Support NeoGAF

[CoconutTank]

Fog of War is fine to me.

Looks like Builders (which have the same usages as the current Worker) can also speed build Wonders? In the Quill video that's being linked, I think a Builder was moved onto the Oracle site, then he clicked an action that says "Add production to a Wonder". Being able to speed build Wonders without a GEng will be fun.

Edit: ah yeah, he then goes on to explain further a bit after.

Edit2: uh oh, not being able to designate my own roads, not quite sure I like that.

 

[Agremont]

Holy crap yes!

 

[decoyplatypus]

Fog of War is fine to me.

Looks like Builders (which have the same usages as the current Worker) can also speed build Wonders? In the Quill video that's being linked, I think a Builder was moved onto the Oracle site, then he clicked an action that says "Add production to a Wonder". Being able to speed build Wonders without a GEng will be fun.

Edit: ah yeah, he then goes on to explain further a bit after.

Quill suggests that while all builders will spend limited "charges" to improve tiles, the "sacrifice to rush Wonder" button may be unique to China.

 

[Enduin]

Only a few minutes in but Civ 6 already looks really fantastic. Love the changes to Policies and the whole districts/improvements.

 

[Agremont]

Not sure what I think of the more cartoonish leaders yet...

 

[raphier]

First sixty turns with commentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qzC5cUQcFk

Not sure if posted.

It appears everyone received exact same footage from Firaxis. It's not first 60 turns. liar.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Previews got me kinda pumped. The changes to cities aren't as drastic as I was expecting; making Districts an addition to, rather than a replacement of, the existing building systems is very interesting. Builders vs. Workers sounds like a good change, in terms of forcing interesting decisions. Also really love the sound of the new Civics system.

But the most exciting bit of all seems to be the AI, which I wasn't expecting but hugely welcome. The way they described them in the RPS piece has got me salivating. Could it be? Have they finally made the AI both interesting and competitive? 60 turns is probably not enough time to find out, but they already sound way more interesting.

 

[El Topo]

60 turns mean absolutely nothing, especially if everyone played the same fixed/predetermined scenario.

 

[Lesath]

Christ, are they sure they didn't confuse Teddy for Taft?

 

[Seventy_X_Seven]

Christ, are they sure they didn't confuse Teddy for Taft?

Glad I'm not the only one thinking this lol

 

[Enduin]

I like the look of Teddy. It's exaggerated but it works with the art style. Kind of reminds me of those old timey political cartoons.

 

[Labrynian Rebel]

Christ, are they sure they didn't confuse Teddy for Taft?

Well they did smoosh together two different Swedish king portraits for Civ V...

 

[decoyplatypus]

But the most exciting bit of all seems to be the AI, which I wasn't expecting but hugely welcome. The way they described them in the RPS piece has got me salivating. Could it be? Have they finally made the AI both interesting and competitive? 60 turns is probably not enough time to find out, but they already sound way more interesting.

"Interesting" is good enough for me. I'm not holding my breath for AI that can compete without crazy bonuses.

Christ, are they sure they didn't confuse Teddy for Taft?

Yeah... I'm no TR expert, but I don't think I've ever seen his face quite so bloated. Overweight, sure. But Civ 6 Teddy is outright corpulent.

 

[Labrynian Rebel]

Also it looks like China is going to be generic bearded Chinese emperor dude, probably (judging from tiny portrait here).

So like every notable Chinese leader in history besides Wu Zetian and Mao Zedong?

I hope it's Qin Shi Huang, I mean he's the First Emperor AND his dynasty is where we get the word China from.

I assume it's Qin Shi Huangdi, founder of China, but yeah that could be like 80% of Chinese emperors when you consider artistic license.

They also confirmed Cleopatra as the leader for Egypt.

Cleopatra? That's like having Nicholas II as the ruler for Russia. They should have gone with Hatshepsut, way cooler.

---

I think I'm going to keep playing Civilization V until 6 gets all it's expansions. Man was Civ V vanilla barebones.

 

[Enduin]

I think I'm going to keep playing Civilization V until 6 gets all it's expansions. Man was Civ V vanilla barebones.

