Cathrine: "I hate you" You: "Why?" Catherine: "Cuz you don't have spies" You: "We're in the ancient era, what are spies?" Catherine: "How should I know, you don't have any for me to identify!"
I declare war on you because you have not spread your religion to me! [Since there is a religious victory condition, that's like saying I declare war on you because you haven't attacked me yet].
@@romegypt5675 "Prussia, you and we the Polish have been friends for over 100 years. We've had royal marriages to the point where we are all the same family. Our economies are so intertwined that we basically share it. If I didn't know any better I'd say we were almost one country our own!" *PROTESTANT WARS BEGIN*
@Processed Grain Some will denounce you for no reason whatsoever. For example, Cleopatra and Queen Gorgo will denounce you for having such a puny military. Others, such as Gilgamesh, are just completely paranoid and will denounce you regardless. Which is why I unleashed my nuclear arsenal on Sumeria because poke the bear enough and see what happens. Other civs claimed I declared war without provocation but if that were the case then explain why a brute like Gilgamesh is constantly taunting me.
You can ask for them to promise to not settle near you (pretty much the same thing they do with you when you settle near them). lf they choose not to listen to you then you get grievances towards them for an eventual war
He's creative director at Firaxis IIRC, so he definitely has some input, though it of course isn't the same as in the beginning. I don't think the series ever had the same lead designer twice (including spin-offs), so over the years there were tons of non-sid influences, although that may have gotten down with 5 and how it scrapped a lot of the things that just kept piling up over time.
I find it hard to praise Civ V’s AI when they can declare war on me, lose a city on the first offensive, stalemate the war and then offer to give up another city for peace only to randomly declare war again after it’s over.
"The base game of Civ 5 still feels a lot more complete and playable than Civ 6 does." *cough* *cough* 10 HP system nightmare no trade routes no religion no espionage no tourism ranged only ships EDIT: Changed trade to trade routes
Civ5 was terrible on release, I remember starting it up and doing my first domination victory was sorta fun but took to long to get to the war parts... and that was tedious due to the happiness system. Tried out a cultural victory, and that was pretty boring too, not much too it just spammed out landmarks everywhere and won as Russia for reasons. Then I played a Science victory, that was fun as I understood the game better. Then I realized from reading later that mathematically you don't even want more than 4 cities, a problem they never fixed and that was terrible. So the game pigeon holed you into building tall and then gave very few options for choice or even systems to manage while being tall. Civ5 was terrible on release for the player, Civ 6's main issue was it's AI which was horrendous on release.
Heck yeah, @@alecshockowitz8385! Civ 5: God and Kings didn't help much in this area too. Going full warmonger you were forced to destroy cities that got too close to 0 Happiness. Then Razing Cities took as many turns as there were surviving Population. So if you took over a 10 Population City and razed it it would take ten effin' turns for you to burn them down to the ground and move onto the next enemy City to conquer. At least in Civ 6: Rise and Fall, the one I've been frequently playing for over a year now, you can go full warmonger without any serious Happiness penalties. Instead of Happiness issues it's Loyalty issues and that's an entirely different hellhole of a problem. The only two serious problems with going full warmonger in Civ 6: Rise and Fall are politics and Loyalty sides. Davo does have some legitimate complaints about the game's terrible AI, but at the same time Davo apparently hasn't heard of deliberately causing a War or critical Loyalty issue in the "offending" City or Civilization. This way you can go to war without such crippling warmongering penalties with other Civilizations by going full bully on people. The Loyalty issue is so you can turn them into a Free City and hopefully sooner or later they'll willingly join your Civilization. This if you don't want to go over and conquer them while the City is a Free City. Other than this, Civilization VI: Rise and Fall actually gets alot of things better than Civ V: Gods and Kings to me. Sure, the graphical upgrades are wonderful, but Hill tiles are treated differently than Civ 5. You only get 2 Food and Production each with all Hill tiles in 5. All Hill tiles are treated identically. This is great if you happen to settle one or more cities particularly your Capital in a hilly area. In Civ 6: Of Rise and Fall you're forced to choose between high Production with Plains Hills and a balance of Food and Production with Grassland Hills. Civ 6: Rise and Fall to me is so much more balanced and strategic to me than 5 could ever. For example, you settle a City in an area that has a number of Hills within one and two tiles of your City, but within three or four tiles of one or more other Civs' Cities. This can spell certain doom for your City should either one or both of them declare a Surprise or Formal War on you. However, using an Encampment District on the