Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
You are about to experience an artificial intelligence that will make the Civ VI launch-day AI look like wet chicken ____.
Better movement of units, with packing and unpacking of armies. In Civ VI, the closer that you got to the end of the game, the worse it became to move your units across the board. Which is one of the reasons people would quit playing a match.
There was so much click-spam in the last game that people couldn't wait to get back to playing Counter-Strike.
The introduction of Ages, which simulates the real-life evolution of civilizations, rather than past games, which were completely ridiculous.
I have a dozen others, most of which are removals and replacements of certain game mechanics.
Bottom line is, this is not a Larian Studios copy-paste job. This is an overhaul.
An apology for past mistakes.
The bottom line is, if you're weary about the price just wait to see other sheeps play the game for you so you don't feel miserable after buying it
I disagree with the comment above on the final portion about it being a overhaul.. at the end of the day it's a game where you just click on more things there's no actual new mechanics where u press space before u get attacked and u take less damage or something.
Just not something anyone really expected. One guy asked for it, that I've found. He wanted to play as China, but with Ben Franklin as a leader, so he could get some kinda strategy boost or something.
But we did find at least one person who asked for that, after two weeks of searching. So there's that?
Don't worry, by doing this they're adding more, not taking things away. Trust me.
I'm sure this will mean we get better AI and game balance. No, I won't hold my breath.
It is of course true that today, 6 is steeply discounted, so sure, if value is decisive for you in this decision, 7 would have to be, what, 10 time better to come out on top. I doubt that will be the case, so save your money until 7 gets discounted.
If instead of a pound per feature criterion, you want to tuck into novelty even if you have to pay a premium, well, 7 is going to give you huge changes from 6. That's very clear. What isn't clear, what has people who have played older versions of Civ anxious, is that the changes are so extensive that it's not clear that the devs have managed to integrate the new features into a coherent whole.
The big change is age transitions. There are only 3 ages, in place of the 8 eras in 6, but unlike the eras, the ages aren't arbitrary divisions along a time line that is effectively continuous as far as your gameplay goes. Instead you get a series of crises as the age nears its end, then a transition that wipes out many but not all differences in the progress that all the players made in the last age. The "not all" refers partly to different sorts of perks that you can grab during the last age that carry over as benefits you get in the next age. Each age now has some mechanics unique to that age. You play as a different civ in each age, and the civs now are specific to one age, and have far more numerous and detailed uniques that are at least partly designed to fit into the particular mechanics of their age.
The overall effect is going to be that managing your age progression, navigating the age transitions well, is going to be the focus of long-range strategy. In 6, that focus was on expansion to get more districts so you could move up the tech and civics trees faster. That's a rather huge change, I would say.
Presumably to keep the game from getting unwieldy by virtue of the new mechanics involved in age transition if they were just plopped on top of a game that kept all the old mechanics, they have instead chopped off or streamlined a lot of the old features. No more builders. No diplo or religious victory, and religious gameplay has been simplified and reduced in its impact. No more barbarians. They have been merged in with city-states to form the new "independent powers". All of your interactions with other civs, these Independent powers, and to some extent public opinion in your own empire, has been consolidated into one system, with your store of "influence" limiting your freedom of action in all these interactions. No more using AI civs as ATMs! There doesn't seem to be a World Congress anymore.
There are loads of details that haven't been revealed yet, and in a game as complex as the Civ series games have been, the devil is in the details. You can't even judge the impact of the details they have revealed because the stuff they have revealed operates in a context of mechanics they haven't yet revealed, so big frightening unknowns all around. Personally, I am not so anxious, because this group of devs has a history of extensive play-testing. I really doubt that the game on release is going to be the unplayable mess that the extent of the changes might suggest it could be, because the devs have been playing the game for some time now. The wider Civ community is of course going to find exploits once the game is released into the wild, because this community includes a bunch of obsessive-compulsives with larceny in their hearts, and I would be surprised if the devs don't have to rejigger some things here and there in the months and years ahead.
So, big changes from 6, both in terms of new features introduced, and old features given the ax. Too many changes for any short and sure answer to your question, and even an answer long enough to cover every detail that has been revealed, still requires you to make inferences about how it will all mesh or fail to mesh into a satisfying game. Read the game guides and watch the livestreams and make your own judgments if you want to have the best possible idea right now if you should fork over the asking price. That, or wait for the opinions, and/or watch the videos of, people who have played the game after its release before you make your decision to buy or not to buy.
