Octopus Overlords

LordMortis wrote:

Jolor wrote:So far I've only seen new civilizations and scenarios for VI. What took V from good to very good were the major expansions.
I thought I heard that there were none planned, however, for VI?
If so, I can't see myself getting into VI as it's just not enjoyable for me today.

Really? That is going to be a total buzzkill for me. I had always assumed there would be more, like happened for IV and V and I had been hanging my hat on that wait.

Those are just unlikely rumors. No reason I've seen to think Firaxis will deviate from the formula they've been using for years.

I'd guess they'll have an expansion sometime next year.

I'm 14 turns away from winning my Civ 5 game if I win the UN vote, as expected, or about 25 turns away if I have to take out the last foreign capital. Because the AI didn't follow up its advantage and trash me when it easily could have done so, the game will end up lasting about 1400 out of 1500 turns.

The thing I hate most about 5? Loading a save.

Double-click icon to launch.
Click to select DX version, for some reason.
Wait.
Click Mods.
Click to accept all the same mods I always run.
Click disclaimer.
Wait.
Click Single Player, for some reason.
Click Load Game.
Click last save.
Wait a long time.

You couldn't store all those variables in the save file? I think I might have even missed a click in there. Sheesh.

Anyhow, after I win this game tonight I'm going to jump directly back into Civ 6 for a fresh comparison. After that I will decide if I'm ever going to play 6 again or default permanently to 5.

Sepiche wrote:

LordMortis wrote:

Jolor wrote:So far I've only seen new civilizations and scenarios for VI. What took V from good to very good were the major expansions.
I thought I heard that there were none planned, however, for VI?
If so, I can't see myself getting into VI as it's just not enjoyable for me today.

Really? That is going to be a total buzzkill for me. I had always assumed there would be more, like happened for IV and V and I had been hanging my hat on that wait.

Those are just unlikely rumors. No reason I've seen to think Firaxis will deviate from the formula they've been using for years.

I'd guess they'll have an expansion sometime next year.

Pinning my hopes on that as well. Looking up the Civ V release schedule, I see that you're right. Civ V was released Sep2010 and Gods & Kings on Feb2012; BNW on Mar2013.

That would put a Civ VI major release in the Mar2018 timeline.

Kraken wrote:Anyhow, after I win this game tonight I'm going to jump directly back into Civ 6 for a fresh comparison. After that I will decide if I'm ever going to play 6 again or default permanently to 5.

I've been curious if Civ VI would be worth getting for me. I've enjoyed every Civ game so far, but have heard some bad things (mechanically) about VI. I recently played Civ IV for a while and then went into Civ V and was reminded and relieved to see the "Stacks of Doom" gone that I can't imagine stepping back again.

Kraken wrote: Anyhow, after I win this game tonight I'm going to jump directly back into Civ 6 for a fresh comparison. After that I will decide if I'm ever going to play 6 again or default permanently to 5.

Please report back on your results/thoughts on this. Your answer may well determine if I skip a Civ for the first time since it was released. No pressure!

I know I wouldn't touch VI in its current state based on what I've read so far, but if they do ever release expansions a la IV and V, then there's hope.

I know this is very different for everyone, but for me personally, the expansions (esp BtS, perhaps one of the best and most significant free expansions in modern PC gaming) to IV greatly enhanced an already very fun and challenging vanilla version of Civ.

The expansions for V (esp the last one) made the most uninteresting and least fun iteration of Civ at least as good as its predecessor.

Civ 6 added so many cool new features that there's no way I could enjoy Civ 5 anymore. My biggest gripes on 6 is the lack of a HoF, and a lackluster AI that ought to improve over time.

Carpet_pissr wrote:

Kraken wrote: Anyhow, after I win this game tonight I'm going to jump directly back into Civ 6 for a fresh comparison. After that I will decide if I'm ever going to play 6 again or default permanently to 5.

Please report back on your results/thoughts on this. Your answer may well determine if I skip a Civ for the first time since it was released. No pressure!

I've only just begun replaying 6, and due to a bad starting position I had to restart last night. But I can say this much already: 6 is a deeper strategy game than 5, and so far I can't remember why it's not as fun. The well-documented interface/feedback shortcomings aren't game-killers.