Well they did say that Civ VI will have all the base features from Civ V and it's expansions. So it should be a lot meatier than Civ V vanilla was. We'll have Religion, Tourism, Spies and the like from the get go.

 

[StrategyFan]

But the most exciting bit of all seems to be the AI, which I wasn't expecting but hugely welcome. The way they described them in the RPS piece has got me salivating. Could it be? Have they finally made the AI both interesting and competitive? 60 turns is probably not enough time to find out, but they already sound way more interesting.

pre-release praise of turn-based AI has always been PR bullshit in my experience, especially when journalists have 0 credibility when it comes to strategy games
even in post-release reviews, journalists have 0 clue about AI

step 1: find what people complain about in the previous entry
step 2: say how it's going to be so much better this time
step 3: ???
step 4: profit

it might be impossible to have restricted access and credible journalism, so maybe i shouldn't even blame RPS. but either way, we'll have to wait for the game to get in the hands of people who have the freedom and capability to judge the AI properly

 

[Poodlestrike]

pre-release praise of turn-based AI has always been PR bullshit in my experience, especially when journalists have 0 credibility when it comes to strategy games
even in post-release reviews, journalists have 0 clue about AI

step 1: find what people complain about in the previous entry
step 2: say how it's going to be so much better this time
step 3: ???
step 4: profit

it might be impossible to have restricted access and credible journalism, so maybe i shouldn't even blame RPS. but either way, we'll have to wait for the game to get in the hands of people who have the freedom and capability to judge the AI properly

Heh, maybe. We'll see, I guess. The systems as outlined here sound very interesting, so unless they totally fuck up the execution, I can't really see it being anything but a step up.

Oh, and agreed with the disappointment with Cleopatra. I get why pop culture is latched onto her (thanks, Shakespeare) but come on, there are better Egyptian rulers.

 

[decoyplatypus]

Cleo's an odd choice. I feel like TR over GW/Abe may have been driven by the AI agenda system, where the match between TR's historical persona and possible agenda was too good to pass up. But the only connection between Cleopatra and Egypt's "we respect strength" agenda is...her relationship with two Romans? Which is a little cute for a series that generally tries to be respectful of civilizations' unique strengths and traits. But it's not a big deal to me, and I may well be missing something.

EDIT:

I am really excited about this social policy system. At my (decidedly mediocre) level of play, Civ 5's system was pretty static. Directing my own cultural research, selecting among government types, and then decking out my government with specific policies sounds much more fun.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Cleo's an odd choice. I feel like TR over GW/Abe may have been driven by the AI agenda system, where the match between TR's historical persona and possible agenda was too good to pass up. But the only connection between Cleopatra and Egypt's "we respect strength" agenda is...her relationship with two Romans? Which is a little cute for a series that generally tries to be respectful of civilizations' unique strengths and traits. But it's not a big deal to me, and I may well be missing something.

Agreed, I much preferred it when the Egyptians were focused on building and wonders and such.

Hopefully moddable, or they introduce alternate leaders at some point.

 

[StrategyFan]

they might do alternate leaders as part of an expansion pack

it would let them expand the game without actually changing the game

 

[decoyplatypus]

Quill's description of early city-state diplomacy sounds, if not super interesting, at least simplified and less "grindy" than Civ 5's. Which is actually okay with me. I don't think the game really needs city-states to be a big feature. It's cool if they're closer in kind to natural wonders, where proximity might influence your start (e.g., if you've got an easily accessible faith bonus, maybe you go early religion), but you don't have to constantly check on anything.

 

[artsi]

I can accept the new fog of war if it was just the unexplored terrain, but I want to see the actual terrain (darkened) after I've explored it.

 

[decoyplatypus]

The new city building system may end up being both interesting for vets and better for beginners. New players will no longer be able to fall into the "build everything in every city" trap. They may not grasp specialization right away, but they'll be forced down that road pretty quickly.

I can accept the new fog of war if it was just the unexplored terrain, but I want to see the actual terrain (darkened) after I've explored it.

It looks like you'll be able to see features of the terrain you've already scouted (resources, cities, etc.), just in the ink and parchment style.