most optimal Hill tile that is as close to in middle the opposing Civs or their Cities will help ensure to give you up to four attacks without that defensive Governor, but with him up to five attacks since one of his Promotions enables an additional City attack. If you build at least Ancient Walls in your city and you have an Encampment District it'll gain those Walls immediately. It'll gain the same level of Walls your City has as well. However, both Walls are independent of each other so your Encampment can take a pounding and have seriously damaged Walls but your City Walls are barely touched, if that. This you an opportunity for some very serious strategic District placement(s) such as an Encampment District. This truly can make and break an enemy's run on your City. Davo apparently never heard of District Adjacency bonuses as well. This also pairs well with strategic District placements as well. Campuses go best adjacent to Mountains while the money district goes best river adjacent tiles, and the Theater Districts go best adjacent to multiple built Wonders. I also love how every Wonder has a set of prerequisites for you to even be able to build them in the first place. If you don't meet all of them you're SOL on that Wonder til you meet the criteria, assuming you can meet their build criteria. This way you can't literally queue Wonder after Wonder within the confines of your chosen Government system. Otherwise if you set things up correctly you could theoretically build literally every Wonder in the game in one City in Civilization V: Gods and Kings like I used to do fairly often. In Civ 6: Rise and Fall you have alot of conditions and other things to think about before you plop down your Cities. I'm surprised Davo didn't whine about how OP the Barbarians are in Civ 6: Rise and Fall's Early Game. Oh my effin' God... I thought they were very close to 5's Rampaging Barbarian setting when I first started to play Civ 6. NOPE! In 6 they're relatively easily beaten *if* their fricken Scout doesn't find your Capital, another Civ's Capital, and/or a City-State and come back to their originating Barbarian Encampment. If this happens unless if you have a bunch of strong Military units already you're completely effed to venture far from your Capital. Sure, you can use this strategy: "Use a Slinger to get within one or two tiles away from said Barbarian Encampment while you have your own Scout or Warrior sneak up from behind or adjacent to said Barbarian Encampment. The Barbarian *usually* goes after your Slinger apparently in high hopes of easily killing them. Use your adjacent unit to clear out the Encampment.". This permanently stops that specific Encampment from spawning more insane numbers of Horseman units. In Civ 6: Rise and Fall Early Games Barbarian Horseman units are incredibly OP. They can wipe out your entire measly Military if you're not careful. Otherwise Civilization 6: Rise and Fall offers a far more balanced and incredibly strategic Civilization experience than 5 ever did. As a side note in 4 I really hated how Barbarians could easily take over your Cities by just walking over onto them should your Stack of Doom not be there or be too weak to fend them off. As another side note, I really love how City Wall Bombardments are no longer omni-directional. You can no longer fire over Mountain tiles. If you want a chance at omni-directional firing settle your City on a Hill tile, but Mountain tiles are automatically impossible to fire over.
There are several great persons of each type per era besides prophets: you just dont see them all because players/ai choose them when you are not looking
Im fairly certain there is a list of great people just like the list of city states. depending on how many civs are included changes the number of great people available in that game. it then chooses from the list which great people show up that game. If to want to see lots of great people from the same era try maxing out the number of players.
Around turn 50 the AI has spammed too many cities for you to expand. You either go early aggro or you lose generally. It's terrible considering the game is all about having many different ways to play, its way too meta.
Yeah, I've tried playing the game several times but it always ends up like this. I don't want to waste my already limited production spamming cities that I will need to micromanage. Make sure I leave room for wonders, no thanks.
Just like this point, many of his other criticisms show a lack of experience and knowledge of the game. That or just not being able to adapt to change.
I have to say that like you, I wasn’t too fond of a lot of mechanics at first, but they grew on me over time. The district mechanic for example makes it so each city is more unique in what it builds instead of the same build order for every city. Districts also mean you can’t just have one overpowered city that becomes more and more overpowered with each wonder. I feel like a majority of things done make it so you have more things to do for every aspect of the game. You said how great people each having their own special abilities was confusing, but I think it makes them a lot more fun and relevant to who they represent instead of doing the same generic thing, which gets boring after awhile. I feel like your opinion may have changed as time goes on and things get better. I would like to see what you think about it now.
