Sid Meier's Civilization VI Review - Nested Great Works
- Thread starter Encaen
- Start date
maybe I haven't figured it out yet, but I want more detailed control with the city states...what I mean by that is, I want to be able to support/funnel troops or money to a city state if they are under attack by another civ, but the only way I've been able to figure out how to do that is to go to war against that civ, which unfortunately makes me look like a war monger when I'm just being tactical by not giving them that city state.
You want to use city-states to wage proxy wars? I think that is a fantastic idea, which makes me wonder why the hell no one thought to put that in Civ V, let alone Civ VI. Maybe there'll be a DLC that adds that sort of feature.gmaverick019 said:
Personally, I loved Civ V. I still play Civ V. And I will continue to do so until I can get Civ VI with all the DLCs on sale because I am cheap. Then again, I'm pretty sure I said the same thing about Civ V and I definitely didn't hold to it.
Wait a minute- roads are built by trade routes now? As in, you don't even get to decide where they're built? So they took one of the stupidest parts of the stupidest change they made in five and made it worse? In a game that's "flawless"?
So if we dress up a copy of Daikatana as something new and send it in to be reviewed, would be game of the year, or game of the century?
So if we dress up a copy of Daikatana as something new and send it in to be reviewed, would be game of the year, or game of the century?
Eh? You could do that in Civ V. You can gift units to city states. Dunno about funding though. You could gift gold but I'm not sure if they actually have a fund and use it.Ironman126 said:
I know, but I found the mechanic to be shallow and a bit clunky. I'd like to see something where I can set manufacturing to just build units for a city state, something automated. Plus, as you said, I'm not sure if giving city states money actually did anything.Secondhand Revenant said:
Really, the whole city state system in Civ V, I found lacking. There just weren't enough ways to influence the city states and a large portion of them would offer missions that nobody could or would complete (Build Wonder X. Er, nobody picked Tradition, no one can build that). I'd also like to see a way to economically tie a city state to my civ without having to have them as an "ally." Perhaps it could involve AI-corporations and you could offer incentives to the AI-controlled companies to move to a given city state.
I guess what I'm saying is that I want Civ to have a richer economics system. That's what I get for taking economics courses in university.
From a mechanics standpoint, I see your problem, but from an historical or realism standpoint, it makes complete sense. All the roads everywhere (with a few exceptions like the US interstate system) were all once foot/horse paths trod down by traders (or possibly armies). So, it makes literal sense, even if the result is a weird, kludgy mechanic.Recusant said:
From a design standpoint, I'm not sure I'd have done it like that. Maybe make building a road over a trade route faster, but not like they have it.
Don't see the problem with non-automated. Just means you're gonna be clicking a few more times when you manually gift a unit from the city you set to manufacture units.Ironman126 said:
Agree more on the economic side. Would be good to have more ways to influence them. Though to be fair I think some social policies made trade improve relations slowly?
Well, I'm forgetful, especially if I am running a large mid/late game civ and I can't always remember or be bothered to gift units. It's not really a big deal, but it would be nice.Secondhand Revenant said:
As for the social policies, you have to take the Patronage tree. But you gain access to it around the same time as Commerce and being, in my opinion, the better option by far, taking anything from Patronage feels like a waste. Now, I admit it comes down to play-style, I tend to play tech and trade heavy, peaceful civs while ignoring the city states, in large part. But, again, I chalk it up to the fact that there are enough ways to deal with city states.
For instance, why is Austria the only civ that can annex city states peacefully? Why can't I move production to friendly/allied city states, like I can with my own cities? Why can't I have a say in what a city state does with the money I gift them? Why can't I attempt a false flag operation to draw a city state into a war with another civ? Why can't I attempt a false flag operation to draw a city state or civ into war with me at a reduced Warmonger penalty?
I didn't really mean for my response to be so long, but I got to thinking and one thing lead to another...
Fair on the units especially if you can't finish the game in one sitting, then it can be easy to forget why you made them.Ironman126 said:
Hmm. I thought freedom had something that made trade routes increase influence per turn.