 

[artsi]

It looks like you'll be able to see features of the terrain you've already scouted (resources, cities, etc.), just in the ink and parchment style.

I'd like it in the Civ 5 style though
But there will be a mod probably, so I'm not too worried.

The game looked a lot better in motion than screenshots so I'm over the art style change too.

 

[decoyplatypus]

I'd like it in the Civ 5 style though
But there will be a mod probably, so I'm not too worried.

Yeah, right now I would appreciate a bigger visual contrast between unexplored areas and "dark" areas. But we'll see how it looks in a few months. And if it bothers people at launch, there will definitely be a mod.

 

[ctothej]

I want this game so bad it hurts.

 

[El Topo]

it might be impossible to have restricted access and credible journalism, so maybe i shouldn't even blame RPS. but either way, we'll have to wait for the game to get in the hands of people who have the freedom and capability to judge the AI properly

While I agree with your general assessment, I actually looked up what RPS wrote back then about Civilization 5 and at least one of their early pieces at launch complained quite a bit about the AI.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/09/21/wot-i-think-civilization-v/ (Different author than this time, of course.)

 

[Skinpop]

not a fan of the eureka stuff but eh we'll see how it turns out.

 

[Mobius 1]

I will miss the art-deco UI from Civ5. Hoping to see more polish around release date. Everything else sounds great.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

First sixty turns with commentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qzC5cUQcFk

Not sure if posted.

Those graphics.....ugh....

 

[Sibylus]

Sue me, but the UI, FoW, and worldmap art direction are looking a lot better to me than the choices they made with Civ V. It's clean, it's stylish, functional, and I love the age of exploration theme that ties it all together. This does a lot more for me than the Civ I stared at for hundreds of hours. We'll see how it stands up with that much playtime.

 

[KorrZ]

Really digging the FOW map effect. Looks really nice.

Overall, the changes so far sound interesting. Especially like the idea of evolving government types with different civic policies.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Not sure how I feel about the fact that AI agenda is based on the personality of an immortal, arbitrarily-chosen civ leader. Contrary to the RPS article, I don't think that the AI having an intent means that it's being reactive, especially if it can't adapt to specific and changing circumstances because it's forced to follow a rigid agenda. And in America's case, you're completely wrenching that agenda out of its historical context, which makes it nearly useless as a gameplay tool, in my opinion. I can't be sure until I've played it, but will their motivations and agendas make sense in completely different contexts through multiple playthroughs? Then again, I like the changes to diplomacy as a whole, especially the progression to a more state-based diplomacy.

 

[Labrynian Rebel]

Well they did say that Civ VI will have all the base features from Civ V and it's expansions. So it should be a lot meatier than Civ V vanilla was. We'll have Religion, Tourism, Spies and the like from the get go.

I'm not preordering but if it's all the that on release, I'll bite early

 

[Mengy]

Huh, so the civics stuff from Civ5 are gone, and instead the tech tree is split up into two trees: one for science, and one for culture, and the culture one handles the civics, policies, and governmenet stuff in there? I think I actually like the sound of that change.

I also love the worker/builder changes, that sounds nice.

Quill's vids are great, very informative, my hype for Civ6 has definitely risen.

 

[Rentahamster]

I am also appreciating the changes the more I hear about them. I don't think I've heard of anything yet that sets of huge red flags in my mind.

 

[ghostjoke]

Going by the first Quill video (will watch second later), there are some nice changes that'll give a lot more variety on how a game unfolds. Shame he couldn't get his own footage to show off more of what he is talking about in motion.

 

[DEO3]

Those graphics.....ugh....

I find I rather like the look of the world when zoomed out and in motion (I didn't much care for the look of it in the initial screenshots), but the simple feel of the UI turns me off quite a bit. It looks like it's very easy to read information, which I'm sure was their goal, but it's maybe a bit *too* easy to read.

 

[decoyplatypus]

Not sure how I feel about the fact that AI agenda is based on the personality of an immortal, arbitrarily-chosen civ leader. Contrary to the RPS article, I don't think that the AI having an intent means that it's being reactive, especially if it can't adapt to specific and changing circumstances because it's forced to follow a rigid agenda. And in America's case, you're completely wrenching that agenda out of its historical context, which makes it nearly useless as a gameplay tool, in my opinion. I can't be sure until I've played it, but will their motivations and agendas make sense in completely different contexts through multiple playthroughs? Then again, I like the changes to diplomacy as a whole, especially the progression to a more state-based diplomacy.

