Civilization VI Hype Thread of one more turn - 9/10 GS 92/100 MC ... GOTY contender!

How does anyone play Civ? Do you go for military strength, or are you more tactical? Do you make lots of allies over a long game, or try and have a "short" game?

As for myself I used to love playing on marathon mode as the Greeks. I try and stay peaceful but as soon as any civ talks shit about me, I declare war!

I "role-play." If I'm Genghis Khan or Montezuma, I'm a bloodthirsty warmonger who likes to burn things. If I'm Enrico Dandolo, I'm a trader/diplomat who buys the world. If I'm Alexander, I try to make my Hellenic League of city-states while crushing my enemies. If I'm Elizabeth, I'm an aggressive expansionist with a huge navy. So on an so forth. England is my favourite civ.

Anyway, I've just watched the launch trailer. I have to say, Sogno di Volare, the game's main theme, has really grown on me. Nothing on Baba Yetu, of course, but it's nice.

Ultimately I tend to go for an unstoppable culture with advanced society and money. Essentially I try to create a society that is so wealthy and awesome that everybody wants in and their leaders can't stop it.

In Civ 6 I hear trading works differently and becomes more viable. There is no civilization that focuses on money, really. But Egypt comes close. They get extra money per trade route. So I'll probably play them.

I'm going to play in different ways, though. I want to try a seriously religious approach. Or having a vast spy network. Or raiding coastal cities left and right without much care who it belongs to. And I want to try a game in which I try to adapt constantly and let the situation determine how my civilization develops. I love that you can play Civ in multiple ways.

Those that prefer the military approach, have you beaten civ 5 on Deity with military approach? that thing is no joke

@_Matt_:

I try to deal with the cards I'm dealt. For example, should my early neighbours be ultra agressive, regardless of what Civ I picked, I'll definitely try to counter (for better or worse). If they're calm I may focus more on exploration, commerce and culture until/if the eventual need to conquer land/kill a direct competitor comes :P

I'm hoping Civ 6 allows you to better focus on any specific route though. Civ5 (and 4 too) for all it's great achievements kinda forced you to have a small defense army ready to deploy even if you weren't actively fighting anyone. At any given point the AI could turn against you, especially in the mid-late game. I usually had to be isolated in a continent/island to be a able to do a full on "peaceful" run (keep in mind I'm not the best of players either). I'm hoping the new and seemingly more powerful commerce and diplomacy options along with being able to create specific districts to boost those options allow you to be full on neutral even amidst warring Civs and pursue a cultural victory for example.

Interesting. To be honest, my knowledge of history is probably not good enough to role play most leaders, I try to play to the strengths of the Civ outlined though.

I don't think anything could best Baba Yetu to be honest, although having Sean Bean helps everything

I love trying to go for the unstoppable culture, but somewhere along the lines I end up needing to raise a large military from threats from other Civs which is a shame. Religious approach in Civ V was a fun way of doing this with latest expansions, highly recommend giving it a go.

Don't get me wrong, I do plain on getting Civilization VI later down the road but when it comes to civ games, they are best two + years later when all xpacs are included and when there are a ton of mods & I'm gonna wait for Civ VI Complete. I didn't learn my lesson after buying Civ 4 & learn my lesson after buying Beyond Earth. It's just not on my radar at launch day.

The AI probably attacked you because your army wasn't big enough. If i've a rich neighbour with a small "defensive" army vs my large offensive one I know what I'm doing :P

Playing on immortal with Germany atm and mostly aggressive civs its a blast, more or less constant warfare and not even me doing most of the fighting!

AAA for Gamespot

@_Matt_: When I play Turn Based Games, I play "Gotta Capture 'em all". Allies turns into vassal or risk being dominated.

I'm pretty much in the same boat. It's not just an issue with Civ games, it's present in other GSG/4X games as well; these games age like fine wine. I'd definitely get somewhere down the line.

Plus I have abit of a GSG/4X backlog. I'm happy to finally give Stellaris a spin with its upcoming patch/DLC. Endless Legend came out with a new Xpac and patch and I love the ruleset, micro and strategic flow of that game.

I typically just shoot for a military victory.

Any time I test out those science victories and whatnot it feels like the whole world is against me. It probably doesn't help that my favorite way to play is the huge world maps with max AI players.