I had forgotten two things: Barbarians are a major challenge, and 6 reintroduces the "land grab" that 5 had successfully overcome for the first time in the history of the series. The pressure to expand quickly despite the rampaging barbs makes the early game quite challenging.

Despite removing two AIs from the default starting number of opponents, other civs still start closer to me than I would like, and they still like to settle in my rightful turf, even when it's a long way from their home. This happens consistently enough that it must be by design.

I'll post more comparisons when I get farther into the game, being mindful that they are old news to most people reading this thread.

Kraken wrote:I've only just begun replaying 6, and due to a bad starting position I had to restart last night. But I can say this much already: 6 is a deeper strategy game than 5, and so far I can't remember why it's not as fun. The well-documented interface/feedback shortcomings aren't game-killers.

I had forgotten two things: Barbarians are a major challenge, and 6 reintroduces the "land grab" that 5 had successfully overcome for the first time in the history of the series. The pressure to expand quickly despite the rampaging barbs makes the early game quite challenging.

Despite removing two AIs from the default starting number of opponents, other civs still start closer to me than I would like, and they still like to settle in my rightful turf, even when it's a long way from their home. This happens consistently enough that it must be by design.

I'll post more comparisons when I get farther into the game, being mindful that they are old news to most people reading this thread.

The AI gets a little brain dead midway through large games (and large games are the only ones I enjoy) and I had a couple of showstopping crashes.

IIRC people were using mods to prevent cluster starts which are (were?) ubiquitous. I played through them and never worried about it though I do remember being annoyed at a needlessly crowded start, having the AI further hem me in and then threaten me for their expansion.

But there have been two new releases of the game since last I played, I think. From the sound of it at least on thing hasn't changed, Let us know what you think of the AI when you get to mid game.

Kraken wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote:

Kraken wrote: Anyhow, after I win this game tonight I'm going to jump directly back into Civ 6 for a fresh comparison. After that I will decide if I'm ever going to play 6 again or default permanently to 5.

Please report back on your results/thoughts on this. Your answer may well determine if I skip a Civ for the first time since it was released. No pressure!

I've only just begun replaying 6, and due to a bad starting position I had to restart last night. But I can say this much already: 6 is a deeper strategy game than 5, and so far I can't remember why it's not as fun. The well-documented interface/feedback shortcomings aren't game-killers.

I had forgotten two things: Barbarians are a major challenge, and 6 reintroduces the "land grab" that 5 had successfully overcome for the first time in the history of the series. The pressure to expand quickly despite the rampaging barbs makes the early game quite challenging.

Despite removing two AIs from the default starting number of opponents, other civs still start closer to me than I would like, and they still like to settle in my rightful turf, even when it's a long way from their home. This happens consistently enough that it must be by design.

I'll post more comparisons when I get farther into the game, being mindful that they are old news to most people reading this thread.

Thanks for that. I actually kind of enjoyed IV's (and before) land grab starts. I thought it was challenging and interesting, and created a sense of (enjoyable) tension that was replaced by mid game tension of wars, that is replaced by late game tension of "the end" and whatever race you are in (space, diplo, etc). Beauty of the game IMO.

I doubt it will happen but every Civ and Civ DLC release I hope for a way to claim territory instead of relying on city settlement.

LordMortis wrote:

Kraken wrote:I've only just begun replaying 6, and due to a bad starting position I had to restart last night. But I can say this much already: 6 is a deeper strategy game than 5, and so far I can't remember why it's not as fun. The well-documented interface/feedback shortcomings aren't game-killers.

I had forgotten two things: Barbarians are a major challenge, and 6 reintroduces the "land grab" that 5 had successfully overcome for the first time in the history of the series. The pressure to expand quickly despite the rampaging barbs makes the early game quite challenging.

Despite removing two AIs from the default starting number of opponents, other civs still start closer to me than I would like, and they still like to settle in my rightful turf, even when it's a long way from their home. This happens consistently enough that it must be by design.

I'll post more comparisons when I get farther into the game, being mindful that they are old news to most people reading this thread.

