


Navigation also isn't exactly only a prerequisite for naval useage. You need navigation to move over vast featureless deserts and plains too.
Tying tech to certain terrain seems a bit harsh since there are more than one way to arrive at the need of certain tech.
Be interesting if instead of A -> B -> C there was a basket of 6-7 techs and by getting any 4 you can progress, arriving at the same result but not alwys the same way. Bonus if the result is slightly different.

Always hated there was like one or two stone and marble on the map but they never spawned close to me. In Civ3 IIRC.

[Hunter Noventa]

I will agree that Alpha Centauri was the best Civ game... actually, you know, I think I still have it on my hard drive. I may see if it still works.
Leonard Nimoy was fun, but the AC tech quotes were just super awesome. A decade and a half later, I still have some of them memorized.

AC Actually works just fine, other than the UI being a bit clunky the game is totally playable on modern PCs with no tweaking.

I'm cautious about Civ VI. I'm excited that it's coming out sure, but V only got really good after the expansions ironed things out.

it is interesting how they're doing the techs. It'll have to be drastically different from a tech tree though. I mean, in Civ V you could be playing on a map with no oceans, and still need to research sailing eventually to chain up to some later techs.

But just because you don't have a body of water big enough to take up a whole tile in your borders doesn't mean there wouldn't be ones big enough to research sailing. I mean at the scale of Civ maps, the only US lakes big enough to be full tiles would be the great lakes. You're going to argue that all those lakes in Minnesota don't have people sailing on them?

[Cikomyr]

Except the Great Lakes are more "inner seas" than mere lakes..

[Aotrs Commander]

Personally, the first thing I did when playing Alpha Centauri was turn blind research OFF. If I'm playing a Civ/4X game everything for me is about planning and setting goals (the ultimate one being "wipe everyone else out.") I loathe RNG for the sake of adding randomness1 with abandon and my response to it is to just save-scam until it goes away.

I WANT to be able to optimise my progression to the maximum amount.



1Because no game implements it well and most implement pretty fracking awfully. The set of games that are possible and the set of games that are fun do not occupy identical phase space, and too much randomisation moves you out of the latter set, whether on computer or tabletop.

[Cikomyr]

Disagreed. I love having to deal with curveballs the game sends my way. And not being able to play "ze perfect optimized way" forces me to get out of my comfort zone and act riskier/more conservatives in ways i wouldn't be able to otherwise.

[Aotrs Commander]

To put it another way, "make the best of a bad job" is not what I play games (ANY game, be it wargames, RPG or computer) FOR. I don't find that to be entertaining.

But as I have observed before, I'm not actually sure I truly play GAMES (in the most traditional/common sense of the word) at all, especially on computer, but more sort of use them as sort of construction toy/interactive puzzle to be solved/story to be told (as approproiate to game type). It's a rather subtle sort of distinction that took me years to realise.

[Hunter Noventa]

Except the Great Lakes are more "inner seas" than mere lakes..

Right, just using them as an example of how big something would have to be to show up on a civ-scale map. I do agree with the idea that having a full-on lake tile or coastal tiles would speed up nautical research, but not that it would be impossible without it.

[Gamerlord]

I hope they back off of using Mao & Stalin as leaders (they're in Civ4 BTS, not sure about Civ5). They both killed just as many of their own people as Hitler did, and should be in the "too evil to use in fun" category like he is.
Realistically, it isn't because they aren't too evil, but because they can be used without running the risk of the game being restricted in Germany, which is a big market for strategy games and PC games in general.

[warty goblin]

the city impovement on tiles, smells distinctly like Warlock: Master of the Arcane (http://store.steampowered.com/app/203630/) which was a competent and strong entry in how Civ V could have made their combat mechanics stronger (at least seen as such by my inner Civ IV Grognand), but otherwise kinda shallow waters in the macro-strategy.

If they manage to siphon off the learned experience from Warlock (and Warlock II) and refining it, I'm probably willing to give it a fair shake

I fired up both Warlock (with all the DLC) and Civ V + Gods and Kings in the last week, and was really struck by just how much better Warlock was. One of the big things is that a city can simultaneously build a building and train a military unit. So my industrial center can in fact churn out units as fast as possible if I can afford it. The city population system is much cleaner as well, and removes the misery that is worker management. There's a number of other little improvements that I similarly adore, such as getting to build a reasonable diversity of units right off the bat, and having fairly short build times for early game units as well.