You almost always run into that situation yes. Borders touching each other + a very small military creates negative relationships. Civ V is probably the only Civ that I couldn't really get in to. Maybe I wasn't in the mood. At this point I rather wait for VI. It's only a few days. I'm pumped.

Civ seems to make drastic changes with the odd-numbered entries and perfect them with the even ones. I expect this to score AAA and be a lot better than 5, which was a great game.

NBA2K17 why does kenny "the jet" look he's had a stroke.

I tend to be very isolationist in the early parts of the game as I build up several cities and focus on world wonder construction (because I like to horde). Sometimes this doesn't pay off, as I'm attacked and more than once I've lost because my army wasn't up to snuff.

Once I'm satisfied with my budding empire, I then become a war machine and start aggressive expansion and don't let up until the whole world is under my control. Mwahahaha.

Having too small an army in a civ game is just a sign of a kind personality ;)

I have a few strategies I use:

• Economics, wherein I leverage my luxury resources and try to gain as much gold from as many empires as possible
• Fully open borders until the modern era, to allow for maximum Tourism benefits
• Religion spread, because that keeps city states and competing civilizations in line
• Once I reach the modern era, I close my borders, and invest in as many museums and radio towers as I can, to increase my tourism spread

I usually always try to go for cultural victories, with diplomatic and scientific victories coming in at second. Military victories to me are the most boring.

Pre-loaded and ready to go. So excited for this Civ. I hope it's actually good at launch and I won't have to wait 2+ years for it to be good.

"Pfff... civilization. I rather play a good paradox game or total war."

Gross. Paradox games always disappoint me. To each his own.

@_Matt_:

I'll have you know our entire history is based on a snatching defeat from the jaws of victory! :p

For some strange reason Boudicca in Civ V was Scottish, at least all of cities had Scottish town names and she wore plaid. Vary strange in deed.

Scotland would make a great addition, so many unique units to Choose from like medieval Schiltron, medieval/renaissance Highlander, industrial Black Watch or Scots Greys (sorry had to throw my old regiment in there :p) Of course I may be a little biased.

I'm a long game, huge world player. That generally means Domination isn't that viable as my empire usually becomes too large and disintegrates (repetition of actual history) or just plain takes too bloody long to get my troops to where I want them. Normally I'll go for a Scientific or Cultural victory after conquering my immediate neighbours.

@the_master_race said:

@_Matt_:

Oooh, shall update, thanks! Got a link to the review?

@_Matt_ said:

@the_master_race said:

@_Matt_:

Oooh, shall update, thanks! Got a link to the review?

it's on PC Gamer , http://www.pcgamer.com/civilization-6-review/

@the_master_race said:

@_Matt_ said:

@the_master_race said:

@_Matt_:

Oooh, shall update, thanks! Got a link to the review?

it's on PC Gamer , http://www.pcgamer.com/civilization-6-review/

Thank you sir, OP updated :)

Haha yes I love to expand until that point where it can unfortunately be a chore to maintain Cities.

Is it just Civ V with tweaks/updates...bc I'm actually fine with that?

Everything looks great from a game-play standpoint but why do all the female leaders look like men?

Aaaagh they're all declaring war against me !(civ 6). Whhhy? What have I done?!

Was hoping for a few more early reviews just in time to pre-order, but damnit. Oh well, I'll just wait for Gamespot and IGN to come out with their reviews before deciding.

In the meantime, I've been listening to Sogno di Volare over and over. Great song. Nice little opportunity to brush up on my Italian, too. Una volta che avrà spiccato il volo deciderà...

Oh, how I play Civ? well I play IV and V differently because of how different they are. But I generally follow the same rule: this applies to other 4x strategy games, too.

I treat information and scouting as a top priority over anything. I like to keep my doors open until I get a good understanding of my borders and the territorial landscape; it works well particularly in Civ because of how personality driven your competition is, which is certainly a fresh of breath air over how clinical/mechanical leaders/factions are in other 4X games.

Usually float on the sweet spot that is 4 cities. I may stick to that tall approach or expand depending on the situation and I'm certainly less of a role player in 4X games and more of a 'do whatever it takes to win' kinda person. I'll decide on the best course of action to get ahead by whatever means.

I dont usually play long scenarios on big maps, because I dont really like how they just snowball off a wide strategic land grab.