"Districts also mean you can’t just have one overpowered city that becomes more and more overpowered with each wonder." You say this like it's a good thing
Nukestarmaster What are you telling me that you enjoy Egypt’s one high production city stealing every wonder in the world just because they can? You still can build tall in this game, it is just that you can’t reach such truly ridiculous levels like in Civ V.
I don’t build wonders because they take up a tile and they take too much time. There pretty useless anyway, and if you decide to go for a culture victory just take over every city of the Civ that is about to win in culture.
JBBrickman I have no idea what you are talking about, a wonder is much more useful then a random unused plains tile, hell I’d find it useful to destroy even some more productive tiles for later wonders. Also couldn’t you apply the logic of destroying every other civ that is about to win to every victory? And that really defeats the point of trying to go for a victory like the Tourism Victory in the first place. I mean, the reason wonders take up so much time is because they are so incredibly useful. I mean I’ve pulled ahead in some pretty bleak situations thanks to wonders before
Bobby Ferg do we play the same game? Have you ever played another civ game? Wonders are absolute shit In terms of cost/benefit minus like literally 2 of them. I have won so many games in the hardest difficulty without getting one single wonder easily and quicker then someone who would waist their time building them. I’m really not tryna be rude but ur absolutely objectively wrong. Civ 5 was a different story however.
Thats the point of districts and wonder placement, so you can't have one city with 15 wonders in it. Playing tall is easy, Brazil with 4 cities and a shit ton of culture or Korea spamming science. As for the art and aesthetics I got over them after two playthroughs.
As for the art, I really agree on his point about the maps though. It looks really cool, but I would greatly prefer that the FOW on already explored areas stayed looking like visible areas instead of reverting into the drawn style
Except that kills off the fun of screwing over the other players with Wonder Rushing. I am someone who loves to build wonders that other players are building, even if it wastes my Great Engineer. Civ VI doesn't give that to me. And even then, building more wonders just means more people are tempted to attack that one city.
I liked the new wonders mechanic.It prevents the ai to gather all the wonders available (as if a city could accommodate everything like Hermione's bag in Harry potter). In civ 5, whenever an AI gets 1 wonder, for sure that ai will take the succeeding wonders entirely esp at higher difficulties.
2:40 its called access level. Send trade routes, delegations, open borders agreements, or literally anything to raise the access level. If you want to see more, open the diplomacy menu for the civ and view the access level area with them. At the bottom, it gives you a list of things you can do to improve your access level early. Maybe you should do a bit more reaearch before bitching ;)
1:40 "Base game Civ 6 feels more complete than base game civ 5" ..... how? Civ 6 base game had religion, trade routes (and other systems that 5 also had at launch) and 20 civs. Thats 2 more (both mechanics and civs) than what base 5 had. 1:45 the AI. I will in no way deny that 6 has some horrible AI, but it did recieve a major improvement in Rise & Fall, even if it still is really bad. 2:10 "one particularly bad feature is the leader agendas" I don't know if you mean bad as in that the feature idea in itself is bad or that the feature in it's current state just dosen't function well. In the case of the latter i guess thats fair at the time of this videos release, but if you mean that the feature in itself is a bad idea... diplomacy has always been one of the more lacking areas of both 5 and 6, so givng the AI an actual personality that you can predict them from is by no means a bad idea. It allows you to actually try to become friends with people you want to be friendly with by following their agenda. Might need some tinkering, sure. but i think the idea of agendas is a great way to spice up the diplomatic game a bit. 2:27 "Catherine, who always hates people who don't have good spy networks" Catherines agenda actually has nothing to do with spies at all, but goes after your acces level to other civs. Yes, the most effective way to increase this (later in the game) is with spys, but a delegation (early game) or an embassy (mid/late game) can also suffice. So, there is not "quite litteraly nothing you can to to stop France from hating you" in the early game. 2:49 It's also a pretty fucking big oversight to completely misunderstand a civ agenda and ranting about how horrible it is for half a minute. 3:40 the district mechanic. for a dedicated civ 5 player i guess this can be a bit tedius, but it's not longer needed to have EVERYTHING in ALL you cities. Thismechanic not only stops wonder whores to snowball (in addition to the standard lack of army problem for them) but it also actually requres you to THINK what you but in which cities. In civ 5, you can have everything in all cities, it was raely a question wether to build it or not. The only times thinking was required was when choosing whether to build a unit or another building. Here, you also choose what building. It also gives tiles moe purpose, rather than just having slaveworkers improving them for 6000 years. 