I think you may be overstating (or overestimating, since none of us knows much yet) the role of agendas in AI behavior. AIs are still going to need their usual array of tendencies toward (or away from) war, wonder-building, etc. And they'll certainly have to know how to play the game even when their agendas are not relevant (e.g., TR on an isolated start). Agendas seem to function a little bit like religion in Civ 4, where they give a diplomacy bonus/penalty that is large enough to be decisive in many relationships. Except each civ has one unique agenda and one hidden, random one, so the diplomatic picture could get quite complicated.

I picture this working as follows: you, TR, and Cleo are on a continent together. Monty (let's say) is on another continent. TR is going about his normal business, building up his civ according to his general preferences, adjusted somewhat based on geography (the AI will clearly have to adapt to geography if that's going to be a big part of the game). He gets a +2 relationship boost with you and Cleo because you are on his continent and not fighting anyone. He's also got a +1 with you for open borders and a -1 with Cleo for refusing to adopt his preferred social policy. He's sitting at 0 with Monty because they don't have any deals. Now Monty declares war on Cleo. Cleo is on TR's continent, so TR's agenda causes him to suffer a -5 relationship penalty with Monty. If TR's settings allow him to declare war at -5, and there are no countervailing considerations (e.g., relative military strength), then TR will declare war on Monty. If, by contrast, he and Monty had a +3 relationship and the penalty only brought him to -2, he might just denounce Monty and leave it at that.

EDIT: Of course it's possible that some AI agendas will not relate to diplomacy. We'll just have to see.

 

[Giant Panda]

Yeah, that fog of war is super distracting. That and it looks too similar to undiscovered tiles.

 

[WillyFive]

Wow @ the map. That is amazing. The art and graphics is rather terrible overall, but that fog of war is absolutely brilliant.

As for gameplay, the removal of workers and introduction of builders will probably be huge.

 

[spiritfox]

Yeah, that fog of war is super distracting. That and it looks too similar to undiscovered tiles.

That's the main problem I have with the FOW right now, it's too similar to undiscovered tiles.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I think you may be overstating (or overestimating, since none of us knows much yet) the role of agendas in AI behavior. AIs are still going to need their usual array of tendencies toward (or away from) war, wonder-building, etc. And they'll certainly have to know how to play the game even when their agendas are not relevant (e.g., TR on an isolated start). Agendas seem to function a little bit like religion in Civ 4, where they give a diplomacy bonus/penalty that is large enough to be decisive in many relationships. Except each civ has one unique agenda and one hidden, random one, so the diplomatic picture could get quite complicated.

I picture this working as follows: you, TR, and Cleo are on a continent together. Monty (let's say) is on another continent. TR is going about his normal business, building up his civ according to his general preferences, adjusted somewhat based on geography (the AI will clearly have to adapt to geography if that's going to be a big part of the game). He gets a +2 relationship boost with you and Cleo because you are on his continent and not fighting anyone. He's also got a +1 with you for open borders and a -1 with Cleo for refusing to adopt his preferred social policy. He's sitting at 0 with Monty because they don't have any deals. Now Monty declares war on Cleo. Cleo is on TR's continent, so TR's agenda causes him to suffer a -5 relationship penalty with Monty. If TR's settings allow him to declare war at -5, and there are no countervailing considerations (e.g., relative military strength), then TR will declare war on Monty. If, by contrast, he and Monty had a +3 relationship and the penalty only brought him to -2, he might just denounce Monty and leave it at that.

EDIT: Of course it's possible that some AI agendas will not relate to diplomacy. We'll just have to see.