In Civ 4 I am a warmonger, no questions asked. Scouting, and maintaining good knowledge of the enemy civilizations lets me know what units to expect and which towns to attack. Bringing plenty of siege just to deal with those stacks of doom and completely nullify town defense.

In Civilization 5, managing large armies is just a colossal pain in the ass thanks to the One Unit Per Turn System. ESPECIALLY when uneven terrain is concerned. But I might go for some early conquests until cities get too strong to be easily taken. Instakilling siege weaponry and whatnot. Once the 3 range siege weaponry is available, I go warmonger again. But ultimately my strategy depends on my empire. My preferred victory is cultural actually. I feel they really screwed up military matters, piss poor execution of a good idea is still a bad thing overall.

@_Matt_:

Round Up :

current metascore 94/100 - http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/sid-meiers-civilization-vi

Telegraph - 5/5

PC Gamer - 93/100

PCGamesN - 9/10

GameCrate - 9/10

Trusted Reviews - 4.5/5

Read the PC gamer review, sums it up really well.

Rock Paper Shotgun has a Wot I Think (basically a review). AI is still an issue, but otherwise, it's an across-the-board improvement on Civ V. They think it's a GOTY contender. High praise indeed.

Waiting for one more review before deciding.

Nice, hopefully the AI can be improved with an update later but right now it sounds similar to Civ5 which is ok I guess.

What I don't get is this

"Civ VI wants you to decide whether Boston is a university city or not, and your reasoning as to what belongs where will go a long way toward determining how effective each city is in the long-term."

I think that's good but what happened to the wonders that you could build only after each city had a particular type of building? Is that still a thing? If that's so then this new feature will prove to be kind of a pain in the ass since now you not only have to build buildings you don't really need or want but they'll also clutter your city uselessly.

Someone knows how this is dealt with?

ok maybe I will buy this one today...

seems to have more depth in most areas.. happy with that! especially cultural / diplomacy victories! and micromanagement.

there's no sign of Persian Empire ,

ಠ_ಠ

, probably gonna sell it as a DLC -_________-

Hope they don't go overboard...

Kinda ticks me off that they only give you certain leaders... I know technically they program different A.I for different leaders so its not just a case of making animated portraits/voices ... but damn I wish had options...

Part of me wishes Civilization would become a consistent service. no more numbered releases... just add content over time to this solid foundation and charge for it.

Completely disagree. Warfare now is the best in the series. Stacks of death along with stacks of catupults to deal with cities and stacks of other units were stupid as hell. Now the game is actually balanced - you don't need insane quantity of units to win battles or to take on cities. The right balance and the right logistics and positioning are the key. Plus taking advantage of civilization special units that can attack and run away at the same turn can provide you easy early conquests. It's just more tactical and fun now. Stacks of death was the least realistic part of civilization. I was just making stacks of cavalry and artillery and death rolling for the rest of the game- two units, nothing els lol. The balance for death stacks was extremely broken.

Talking about 6 or 5? Because Civ 5 was a Traffic Jam simulator. It also had serious issues with the AI being terrible at the game, pacing issues and so much more. It was not uncommmon to win games without losing a single unit. The one unit per tile was probably the worst addition to Civilization, in the entire history of the franchise. It barely added any depth as well. Since the combat was as shallow as it came. What little depth it added did not make up for its hurdles and flaws. And it didnt help that subsequent patches would outright nerf anything the AI couldnt handle.

Edit: And stacks of doom were very easy to deal with. Especially with splash damage and all. The only reason I formed stacks of doom is because it was much less of a hassle, move 30 troops with one mere click, instead of having to drag every single one individually.

95 metascore now.

10/10 GS anyone?

@phantomfire335: not on GS, 9 at tops, too deep and not enough grass

I'll be picking this one up in a few weeks I think. Too many games on my platter right now.

Friend is getting the game... must resist buying it myself else I'll have to give up all my ambitions.

AAA . The game seems to be quite deep at launch with quite a few features ( unlike Civ V )

Still hyping it 10/10

Anyone here gotten the game already? What's the good word?

Not bothering with reviews (I know what to expect), I just want to know from down to earth folks: how does it compare to Brave New World?

Okay, so I'm out

@charizard1605:

Well that's a given, boss. You're so out of touch with reality, you actually thought you could leave the board forever.