You do have a point about lack of other interactions with city-states though. Details like those would be cool
Oh, of course; in reality, commerce dictates... well, darn near everything, in one way or another. No argument on that count. But it's also unrealistic that a multi-city empire in 3000 BC would be monolithically lead by an immortal leader. Catch is, this isn't reality, it isn't a simulator; it's a game. Gameplay, in a game, should supersede realism, always in and in every way. If you question why, head over to the Paradox forums and look through a couple of their threads.Ironman126 said:
Perhaps the thing I liked most about Alpha Centauri is that your rivals, at least at times, played the game like civilizations trying to survive rather than board-game players trying to eke out a last-minute win, no matter the cost. The fact of the matter is, not every civilization gets to be Rome in the time of the Pax Romana, or the Mongols during the reign of Genghis Khan. Sometimes civilizations survive because they kept their head down and acted like good vassals or second-tier allies, or at the very least, not like threats.
For all the series' fine qualities, I feel like I'm still waiting for Civ to catch up with it's sci-fi cousin on that one. Still a little too much of Gandhi in his last city warning that his threats are backed up with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!
For all the series' fine qualities, I feel like I'm still waiting for Civ to catch up with it's sci-fi cousin on that one. Still a little too much of Gandhi in his last city warning that his threats are backed up with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!
Freedom may well have what you described, but I find that by the time I get to a point where I'm in range to get more Freedom policies (if I even choose Freedom), the game is about over. Since the progression regarding social policies is geometric (I think, could be exponential), late game social policies are sort of nice surprises, but are unreliable.Secondhand Revenant said:
Point being, if trade routes gave a reputation increase all the time, rather than just when the city state demands a route or if you have a specific social policy, I would ignore the city states less. They almost always offer a lower return than a major civ, even if it means having to share research points with another civ. There's nothing saying that you can't get extra reputation from social policies or city state mission.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. While it makes literal sense, it's not very fun in a game, no argument here. Which is why I think that making hexes that trade routes pass through grant a bonus to road construction would be a good way to say "hey, in real life..." while at the same time not screwing the players by taking away their ability to build roads the way they want.Recusant said:
I honestly like the trade routes make roads honestly. Adds risk vs reward and makes you have to think where you want to send your routes. Not to mention that you get bonuses for sending trade routes through other cites with a trade post. I actually vastly prefer this system over 5Ironman126 said:
Well, to each their own. I haven't played 6 yet, so I can't really say what system is better. I imagine that both have benefits and drawbacks. That said, having played Civ 5, I find the change odd from a gameplay perspective. I suppose I'll have to shell out the cash for Civ 6 and see for myself.kenu12345 said:
The real question, for me at least, is whether the road improvement on the maps gets all fucked up when you build two roads in different directions in adjacent hexes. That drive me absolutely up a wall when I have a figure 8 of roads looping back into the city and a pair of roads that just end a hex from the city.
Yes, roads can still go all screwy when they head in multiple directions on adjacent tiles. I'm usually pretty good at keeping my own roads neat, until the AI sends a trader through and starts adding their own wherever. I'm not a fan of the change to trade routes making the roads, but there is another option. Military engineers, available with the Military Engineering tech, can build roads too. Like builders they have a limited number of build actions, default is 2, if there is a way to boost that I haven't found it.Ironman126 said:
All told, I don't prefer Civ 6 over Civ 5 with all the dlc. The districts, and the wonders, occupying tiles really limit your options for where you can build a useful city, its not a change that I like. I haven't spent money on Civ 6 yet, and I won't, not for a while anyway. I'll revisit it after patches and dlc fix some things, but this may be the first Civ ever that I don't buy. And I've been playing since the first one.
One other major pet peeve. Districts are permanent. That may not seem like big deal at first. But then, well into your mid-game, you discover that the only source of aluminum in your entire empire is under that campus you placed centuries ago. So tough luck, no planes for you. Yes, I would gladly bulldoze that university to make bombers, give me that option!