3:55 builders. Builders are just as usefull as in civ 5, just not exactly the same way. The instant build allows you to make quick decisions like boosting a wonder by choping a forest (or just straight up boosting it if you're the Chinese). You can place a city just to get great tiles or great district placements, but then you know that certain city will be weaker in other regards. (Which is not a bad thing for the game, that just adds more strategy). It works best to find a balance between district placements and tile yields. 4:09 playing tall. I will admit it can be harder to make a tall civ work in 6 than it was in 5, but it still works. Tall civs with a few cities close together can put districts close together to maximise adjecency bonuses, which in some cases can be better than the tile you otherwise would have gotten. If you also don't put every district in every city, you can get more tiles to work. It's better to specialize cities in 6, rather than just craming everything into every city as in 5, the governors in R&F further improves this specializing strategy. 4:41 unit movement. Sure, this change was not needed, but i don't get how it makes anything less tactcal. If you chased a unit in civ 5, and you both reached a river, it was a good chanse that both could just run over the river with their second movement point as if it wasn't even there. Only in a large jungle or hilly area did it actually matter. In 6, things like single hills and rivers matter more for combat. Slightly more anoying, sure. But i don't find it less tacticsl in any way. Also, civ 6 has a tendency of having roads almost everywhere towards the midgame. 6:23 Wait what, really? The uncharted and non-visible areas are too similar? How... but... are you blind? The only single time i have ever just for a small moment mistaken non-visible and uncharted territory was in a desert. And thats after 500 hours of gameplay. And i only have 20% eyesight... ok, i'm sorry, i don't want to be rude. but i seriusly just can't understand how this can be a problem. I really don't. If this actually is a genuine problem you could just turn on tile yiels, like in the video where you show the map, making it even easier to distinguish the two. 7:31 "great people all have their own spesific bonus now which is not a good thing because it just makes them more situational and confusng" So... is civ 6 dumbed down or too complicated? Most seem to say it's dumbed down but here it's aparently confusing that different people have different effects, that are clearly written and explained on every single one of them? Also, only a few of them are really that situational, and even for them... theres a pass button. It's right there! It adds more strategy and depth to great people, something i always missed from civ 5, that the only unique thing about them was their names... 7:37 "and the way they can only be earned by one civ per type per era is also fucking stupid" I agree. That would be a fucking stupid mechanic, luckily, thats not a mechanic in the game. Where you got it from i have no clue, but it's certainly not from the game... unless you only ever gained a great prophet. In that case you either suck increadibly at the game or you haven't played anywhere near long enough to justify making this video. 8:29 True, but they did do the exact same thing for 5 and you seem to love that... Still, this was a good video. Not too toxic as thingg like these tend to be. But i do miss some comments about the incredible music, could have recieved a mention. Hope this comment wasn't to toxic either, tried to prevent that, hope i succeeded.
He was honestly nit-picking and making up shit to complain about the game when really it’s just a bias towards civ 5 since apparently that game is so fucking superior to any and all other civ games. Yes it’s a great game but just like civ 6 it had its problems and I hate when people bring up the DLC thing for civ 6 which is kinda scummy charging like 8 dollars for a single civ pack with a wonder or two and scenarios and city states is decent but $10 for a scenario pack is stupid. Civ 6 offered so much but the base game was sort of lacking, but like civ 5 the base game is gonna be a little bland but the expansions complete it.
Tbh I don't but they've chucked in leaders who don't make as much historical sense for that position. Cleopatra for example may have been highly intelligent but she was a poor leader. The medici's (Catherine was one) were from Florence NOT France. Like he said, she was a regent for a couple of months. Some of the Female leaders are clearly token choices, in the case of Egypt it's even more silly because one of their greatest leaders was a woman (i always forhet her name! I believe she was king tuts mother) and they chose Cleopatra, their very last leader - until they got owned by the Romans who had the excuse given to them by Cleopatra that the Egyptian empire was a clear threat by that point.
I haven’t watched that much of the vid, but the claim that districts mean there are less viable spots because you need op districts is wrong. Watch any strong civ 6 player and they are pumping settlers out left and right.
Having delegations and embassies, trades with other civs gives you diplomatic visibility, and Catherine would like you. It's not an "impossible" agenda by any means.
I also hate it when other civs Denounce you because of things like; "Where's your army?" "I'm peaceful." ".... Fuck you! Hippy! Denounced." "Do you intend to invade me?" "No. I just want to take a shit on your doorstep every 15 turns."
