Is CVI any good?

[onodera]

I haven't ventured outside this subforum for a long while. Is the sixth one any good, or should I wait for a sale?

[self biased]

it feels very, very different due to the districts and placing wonders as tiles in the city. district placement is key.

yeah, it's got 1upt, which people apparently care very much about, but they've done a lot of work under the hood, and it really shows.

I'd recommend it, as does Korn469 and Sava.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I'll wait another three years until all expansions are out and then think about it, or if they remove 1upt, whatever comes first. I find it amusing on how much Civ V managed to kill the idea that Civ is exciting, or entertaining for me. It surprises me, even.

*OK I do play Civ IV with mods though

** What throws me off may not be just Civ V, but Civ Rev, V, BE, stuff in between, and pretty much anything that Firaxis made after BTS. :|

[self biased]

I really don't understand the level of hate for 1upt. I understand that there can be issues and I'm very much not a fan of the carpet of doom.

can anyone help me understand this?

[Ben Kenobi]

Because Civ is not panzer general. I haven't played a civ since 1UPT. There are ways to limit SOD - Paradox does that successfully with their attrition mechanics. It's supposed to be more 'strategic'. but civ *before* 1UPT was plenty strategic. Building an army costs shields and production. If you lose with it, you've pretty much lost the game. Heck, all the MPs I've ever played, I never had one where building an army was the right choice. You'd fall too far behind in production and in technology and get crushed.

[Dinner]

I will wait until the second expansion bwfore buying.

[BeBMan]

Last regular Civ I played was Civ 4. /cents

[Sava]

I really don't understand the level of hate for 1upt. I understand that there can be issues and I'm very much not a fan of the carpet of doom.

can anyone help me understand this?

"I"M AFRAID OF CHANGE AND HATE IT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

[Sava]

this is easily the best Civ ever made

districts are great
combat is great
i love gaining bonuses towards science by completing the little quests

I'll have more comments later. I'm on turn 124 as Egypt and doing well (I think)

placing all your districts is very strategic... adds a wonderful little dimension

[Sava]

my only complaints thus far:

time in between turns... the bane of the series... didn't seem to improve much
leader animations are unskippable (**** off with your unsolicited comments about how great/terrible i'm doing, if i don't have a choice to make, don't waste my time)
religious bonuses seem very weak/useless... longest game so far is turn 125 and i have yet to even use religion at all, apart from picking some bonuses that don't do anything for me

unit promotion system is extremely shallow... there's like 6-8 total bonuses (I think) and you pick one or the other in each "level"

I would like to see the unit promotion system be more robust/deeper. I like being able to make highly specialized units. In absence of a warlike playthrough, what fun is attacking barbs all game if you barely get any experience for doing so?

[Sava]

the message telling me someone built stonehenge has been on the screen for like 50 turns and wont go away

[self biased]

As England I was naming units things like "Aversion to Dentistry" and "Under Podgorny's Kilt."

good times.

I'm on Prince now, and my second go as Arabia after a catastrophic **** up.

[Proteus_MST]

The positive opinions have convinced me to buy it now, instead of waiting for the winter holidays,
although I won't have too much time for playing it all too intensively

Have begun a game as Kaiser Rotbart (interesting new choice for the german leader ) ...
germans now have Submarines (well, everyone has subs, but the germans have better ones)

Interesting that barbarian settlements now send out scouts and won't perform any military operations against your cities before their scouts have discovered them and brought the information back to their home camp.
Also the city states seem to be more military active now, sending out military units of their own in order to explore their surroundings and perform military strikles against barbarians

[self biased]

you can cross pollinate with unit promotions, bro. I like the fact that when you upgrade, it's to the most advanced unit, rather than each step along the way. it costs accordingly, but whatever. I don't have to spend two or three turns upgrading a unit that was out doing **** and being useful when it returns home.

also, there's a setting in options that moves the sun around, or you can just set it to "auto" or something. Highly Highly HIGHLY recommend this.

[Elok]

I really don't understand the level of hate for 1upt. I understand that there can be issues and I'm very much not a fan of the carpet of doom.

can anyone help me understand this?

For me there are two big reasons.

Part of it's envisioning the sheer hassle factor in manually moving a whole army that way, with units in the front getting in the way of units in the rear and vice versa. I mean, I haven't played CivV, but I have played games with 1UPT, and it's a PITA figuring out where everybody's going to go every single turn. Ever play Langrisser II for the Genesis, or the Der Langrisser remake? It's a very good strategy RPG for its time, but by the end of the game you're moving seventy troops every turn, and that gets tedious damn fast when you've got to factor in terrain restrictions and bottlenecks and all that. In the first four civs, if you want to split an army, it's simple. Just select the ones you want to peel off from the stack. I don't want to play a Civ where even a modest force goes Three Stooges trying to get through a narrow space.

The other is the patent absurdity of superimposing tactical combat on a strategic map. Archers firing arrows over entire forests or channels, the space between two major cities getting obstructed by a modest army of Bronze Age troops, and so on. It's very much a big picture game. Why does it need to be tactical?