Of course I'm sure that the AI agenda is only one of many variables that it uses to determine its actions, but it seems to me that, by basing most of a civ's diplomatic agenda upon a very specific moment of its history, which may not even have a specific corollary or analogue in the game, there may be unusual circumstances in which a certain strategy makes no sense but the AI is stuck with that strategy and cannot deviate anyway. Moreover, the AI is acting that way not because it makes strategic sense at all, but merely because the developers arbitrarily chose it based on the historical actions of a particular civ leader. It remains to be seen whether these agendas actually provide a real benefit to the AI, or if they provide nothing more than the illusion of agency, but it would be more interesting to me if agendas could change based on the circumstances of the game.

 

[Rubixcuba]

I wonder if we'll get a 100 turn demo like Civ 5?

 

[Sibylus]

Of course I'm sure that the AI agenda is only one of many variables that it uses to determine its actions, but it seems to me that, by basing most of a civ's diplomatic agenda upon a very specific moment of its history, which may not even have a specific corollary or analogue in the game, there may be unusual circumstances in which a certain strategy makes no sense but the AI is stuck with that strategy and cannot deviate anyway. Moreover, the AI is acting that way not because it makes strategic sense at all, but merely because the developers arbitrarily chose it based on the historical actions of a particular civ leader. It remains to be seen whether these agendas actually provide a real benefit to the AI, or if they provide nothing more than the illusion of agency, but it would be more interesting to me if agendas could change based on the circumstances of the game.

There's also a random agenda each game to add unpredictability, in addition to a known agenda.

 

[questionmark]

Those graphics.....ugh....

Ugh I love them.

 

[AstuteClass]

Graphics look complete trash and the scale of the game is far worse now. All the buildings look like clumpy icons than them actually trying to add a sense of scale to it like in Civ V, with the intricately detailed skyscrapers in cities later on.

That and the fog of war looks awful. I cannot believe it reverts back to an "undiscovered" state when no line of sight is adjacent.

 

[Maledict]

Of course I'm sure that the AI agenda is only one of many variables that it uses to determine its actions, but it seems to me that, by basing most of a civ's diplomatic agenda upon a very specific moment of its history, which may not even have a specific corollary or analogue in the game, there may be unusual circumstances in which a certain strategy makes no sense but the AI is stuck with that strategy and cannot deviate anyway. Moreover, the AI is acting that way not because it makes strategic sense at all, but merely because the developers arbitrarily chose it based on the historical actions of a particular civ leader. It remains to be seen whether these agendas actually provide a real benefit to the AI, or if they provide nothing more than the illusion of agency, but it would be more interesting to me if agendas could change based on the circumstances of the game.

To be honest with you I don't really see anything new her that wasn't in the last 3 Civ games, other than the fact they are now showing you the numbers behind the curtain.

Every Civ did this. Civ 5 leaders have very strong traits which push them in certain directions. Elizabeth, for example, intensely dislikes warmongering and upsetting the balance of power amongst the smaller nations - it's why she often goes nuts on players. Other civs don't mind war mongers, but go nuts if you build wonders or go scientific. There's like 30 different numerical values which create the personality, and all they've described so far is the same as in Civ 5 but revealed up front.

(For example, Civ 5 has numerous civs that have the same trait as Egypt in that demo - they respect military strength, they will attack if her weak but won't otherwise).

 

[dude]

Graphics look complete trash and the scale of the game is far worse now. All the buildings look like clumpy icons than them actually trying to add a sense of scale to it like in Civ V, with the intricately detailed skyscrapers in cities later on.

That and the fog of war looks awful. I cannot believe it reverts back to an "undiscovered" state when no line of sight is adjacent.

It doesn't. You can still see what's there, it just has a shader to make it look painted. The problem with the FoW as it is now is that there's not enough differentiation between unexplored and no-line-sight fogs, but I do believe it will be fixes in the five months until release.

As for the graphics - Trash? Come on. It's OK to not like how the game looks, but the hyperbole about the graphics is getting REALLY old by now. Anyway, for me it looks very good in motion and in the high zooms level the scale looks just as fine as Civ 5.

Not sure what I think of the more cartoonish leaders yet...

Is Teddy significantly more cartoonish than Civ5 Bismarck here? The body proportions are a bit more exaggerated, but it's not a major shift from the previous style. Civ has had a cartoonish thing going on with their leaders since Civ 4.

 

[Agremont]

Maybe not much. But it still striked me as being more obviously cartoonish.