Civ VI is in my opinion worse than civ V, but just by a little. I personally really like what they did with CIV VI (although it feels quite empty, which is why I prefer civ V)
I certainly have to agree with about half of what you said. As for the other half, no need to argue opinions. One big problem I have with the interface is how half the moves you make with a unit are with the right mouse button, and the other half are made with the left mouse button, the same one you use to scroll the screen. How many times I have bombed something with my aircraft when I just meant to scroll the screen. Sid had this right in Railroad Tycoon 3, where the middle mouse button scrolled the screen, and should have done that in this game. I know you can use the middle button to center the screen, but I would rather use it to drag and scroll the screen. Big problem 2, in my book, is that with Gathering Storm and Rise and Fall, there are way too many mountains and volcanoes. Even with the world age set to "old." I also have not found a screen where I can rank my cities by production, gold produced, or any other factors. We could do this in Civ 5, but the problem there was you couldn't click on a city name and go there from the city list. And you are absolutely right about the "chart" graphics on the map. The clouds in Civ 5 were perfect, why did they change that to something that was harder to see? And it's very hard to see the hex grid unless you switch to the strategic map. I hope they are listening to people like us when they do Civ 7.
if the mid game were a little more interesting I would play the end game more. The problem with most 4X games is that as the game goes on winners tend to keep winning harder and losers keep losing harder and then there's no doubt who will win even if you're the one winning it just isn't interesting. There's no dramatic turnarounds. There's no drama at all because the AI are keeping their forces in reserve on account of being intimidated by your massive military and don't even wage war on each other. Why are you pre-occupied with whether or not the AI likes you? You know this is a competitive game, don't you? Only one player can win.
Placing districts and wonders on tiles is a great new gameplay mechanic which depends on city placement and victory type you are going for. For instance militaristic, build encampments by chokepoints to defend or attack other Civs. And with the wonders, actually seeing a huge size version of the pyramids or hanging gardens is a massive difference from Civ 5. Which the wonders were small and felt like it didn't capture the word "Wonder". Well that's my thoughts on Civ 6 and my opinion.
I hate how they shifted from a worldly mature design style to a wacky cartoony fun style. You can also see it in the quotes. They used to have deep hisorical quotes - but they replaced it with pop culture quotes. The leaders are also ridiculous. Gorgo as an alternative to greece? Why not leonidas? Catherine de medici for france? Why not louis xiv? Gandhi again for india? Why not ashoka? It's a fun game but there's so many things which the game lacks which civ 5 already had
Brazil in general was very important, the gold extracted from there went straight to Portugal, then Britain. The Brazillian Wood made red dye much cheaper in the global market, this defined the british army's color of choise. Brazil also had a powerful navy for a recently declared country, and a strong economy and trade (at least before Pedro II's reign) as well as being the local powerhouse of Latin America.
And Brazil invented airplanes =) was key ally on WW2 on Italy. Brazil has so much more history than people think lol, if they'd just search they would see.
Civ 5 at launch was skin and bones, 6 launched with religion and tourism, so much more of a complete game. Catherine De Medici’s agenda is based on Diplomatic Visibility, not only spies, which can be influenced at any point in the game. And this is such a tiny irrelevant detail anyways. The district system adds a layer of strategic choice based on utilizing the terrain, and the game is balanced around that; how the hell is that “taking space from improvements”? You seriously are pining because instead of 6 farms you have 5 farms and a Commercial Hub? It rewards careful city planning. 90% of these criticisms, like saying it’s bad that Great People have unique abilities (which is so clearly awesome) and the dynamic social policy card system are summed up as “I’m confused by having to make a strategic decision”. Have you even played these games? I have dozens of Deity wins on both 5 and 6. Statements like “they removed many great features from 5” make absolutely no sense. They removed nothing except the World Congress which they stated long ago would be reintroduced in an expansion, otherwise all the game mechanics have been added to or tweaked. And if you want to get petty, how bout we make a list of all the crap Firaxis never bothered to fix in 5 even after years of patches, like the Iroquious UA straight up not working, their UB being garbage, Liberty being unviable, Honor being unviable, Tourism being unviable, Religion being a waste of time in 90% of games (both of these problems come from those mechanics being tacked on rather than part of the base game like 6), complete lack of Civ balance (far worse than 6), I could go on... Your only reasonable complaint is that in the classic Tall v Wide, Tall is far less viable. Otherwise you are completely unqualified to discuss this debate.