IIRC people were using mods to prevent cluster starts which are (were?) ubiquitous. I played through them and never worried about it though I do remember being annoyed at a needlessly crowded start, having the AI further hem me in and then threaten me for their expansion.

re: the hemmed in start. That's one of the things that bothers me greatly. I dont mind if there is a contest for territory, but there seems to be something hardwired into the coding for the other AI to send a settler far away from home to settle purposely near you. An example in case. I had modded the game so that other Civs would start about 25-30 hexes away from you. I found England was on a small island away from me. They ended up creating a settler, sending it over a small water straight, through desert and a shit ton of luxuries, through jungles to settle about 6 hexes away from my capital. I shadowed the settler the whole time simply out of curiosity, but they foregoed much greater and powerful starting positions simply so they could "settle" near me.

So the AI is programmed to act like a d##k? Awesome!

I never had that problem but I never played with the spacing mod. I get hemmed in but that is because the even a humongous world with room everywhere, the starting space always sandwiches me between two opponents.

Also, I do not hesitate to try and hem in the AI when I am playing an aggressive game, so I don't see a problem with an aggressive advanced AI doing it to me.

Newcastle wrote: re: the hemmed in start. That's one of the things that bothers me greatly. I dont mind if there is a contest for territory, but there seems to be something hardwired into the coding for the other AI to send a settler far away from home to settle purposely near you. An example in case. I had modded the game so that other Civs would start about 25-30 hexes away from you. I found England was on a small island away from me. They ended up creating a settler, sending it over a small water straight, through desert and a shit ton of luxuries, through jungles to settle about 6 hexes away from my capital. I shadowed the settler the whole time simply out of curiosity, but they foregoed much greater and powerful starting positions simply so they could "settle" near me.

What level are you playing at? I wonder if that makes a difference because I've never seen anything like that happen quite so early, and if I saw a settler anywhere near my territory that early in the game, I'd instantly declare war and capture the bugger. Not only do you get a free expansion, but your new enemy is now severely stunted for having committed so much early resources for naught.

It's usually when I hit the 3-4 city mark that I find AI settling uncomfortably close -- or bitching because I am settling adjacent territory that happens to be close to an outpost they erected on my outskirts. I ignore such complaints.

I had to restart again last night due to another rocky start (literally; I was in the mountains and surrounded by AIs on all sides). Finally got a viable game going. On the plus side, there's a Restart button now -- it generates a new map using all of your current settings. I don't remember that being there before.

Kraken wrote:I had to restart again last night due to another rocky start (literally; I was in the mountains and surrounded by AIs on all sides). Finally got a viable game going. On the plus side, there's a Restart button now -- it generates a new map using all of your current settings. I don't remember that being there before.

Me either! Yay for little things. That's one of those things I never understand in any game. If it takes you more than five or ten seconds to set your preference for the start of a game, you should have that option be the default for you next game. Of course, "restart" isn't quite the same because I'd likely want to switch nations every game but retain most of the other settings.

I haven't finished my comparison & re-evaluation game yet, but I'm going to lay out my conclusions anyway.

Civs 5 and 6 both have some annoying design flaws or outright bugs (like most games). 6 has a lot more of those than 5 does. I'm sure we've complained about them extensively in this very thread already. By way of example, consider the apostle bug. New apostles start at level 2 and receive a second promotion until you reach the Atomic age. Then those promotions suddenly stop. Yet you still get the "unit has a promotion" flag on the right side of the screen. So...do the promotions stop according to some undocumented design, and the flag is just a feedback bug? or are promotions themselves simply broken? Whichever it is, this bug has been around since the first version, and it makes a religious victory much, much harder if you haven't already gone well down that path before the promotions dry up.

6's deeper strategy makes 5 feel like a beer-and-pretzels wargame. The warmonger penalty makes war much more costly as the game goes on, so 6 is much more about building than about conquest. That can make the late game boring. 6 has a better diplomatic model, IMO, with better info about why the AIs like or dislike you. However, trade deals nearly always favor the AI.

City states are weaker than in 5. I miss the UN votes and victory path.

Aside from the bug, I like 6's religious combat model; it gives you something to do when you can't wage conventional war. At the same time, that can get annoying when the AI takes advantage of it -- you have to be constantly vigilant, and for some sadistic reason religious units don't have the Sentry ability so the AI can easily sneak missionaries and apostles past you.

