You go too far sir.
I would never characterize ANY of the civ AI’s have been “quite competent.” I can still manage to lose to the computer players on the hardest difficulty level, but that’s not because the are competent, it’s because they get such a head start that by the time I’m starting to ramp up, they can steam roll me.
OK minimally competent, with a lot of help via cheating. Which I don’t mind – anything that happens behind the scenes to boost the AI is ok by me. Good AI is very hard. With 5 and 6, the AI is completely incapable of doing anything remotely threatening.
I was shocked in a recent game when I was attacked by fighters. I think this marked the first time I ever built a SAM unit.
That is a really weird take to me. It’s the penultimate strategy franchise on PC. I agree Civ6 isn’t much of a strategy game but that’s why there’s a lot of Civ fans not happy with Civ6.
If we’re on the sixth iteration of the series and it’s always been a builder, why are there so many longitme fans that were hoping for/expecting a strategy game? Yes, the game has an economy and buildings and wonders but that’s all been part of a strategy game that also includes warfare, diplomacy, religion, etc. There were real decisions in Civ games where you debated about whether to shoot for a wonder or to research Archery and beef up your city defenses.
Nothing wrong with taking the franchise in a builder direction, but I think retroactively calling the franchise a builder and not a strategy game is… well, I disagree.
In that case, what’s the ultimate strategy franchise? ;)
Minesweeper.
Dangit, in the post-literally world, words can mean whatever the hell I want them to! :)
Europa Universalis.
Come on, you knew someone would say it.
If you look into your hearts you will know that the answer is Imperialism II.
Of course, I took “penultimate strategy franchise” to mean that Kevin had seen into a grim future where there was only one more strategy game to follow Civ, and then the genre dies.
In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only connect-3.
Oh no, I’ve violated the Protocols and with the butterfly effect in play I might have thrown the entire course of human history off! I mean, my history, your future. Oh crap there I go again…
Ahahah Civ a builder game
Considering how strong going for a “wide” empire over “tall” empire has been in the majority of Civilization’s lifespan, the game mechanics themselves certainly didn’t favour the “builder” playstyle for a long while. Civilization 2 has a hard preference towards Expansionism via the settling or conquest of new lands due to how much having an advantage in number of settlements ramps up over time.
So, no, it definitely has been a turn-based strategy game since its inception. Sure, the competency of the AI can vary how well the game pushes back against you. Trying to play Civilization 2 how you someone might play Civilization 6 though is very much going to handicap or punish them.
I think we are getting tied up in terminology.
The game has long (not sure about always, my memory is not that good) been more popular among those who like to build an empire than those who see buildup as simply the basis of war.
It’s a matter of which players are more likely to enjoy it, not a matter of defining genre.
I’ve always played it as an empire builder rather than a war game: I generally go for science or culture victories, I enjoy improving tiles, and I dislike going to war under most circumstances. I’ll declare war on a nation for picking on my protected city states or settling too close to my territory. I also avoid religious victories since it involves the same strategy as going to war but with even more tedium… shuffling units on a map to spread Sithianity isn’t much fun for me.
I mean the statement was made that it’s not a strategy game, it’s a builder.
FWIW, I play Civ as an empire builder, I don’t like warmongering and I’ve always wished it was possible to play a more cooperative game. Instead, if I want any sort of challenge I need to bump up the difficulty to the point where the AI will attack (for no apparent gain, it’s not like we’re competing over the same resources/area. I’m sure the AI just sees it has more units and so goes to war) and proceed to spend the next 50 turns ineptly throwing an unending tide of units at me that a city and a couple ranged units can annihilate on their own. And with 1UPT, it makes the turns take forever because a couple dozen units have to be individually moved instead of combined into a stack. And then the game just grinds down into tedium while I slog through it, there’s few if any interesting decisions for the “just one more turn feel”, and I quit once again.
It’s obviously a terrible wargame but the game insists on foisting that aspect of it on me every time I played it. I don’t find it a good strategy game at all because while there’s a lot of plates to spin, it’s just a distraction from the fact that most of the game systems just don’t work or at least work well. And I don’t like it as a builder because I have to deal with the tedium I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
It’s just not a good game, IMO. Which sucks because this was the PENULTIMATE strategy game franchise. :P
No matter how you look at it, Civ is and always been about war. The safest way to win the space/culture/diplomacy race is to murder or cripple other contenders. The thing is you win most wars before they start due to economy. It’s less pronounced in 5/6 where you can lose economy and win war. In fact, you have to do this early to AI - it gets magical income but is dumb in the battlefield.
So I hear people who say it shouldn’t be about war. It probably shouldn’t be about war micromanagement.
I like Civ VI. I don’t mind going against the consensus on the forum. Of course, the concerns and complaints are valid. Weak combat AI combined with 1UPT? True, maybe a dealbreaker for some, but you can play multiplayer or or try and live with it. The stack in Civ IV really wasn’t that great either; it certainly wasn’t deep strategy in my opinion. Also, Civ VI, missionaries blocking units was addressed back in 2017, and other tweaks in Gathering Storm make the mid to late game slightly more dynamic. Still gets tedious at the end.
I think that most people here have moved beyond the fairly shallow complexity of the game (despite it’s many systems). It occupies the left half of the spectrum; it’s a Nintendo Switch and iPhone game, figuratively and literally. People here want a thinking challenge a true strategy game, and on close inspection it doesn’t hold up. I find I can hold back on closely inspecting it, and enjoy it.
Maybe in comparison, I’ve completely lost interest in playing Settlers of Catan the boardgame. If there was a thread here with some people posting, I might drop in and suggest that it is just a bit too shallow, and there are other better alternatives out there to try. Is that the same thing?
Also, Civ VI has an amazing soundtrack. Faint praise I suppose.
If you own it, give multiplayer or Gathering Storm a try.
Was it? I played III, IV, V and it never really was a challenging strategy game.
Hey, I will completely agree with you on that. I like the soundtrack a lot.
I never found V to be challenging, but I could definitely lose at the higher difficulties on Civ4 especially since I never was big on delving into microing chops or exploiting mechanics.
The way I play Civ, and have played them all, is to build up and make a few cities. Then, when all the land is taken (I usually don’t get much), I build up my cities, and try to avoid war with anyone.
If I go to war, I usually end up ending the game fairly close after, since thats boring, and not what I want from my Civ games.
I just want to build, improve my cities, and let the rest of the world live as they do - So yeah, I never played the game as a Wargame myself either.
On a related note, thats how I play most strategy games, even Warhammer - It can be difficult, but its fun!