But the best part was no more happiness system. Happiness in Civ V is horrible. I was playing as the Danes, and completely totalled my entire civ's productivity because I conquered a city. Naturally the newly conquered people were unhappy, but because the local/global happiness interaction is stupid, this made everybody in my entire empire unhappy. I'm a %*&# viking, my people should be holding drunken revels in the streets in honor of my glorious conquest! Warlock, I conquer a city, it's unhappy, but my capital doesn't suddenly come over all depressed because I stomped all over their bitter enemies. Now in Civ I could see having certain Ethics or whatever cause unhappiness based on conquest, but as a base mechanic it just doesn't work for me.


Really, I came away noticing that a lot of Civ's systems were mildly engaging in the moment, because there's always another button to press, but I really had little interest in playing any more, because there's so many stupid ingrown toenail mechanics. I'm genuinely looking forwards to hopping back into Warlock this evening, and may snag the sequel.

[Jerry]

I must admit, I'm cautiously optimistic about CIV VI. CIV 5 was my first Civilization game and I liked it, though I thought each DLC had its ups and downs. I rather enjoy vanilla but for the combat, the DLC fixed combat but I felt changed the culture victory too drastically. I liked the religion addition though. So if I could pick and choose that would be ideal, but of course that can't be done. I hope the artwork isn't too RA3-ish, which is sort of how its looking now. :smalltongue:

[Cikomyr]

To put it another way, "make the best of a bad job" is not what I play games (ANY game, be it wargames, RPG or computer) FOR. I don't find that to be entertaining.

But as I have observed before, I'm not actually sure I truly play GAMES (in the most traditional/common sense of the word) at all, especially on computer, but more sort of use them as sort of construction toy/interactive puzzle to be solved/story to be told (as approproiate to game type). It's a rather subtle sort of distinction that took me years to realise.

Funny, because i found these unpredictable challenges and pathways to victory to be the real difficulty of problem-solving. I find not knowing what will happen just enhance the narrative. I love quirky location starts in CivV for example, and my most memorable Fall from Heaven game started out as an absolutely ****ty location, and i made it work by pure happenstance.

(Wood elves spawning in the bloody desert, if you wonder)

[Aotrs Commander]

Funny, because i found these unpredictable challenges and pathways to victory to be the real difficulty of problem-solving. I find not knowing what will happen just enhance the narrative. I love quirky location starts in CivV for example, and my most memorable Fall from Heaven game started out as an absolutely ****ty location, and i made it work by pure happenstance.

(Wood elves spawning in the bloody desert, if you wonder)

Like I say, I just don't find that sort of "make the best of a bad situation" particularly interesting to play, personally. I do not derive much, if any, satisfaction from Doing A Hard Thing in any context, games or otherwise. (Go figure, but that's the way I'm wired.) For me Doing A Hard Thing merely means relief that I can move on to do something more interesting.)

So, when it comes to random chance ruling the flow of the game - well, if I want to play something where the roll of the dice dictated everything, I'd play snakes and ladders. I want to be making informed decisions, not drawing cards (I don't like card games, basically at all) and picking froma subset. If I'm playing a civilisation 4X game, I want to be making all the decisions, not having the RNG dictated to me. (I stopped using random stat roll for RPGs years ago now and have never looked back. Blind tech progression is to me the equivilent of a random dice roll deciding what selection of feats you get1.)

Randomisation is overused FAR to much in games (computer, wargame or otherwise) to attempt to poorly emulate things would be better achived by better "simple rules=> complex results" interactions. But it's easy so nearly everyone uses it.

And RNG and I rarely see eye to eyeglow at the best of times (not like my mate, who is one of those naturaly lucky people).



1Now, I'm to some extent prepared to accept something like SotS's method of randomising your available tech tree, because there were more ways to build stuff. In Civ/Alpha Centauri - there really wasn't because combat was principally defined by "which tech gives me the biggest numbers" - and would get all the techs anyway if you were at it long enough. So not picking the order you do it in I felt added nothing at all but take away one of the most fin parts of the game, deciding what techs to pick - "levelling up" your civiliasation, as it were.

[Silfir]

Does that mean you play on the same map every time? Because you don't want to leave your starting position up to chance either?

Ultimately this exchange only demonstrates why the SMAC developers made Blind Research a toggleable option.

[Aotrs Commander]

Does that mean you play on the same map every time? Because you don't want to leave your starting position up to chance either?