I'm personally not one to pick apart a video like this, but such a video kind of warrants it. 1: Brazil being a thing: Yeah, idk why they exist. Maybe a fill-in for Portugal? 2: The AI: Yeah, it is kinda retarded, but I think the agenda system is fine. They had virtually the same things in the older civ games with personality values assigned to them based on their leader. What's the problem here? It's the same thing but it's upfront about it, not hidden behind the game in the background like it is in Civ 5 3: The Districts: The Districts are good, because it feels great to get a +5 campus or holy site. It feels great to get the adjacency bonus. Sure, that means you can't improve that tile with a builder, but that gives it some more choice as to what you want to do with it, should you put a district, wonder, or improvement there? 4: Inability to play tall: What? What are you even going on about? Sure, you need space for districts, but not that much. As for the wonders, I've build like 6 wonders w/o even focusing on them. IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO PLAY TALL, just git gud. 5: Great People: You saying you can only get 1 great person per type per era is a flat-out LIE. The great people are fine in this game BECAUSE they have unique bonuses, and are not just carbon copies of each other. They feel more like actual historical figures, and not just like a generic power boost. 6: The lack of units: This was sort of true on launch, but it's been mostly fixed by rise and fall, and a little bit by gathering storm. Overall, I think this review needs a sequel, addressing these things here, and addressing the dlc that has come out for this game.
I personally enjoy civ 6 way more than I used to since the single player has more challenges than just the barbarians. The old civ 6 pre-gathering storm was very difficult in the first 150 turns but then became super easy as you could squash the ai
BS civ 4 vanilla was excellent and civ 2 was fine as well even though i like Test of time's fantasy and science campaign and that was not really a DLC.
Civ series - where you can play a British penal colony as a separate Civilization starting in 4000 BC, but Israelites (the guys who brought you Judaism and Christianity) are unavailable. As well as Armenians and a bunch of other truly ancient civs.
France hating your early game is fine, I mean the Gauls had a lot of wars. It actually makes sense, in any case, you can help avoid this by sending her or others a trader that helps your diplomatic access which is tied to her agenda. Anyway, yeah the AI has a lot of problems but your arguments don't explain why it actually is especially in the current state of the game where a lot of things are much better. Although I agree with a few of the other arguments on your video in general.
I recently brought this and really wanted to enjoy something that wasn’t a shooter game. But 9 hours in and I’m having a mental crisis over this. I’m even on the lowest difficulty and the game still sucks and I feel like there’s never any progress. I don’t see how people pour hundreds of hours into this
Agree with most your points. The map was really confusing at first and the game flat. Dropped it after a month and went back to civ 5. The dlc and battle pass are really awesome and I've been in love with the game since I bought them recently. At the end of the day it's just the same formula as 5 where the games only get good after 3 years of expansions.
Nothing is better than Civ V cuz you have Queen Elizabeth asking for a meaningless research agreement every 20 turns "WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN A TRADE AGREEMENT WITH ENGLAND?"
My friends don’t like Civ VI but it’s honestly my favorite. It feels more natural to me. Happiness is so much easier to understand!! Now longer will you loose 50 happiness from buying a city off your ally!
I think the problem some people may be having is that Civ 6 isn't really designed to play the same way the older civ games are. This one seems to be tailored towards creating your own scenario type games instead of just choosing random civs on the big map and rushing through the tech tree every time. If you get creative with the options and civs available you can create a very different gaming experience each time. That seems like what the designers are at least hoping you'll do. I've noticed the AI plays smarter when you pay closer attention to how you set up the game. If the AI civs are thrown onto a map that doesn't play to their skills with a bunch of other civs that didn't exist when they did in real life it's like the AI doesn't know what to do with them. If you set up a game that plays to the AIs strengths it gets more challenging, interesting, and different. If you choose a civ that's strong in the Ancient era, try slowing the game down to marathon and pick AI civs that are also strong in that era. Set the map to a world that best benefits you and them. Make the game about enjoying the early eras and fully experiencing the benefits your civ gets, and try to beat it before the game advances to the later eras when your civ is long gone in real history. Choose a water or island map and use the civs that have unique ships to create a navy game. The navy is always underrated IMO, if you set it up right you can have a fun and challenging experience. Make a modern era game using the "newer" civs like USA, Canada, Australia and civs that get later era bonuses. What if only women ruled the world? How well would they get along with each other? How quickly would they destroy it? Would they be better or worse than an all male civ world? Those are just a few ideas, to fully experience what Civ 6 has to offers you have to think outside the box and create your own experience, it's not designed or set up very well for the computer to randomly pick everything for you and isn't smart enough to get creative on its own. A bunch of mismatched civs on a mismatched map seems to make the AI a lot dumber.
