If it follows what they did with Civ5, those tools won’t be made available until they stop working on DLC / expansions. Which would be a damn shame, if so.
We’ll always have Civ IV.
Amplitude have been doing this for some time with Endless Legend and Endless Space 2, now. These forums are not super wild about those games, but I am fond of them. That said, the AI will still not impress you - even though this is something I know they spend significant resources on, it’s just not an easy problem to crack. (But it’s not as stupid as Civ VI seems to be.)
It’s not that I disagree with what you are saying. It is obvious to me that Firaxis’s places very little priority on AI.
But I also think that how much someone minds that depends upon their perspective. The more you are picturing playing a competitive game – particularly a conquer-the-map military game – against quasi human opponents, the more this will drive you nuts. And that is pretty much what a large number of people here are looking for.
But I look at this as a building game, where the emphasis is on providing interesting and varied hurdles to successfully building a secure nation. The neighboring civ is not a symmetrical competitor playing by the same rules and with the same goals so much as a hurdle who will likely require time and resources to handle one way or the other.
A parallel could be made to the typical RPG. The enemies you fight rarely have any real chance to beat you, they are not playing the same game you are. They are just hurdles to overcome.
The thing is that Civ VI (in my opinion, much more than Civ V) makes the hurdles much more interesting and diverse. Maps vary, start locations vary, opponents vary, etc. Which, in my book is great, but it makes it all the more impossible to write AI that could pass for a symmetrical competitor. My assessment of it is that Firaxis was just realistic about what this game really is and what it is not. In my view, they made the right call, in that it would take a total re-write to make this a game that could really compete for the wargame market.
However, unless you do some rather gamey or exploitative things, you can have dozens (probably hundreds) of hours of gameplay where the obstacles provide interesting challenges, and this can be dramatically extended if you play some less-than-ideal civs, play through poor starting locations, don’t save-scum, etc.
Very astute summary I think! Nailed it.
I would like to see the Civ series embrace its board gamey aspects a bit more. Something meatier than Revolutions, but more streamlined and elegant than VI. Maybe Sid could have one last crack at it before he retires from the industry completely? Probably too late to go back now, but the feature creep is becoming a problem for me.
Oof - I feel like they tried that with 6 and I hate it. Wish they would do the opposite, honestly.
Hey - those posts we’re a great read, thanks for the link.
I finally started a game of this - I hadn’t played since release… I was doing my usual thing, keeping as little military as I could, building up my economy. Arabia sneak attacked and I easily fought them off. I kept building the economy. Japan sneak attacked. They took 3 of my 5 cities. I was so under defended.
Their attack stalled after that and I refused their repeated peace deals. They were willing to give me back 2 of my 3 cities, but that wasn’t good enough. They even through in gold and luxuries. I want all 3 back or else they have to finish me off.
I finally took 1 back and have to advance for the next 2. This is on Prince difficulty - but I am very rusty.
I don’t like how willing the AI is to do sneak attacks, especially since there doesn’t seem to be any fallout over doing it.
It depends heavily on the era. In the first era, there is absolutely no penalty to sneak attack wars. The main reason not to do it yourself is that it is often a waste of resources to do so. But you could almost go as far as to say that there is no real peace in the first era. Penalties are only slightly higher for a sneak attack in the second era. But after that, it is a problem for most civs.
The exception – which I find aggravating – is that to civs can agree together to attack you (I forget the name at the moment, war alliance?) and for some reason that is deemed a formal war and not a sneak attack… However, in my experience, this rarely leads to a particularly fierce attack.
One thing to keep in mind (one of the silliest things in the game, imo) is that AI civs attack, lose their units, and then give you piles of things to end the war, even though you never really threatened their cities. So being attacked is often a good thing, as long as you’ve got a few ranged units at your disposal.
I forgot about that.
Most often I’m sneak-attacked by two civs at a time, one presumably because they were bribed. Typically the second is somewhere too far away to attack me anyway, so the whole thing is kind of a joke… The funny thing is they have to lose a unit or two before some stupid rule decides they have suffered enough to make peace, so often I can only make peace with the nearby attacker, and the other one sits around at war for a thousand years or more until eventually some dilapidated spearman or whatever finally shows up to charge my infantry.
I haven’t noticed any real negative consequences in any era for any kind of war. So sure, the whole world denounces you and only accepts outrageously insulting deals. But they would have done that anyway once you got any kind of advantage, and it’s hard not to get an advantage, so it will happen regardless, pretty much.
I finished up my game with a space race victory. I kept a fairly low profile. I attacked France once to defend my city state. Japan did another sneak attack late in the gate as i approached my victory, but my few units outclassed them. I ended up occupying one of their cities and got that one and another in the peace deal. This make some civs call me out as a warmonger, but those who had a solid relationship with me beforehand didn’t object - I had enough positive relationship modifiers to negate the warmonger penalty.
I enjoyed my game, even though there was a lot of end turn pressing for a long time before victory. I used that opportunity to do squats.
I still can’t believe a played game after game after game of Civ from Civ 1 through 4. I mean, I’d finish one game and immediately start another. I didn’t have a of of money when playing Civ 1 -3, but with Civ IV I was making a good living and still played the crap out of it. I just don’t think I can do that any more with almost any game. There is just so much variety to be had now. I can dive all in for a story heavy game like The Witcher series, even for the 125+ hour duration.
Despite the game’s issues, I’d love this for the iPad, it would make my international trips so much shorter!
To some extent, I’m not surprised, mobile processors have been getting more and more powerful, it was bound to happen at some point.
I demand reports from the frontline on this iPad port. I want to believe in it but the timing of the release makes me nervous, like will dump it out, ready or not, days before Xmas.
I’m not seeing it in the App Store on my phone or iPad at this point.
Hmm interesting. This looks like a full port of Civ VI, not just some Revolution type game. $30 is allot for any iPad game so will be curious how many are willing to drop that much for an iOS game.