Kind of surprised there are only a couple of pages of posts since last night, but maybe everyone is busy playing?
I chose Brasilia, combat strength bonus, and thinking of going for Harmony but not sure if they will mix.
Anyway, I'm really liking it so far.
I'm coming in after playing over 300 hours of Civ V, so that's obviously my benchmark. A few things that struck me:
- Inability to name your faction/leader!!! Unless I missed it..... (Someone please tell me I did.) This was one of my favourite things in Civ 5. I've made Civs named after breakfast cereal, robots, Spring Breakers, even the fabled Lizard Man Illuminati. Really miss this feature.
- So far disliking all the "arbitrary" choices. Mainly "Quest Decisions". In Civ 5, quests were given to you by city states, so there was always the context of whether you wanted to bother helping out the city state to get the reward, which was always influence, with the end goal of allying up with that city state. Here, it's just "Do you want Health or Production? Do you want +1 this or +1 that?" I get the feeling that min/maxing is the way to play this game, and so far, it seems like they could have just asked you how you want to build your faction from Turn 1, and then made all the decisions automatically for you. Hopefully there's more to it than that. Anyone else totally ignore the quest dialogue and skip to the decision output?
- Similarly with the Virtues, compared with Social Policies, instead of 8 shallow trees, we get 4 deep ones. Again, this gives me the impression that I'm better off just maximizing one or two of these. The game gives me the ability to be a generalist but it really doesn't strike me that you are supposed to go that route.
Regardless, I'm still very much enjoying it, and loving the music especially. Obviously, I won't be able to really get a feel for this game vs. Civ 5 until I've played through once entirely.