I did like the way 5's happiness model eliminated the early land-grab and slowed down expansion. In 6, the map is going to fill up to capacity fairly quickly, whereas 5 could often go into the endgame with lots of open terrain left. The sheer number of cities in 6 can get overwhelming...especially since they removed the build queue for some sadistic reason. Theoretically, I prefer 6's city-by-city happiness model to 5's global happiness, but I don't like that consequence. Maps in 6 feel more crowded even before they get covered in city spam.

I'll just cut to the chase rather than rehash any more complaints that this thread already covers: I actually prefer 6 despite its many flaws, and I'm not going to revert to playing 5. That is not the conclusion I expected to reach. But I'm more of a builder than a warmonger, and 6 suits my style of play. I just wish they fix and improve it. The game model is better, but the execution is not.

Hope that helps you reach a decision, Carpet. There are things to like and things to dislike about 6, and yours won't match mine...but there it is.

Excellent! Thanks. That gives me hope that the expansions can fix the execution issues. I like hearing that the underlying model is superior to V, just needs a little polish maybe.

One of the dumbest design moves is emblematic of the game's philosophy in general: Removing the Hall of Fame. Why? Did any player anywhere ever wish the scoreboard didn't exist? They're already generating scores, how hard is it to store them? I don't expect a GalCiv-style Metaverse (although why not?), but we're just talking about a freaking list and a graphic here.

I just finished a game by winning with the Science victory by landing on Mars. Had one small war with India when I started the game. He eventually sued for peace and i was friends with every nation until the very end until Germany copped an attitude but I was on my way to launching my final rocket by then. I parked my Military on his border jsut in case he had any ideas about stopping my space program. One of the first times I went a whole game of Civ without any major conflicts.

Kraken wrote:One of the dumbest design moves is emblematic of the game's philosophy in general: Removing the Hall of Fame. Why? Did any player anywhere ever wish the scoreboard didn't exist? They're already generating scores, how hard is it to store them? I don't expect a GalCiv-style Metaverse (although why not?), but we're just talking about a freaking list and a graphic here.

Maybe that's what I'm waiting for. For them to patch in the hall of fame. That's seems to be a sign that a version is about done.

Maybe they removed the scoreboard because scoring is wanged. I just finished one of my best Civ games ever -- I earned nearly every great person, built most of the wonders, entered the Information Age while everyone else was Industrial, and conquered the world by 1400 AD. It ranked me at a very disappointing 15th level.

I resorted to making up a Hall of Fame spreadsheet to track my scores. Still miss it in game though. Fond memories of starting with the cave palace too.

Details about the fall update are out.

Religion getting a "reboot".

(No talk of a scoreboard/HoF. /sigh)

I might take your spreadsheet approach after I finish playing each civ once on King. I'm going to bump it up to Emperor after that.

At least the religion revamp will probably fix the promotion bug that I've been griping about forever.

I wonder if this means that I have the fall update:

Playing as Peter for the first time, ancient era. France declares war. I don't care; they're a continent away and I'm friends with Rome and England. I'm busy civilizing when a squadron of Roman dweebs attacks. Wait, Romans? Yup, they're definitely attacking even though we're still friends with all the expected diplomatic options -- of which making peace is not one. I make peace with the French in case they and the Romans somehow got their wires crossed, but my friends the Romans keep on coming. I denounce them. They're offended. Still don't get the war dipstates, though.

Since there's no apparent way out of that I rage quit. I suspect that the game might have just become unplayable.

The diplomatic bug that I reported above hasn't recurred in my current game (again playing as Peter), so maybe it was a one-off. I hope. Anyway, the game isn't nerfed as I had feared.

The fall update came out for realsies. It didn't break my save game, which was near the end of a religion victory. Since I was finishing up a game I didn't get to see much of the patch, but I did get a good look at the religion revamp. The new map overlay makes it easier to see what you're doing and gives you more precise feedback, although I do miss the intuitive simplicity of the balance wheel, and the bar showing which religions are present in a city is so prominent as to be distracting. And the new healer means you don't have to retreat your injured prophets all the way home to heal, making a conversion campaign go more quickly.