The pre-release marketing fluff for Civ 6, Civ 5 and nearly every Civ sequel all stated vastly improved AI, with gaming journalists and more recently sponsored youtubers all praising outstanding AI. The actual results at release tended to be completely different.
Happy to be proven wrong, but the history of 4x games AI, especially at release says otherwise.
New - less size scope and numbers.
You have to play through three smaller games and change your Civ each time .
No long term goals or aims which reduce this into what will be maybe a fun console game.
no hot seat , lack of MP and a reduced ( at least for probs the first year ) Mod's
If you fancy a less complex "civ" with an immortal leader with multiple cosmetic meta builds to grind away like a diseased Fortnite clone then may be worth the initial outlay.
Best wait a few years and hopefully this dies a quick clean death
But why? It's fine if it's not your thing and you don't want to play it, but why does that mean no one else is allowed to enjoy it?
"You don't have to be good at this to win! We'll help you look good and feel like you're a winner! That mean ol' bully who took the time to git gud and was at #1? Look, they're just about even with you now thanks to this artificial crisis we threw at them! Here, buy another DLC to celebrate your totally-earned victory!"
I'm not even trying to be sarcastic here. That's the legitimate summary of this approach.
This is not a Civ installment for the traditional player of yesteryear -- the SoD-loving sweat who lives to manage an empire of 100 cities, who actually hits that "one more turn" button to keep going after some arbitrary win condition is met.
This is for the casual. And it'll sell. But this is aimed squarely at the kind of player who looks at a FromSoft title and sobs with rage, angrily ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ themselves over how the game is gatekept from them.
Man, I miss BattleToads. Anyway.
Unless you cant think for yourself, do what ever you want .
From all that I have seen Civkind should be avoided for several years and by then it will be scrapped or many of the "new" features like Civ morphing will have been removed .
You enjoy your hamburger and night
In 5 you really couldn't get too many cities at all until ideology let you get past the hobbles put on expansion, and the game was usually pretty well done by then. You could balloon to a lot of cities at the end, but it was usually a marker of a victory already attained, not part of your strategy to win a game still in doubt.
In 6, I guess you could try to win with just a few cities, but you really, no matter how talented, needed to spam as many cities as you could, as the dominant strategy for any victory type was to expand as wide as possible as early as possible in order to get as many districts as possible. Maybe on higher difficulty you did need to manage the first 6-10 cities pretty optimally, but after you broke out and snowballed enough, you just spammed as many artless cities as you could into the space available so you could finalize the win on a game you could no longer lose if you tried. Like I said, I never got near a hundred, but if I got 40, the last 30 were pretty subopimized, because the game only required a player to get to the snowball point of 15-20, past which you no longer needed to make any hard choices, or optimize anything --just spam a few districts in all of the interchangeable cities you make after that point.
So, what they've done in 7 is break up one continuous game that so often in 6 effectively ended less than halfway through because one player had snowballed by then and the game was no longer competitive, even for players who can manage 100 cities blindfolded and with one arm tied behind their backs. The more skilled players in 7 definitely set themselves up in each age to be in a better position to deal with the end-age crises, and more importantly, to secure for themselves good carryover perks for the next age. The fact that some features in the game do reset every player to the same level at the start of the new age just makes it more powerful to get good carryover perks. To the extent that everyone is weaker, then whatever strengths you can carry over will be unanswerable by players who weren't as skilled as you at getting the perks. Skill is rewarded, just not with a snowball that lets skill run away with the game halfway through.
7 looks like it is is going to require at least as much strategic skill as 6, maybe more, just applied to different mechanics than 6 had. Some mechanics from 6 are going away, or are being simplified, some features are being complicated and extended (like influence replacing diplomacy), and some, like all of the age transition features, are totally new dimensions for players to navigate. 7 is streamlined in some areas, but overall looks more complicated and demanding.
I'm not sure that 100 cities will ever be practical in 7, but the settlement limit does seem to go up sharply in the Modern Age, after being admittedly cramped in Antiquity and Exploration. I recall seeing a limit of 22 settlements in the livestream. That's not 100, but 22 seems plenty to me, even for players who can only be satisfied a game is challenging enough if you can play wide.