Honestly?

That's what map editiors are for.

So, frequently with Civ II and IV (though not with AC) - no. No, I did not.


Ultimately this exchange only demonstrates why the SMAC developers made Blind Research a toggleable option.

Indeed, that was a very wise choice on their part, I think. I can play my way and you can play yours and we cna both have hours of fun deriving different things from the same game.

(As was the long standing "preserve random seed" toggle, (which I always turned off immediately) though I never understood why Civ was still using a random seed for probabitily in a game that late (does Civ V have it? I forget - IV certainly did).)

One of the things I liked about Pillars of Eternity was the unusually high number of difficulty/quality-of-living toggles, so you play at whatever level you liked. More games would do well to follow that example.

[Winter_Wolf]

Actually I do play on the same map all the time with SMAC, but starting location is completely random. Mainly because the AI tends to get stuck with the absolute worst location on random maps. In Civ games I pick the same parameters almost all the time, because I like being able to do large land battles and naval battles. Typically go for large and small continents plus islands, medium seas, and temperate rocky terrain.

Cautious optimism for Civ 6, but not going to pre order or be an early adopter. Not even sure if my computer would be able to run it; I have to keep Civ V on lower settings as it is.

[Cikomyr]

I wonder if they can ever replicate the Fall From Heaven II map styles. Which was.. Somewhat semi-local geography. You had valleys, mountain ranges, etc.. Made the environment really cool to explore and navigate.

[factotum]

Like I say, I just don't find that sort of "make the best of a bad situation" particularly interesting to play, personally. I do not derive much, if any, satisfaction from Doing A Hard Thing in any context, games or otherwise. (Go figure, but that's the way I'm wired.) For me Doing A Hard Thing merely means relief that I can move on to do something more interesting.)

I thought I was alone in that! If I somehow manage to beat a hard boss in a game, I feel nothing but relief that I've got the crappy bit out of the way and can go back to playing the fun part.

[Aotrs Commander]

I thought I was alone in that! If I somehow manage to beat a hard boss in a game, I feel nothing but relief that I've got the crappy bit out of the way and can go back to playing the fun part.

Exactly. That sorr of thing is not what I look for in my stress-relief (which is specifically what my computer gaming is for, as opposed to my tabletop wargaming, which i play for different (though still moreor-less entirely noncompetative) reasons).

I am like the anti-Dark Souls lich.

[wumpus]

Unfortunately, that pretty much has to be the plan for *any* Firaxis game these days. Civ 5 took two expansions before it got any good, and Beyond Earth and Starships were neither particularly great examples of their genre. I'll be reading a lot of reviews and watching some Let's Plays before deciding if Civ6 is for me.

Oddly enough, I'd place both Firaxis and Bethesda to "always buy, but only one year after release" (and preferably in a Steam sale). They are both located in Maryland, but with only a small (but fairly well populated) area where you could consider commuting to either location, so I suspect that cross-pollination by worker transfer is pretty low.

[Cikomyr]

I personally loved CivV right off the bat. A bit hard to master right, but certainly fun.

Gods and Kings made it waaaay more interesting.

Brave New World made it fantastic

[Cikomyr]

So there was gameplay footage released at E3. Looks.. interesting. Curious about how.it will play out.

I have to say, their new Cleopatra looks bodacious as hell

[GungHo]

This is going to sound super obnoxious - Civ II got this right, too. Only the strongest defender gets to defend the stack; if you kill it, the whole stack dies. Civ 2 encouraged the same behavior as Civ V did - spreading your forces across the available land to avoid stack extinction - but did it without the maneuvering nightmare that comes with One Unit Per Tile. It also still had legitimate uses for stacks despite their vulnerability, with phalanxes guarding vulnerable catapults rolling up to well-defended cities.

The system they're proposing - that of creating "formations" that allow units to move in unison - honestly is just incomprehensible to me. How is that supposed to help?
I enjoyed the way Endless Legend handled it. Yes, you had stacks, but they were capped at 4~8 units + hero. If you wanted more, you make another stack, and those stacks could reinforce each other. It really came together in sieges. It gave you both flexibility in not having one guy who was going to be beat to death if you let him explore alone and the ability to go to real war without making things incredibly unwieldy.

I'm wondering if they're not simply going to formations due to convenience but also because they designed their engine in such a way that units really CAN'T stack. It makes me wanna look at their design documents.