BUT they didn't fix the gorram prophet promotion bug! I have mentioned the prophet promotion bug, haven't I?

Which prophet promotions don't work? I haven't used all of the promotion options, but those I have seem to work as advertised.

Jeff V wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:25 pm Which prophet promotions don't work? I haven't used all of the promotion options, but those I have seem to work as advertised.

Prophets stop receiving promotions in the Atomic Era. The promotion action icon still shows up on the right side of the screen, but clicking it takes you to your new prophet who has no promotion order available.

EITHER the promotions are supposed to end as part of an un- or poorly-documented game feature, and the notification icon is the bug, OR (more likely) promotions themselves break. Whichever it is, if you're going for a religious victory, build your god squad before the atomic era, because new ones get significantly weaker at that point.

Looking forward to try out the new patch and new civs this weekend. Think I'll play as the Khmer first because of the cool looking catapults on top elephants and culture bomb holy sites.

Ah, ok, I rarely pay attention to religion that late in the game, so I never noticed this. If I go for a religious victory, I usually seal it while everyone else is still backwards. If I'm warmongering, then I use religion to raise troops, not prophets.

Torfish wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:04 pm Looking forward to try out the new patch and new civs this weekend. Think I'll play as the Khmer first because of the cool looking catapults on top elephants and culture bomb holy sites.

I'm looking forward to this, too, but not until my favorite mods have been updated to be compatible. Especially Community Quick User Interface (CQUI). I tried the game for a couple hours last night, without that, and it was painful.

A new expansion was announced today (coming out Feb 8, 2018) - Civilization VI - Rise & Fall.

Sounds like a lot of changes are coming.

A new expansion for Civilization VI, called Civilization VI: Rise and Fall, was announced today. The expansion looks to majorly shake up the flow of the game with era-long modifiers that will force you to shift your strategy for fear of losing your cities or ambition to seize others'. Its centerpiece feature is the addition of "Golden Ages," "Dark Ages," and "Heroic Ages"—macro events that apply each civilization's ever-shifting fortunes, achievements, and momentum to a struggle for territory and cultural influence, whether military force is involved or not.

The expansion will also add governors, a greatly expanded alliances system, cities that peacefully flip between civilizations, and an "Historic Moments" system that gives players special milestones that impact outcomes. Players can look forward to "emergency situations," which allow the civilizations at the bottom to pool their resources in order to gain benefits that help elevate them all closer to the top players. And, of course, expect new civilizations and leaders.

No mention of a Hall of Fame.

The announcement cinematic is very nice, a bit tear-jerking towards the end even...

Lagom Lite wrote:The announcement cinematic is very nice, a bit tear-jerking towards the end even...

Wow, agree. That was fantastic. Imagine the amount of man hours put into that, and just for an expansion!

I’m still not at the point from switching from V yet, though. Have not heard enough “NOW, VI is better than V” comments yet, from players that own both. No doubt it will happen, maybe even with this expansion.

Lagom Lite wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:30 am The announcement cinematic is very nice, a bit tear-jerking towards the end even...

Yes, I became particularly emotional when I realized they were adding further complexity to the game when they had yet to get the AI to the point of handling the systems already in place.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:40 am

Lagom Lite wrote:The announcement cinematic is very nice, a bit tear-jerking towards the end even...

Wow, agree. That was fantastic. Imagine the amount of man hours put into that, and just for an expansion!

I’m still not at the point from switching from V yet, though. Have not heard enough “NOW, VI is better than V” comments yet, from players that own both. No doubt it will happen, maybe even with this expansion.

Oh absolutely, no kidding. Civ6 is much less of game than Civ5 + expansions currently. The gameplay is slow, the AI needs a hefty handicap to compete and the tech tree micromanagement with eurekas and inspirations is really tedious.

I expect Civ6 to become a fun game after the second or third expansion...

Freyland wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:27 am

Lagom Lite wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:30 am The announcement cinematic is very nice, a bit tear-jerking towards the end even...

Yes, I became particularly emotional when I realized they were adding further complexity to the game when they had yet to get the AI to the point of handling the systems already in place.

AI and UI were my two things for setting the game aside. Now I'll likely wait for deep discounting on DLC as I haven't purchased any yet.