Districts could have been good if it also made the city actually larger, both increasing the range of what is considered adjacent and increased the max border size, but yeah, that sucks too.
Personally I have never had a problem with what you stated around 6:17. It is quite easy to tell what has been explored and what hasn't. You can see the grid and tiles in explored areas.
Anyone else think that if they went a similar visual direction of Civ V and upped it for Civ VI it would look fantastic? More so than this cartoony kind of look? Besides, since the game revolves around human history I think photorealism in leaders and the world we play in would always work out better than not.
If this were a more fiction-based and non-worldly game concept to begin with a cartoon direction like the Legend of Zelda, this kind of look would befit it much more. But it's not. Neither is there magic involved...
@Claudia’s Atelier Well, besides the average knowledge of non-brazilians (and brazilians) about Brazil, Brazil was actually an empire for almost all XIX century, so it fits the 'needs' to be in the game... it also conquered major territories in South America that are now part of the country, so for me wasnt weird at all. If the game was to include only the major known empires by a average human it would have like 10 civs...
The district thing pissed me off. It's like someone played the Warlock games and went "We need this is Civ6!" without having a clue about why that works in those games. The Warlock games are way more combat focused. You don't do a ton of diplomatic or cultural stuff. The game doesn't really even have wonders and things like that. If you loose a tile it, at worst, simply means you can't build elven archers now, or whatever. But in Civ6 loosing a single tile around your city could mean you just lost the game... The game you've been playing for six hours. -_-
Civ 5 remains my most played game on Steam, and I didn’t even get it until near the end of its lifecycle. I went nuts when Civ 6 was announced, and convinced some of my friends to buy it with me and play it. And some of the new mechanics seemed great. Spread out cities, religious victories, and “improved AI” (they touted it as that) had me convinced that it would be great. But then we got into it, and it just wasn’t very fun. Spread cities seems cool until you remember that cities kind of rely on spamming tile improvements. Population limits based on water supply are a nice, realistic idea, but in practice can force you to take suboptimal city locations, and can wreck you if you have a bad start. The movement changes make things complicated for anyone who was used to the old way, but also create a situation where holding defensive terrain is really the only thing that matters in wars. And then the changes to leaders, like a Medici for France or the two different rulers for Greece, just kind of adds another level of frustration. Oh, Alexander the Great is the leader of Macedonia in the upcoming DLC? Well why the hell not make him Greece? By the time he took control and starting conquering, Macedonia was basically Greece. His father had already conquered almost all of it.
Been a few months since I've watched this video for the first time. DLC out of my mind... I still don't agree. I think it's a fine game, and more user-friendly in a lot of ways than 5, which I played extensively. The mobile claims are fair, I will admit to you, as are those regarding the situational nature of Great People. I find, as well, the game favors building wide because of the mechanics surrounding new cities and population happiness and amenities. Building tall isn't quite so out of the question as it's presented here, though, and that's usually my go-to strategy despite the advantages to building wide. I do build wider than I did in 5, certainly. However, where the real meat and potatoes of my dissonance finds itself is in the tile improvements. I find it's actually quite elegant in the end in combination with limited-charge builders. Builders not lasting literally hundreds of thousands of years is nice in my eyes as well. Goodbye work boat unit, hello builders making work boats like any other tile improvement. The same is true of trade units, if I'm not mistaken, which is simple and consistent. The map, too, isn't nearly as bad as it's presented in the video. What is not presently in line of sight and what is completely uncharted is pretty clear to me, so I just straight-up don't agree with the assessment. It's mechanically simplified in a way I find refreshing. I'm also quite a fan of how customizable governments feel, both before and after Rise and Fall, though governors are kinda.... Yikes. It's off putting, I suppose, how governors of cities were put together. I feel if they were recruitable in a different way than their current implementation I may like them better. Dark and light ages add another level of depth to the choices the player will be making. You get a like from me either way, Davo. Detailed assessment and courageous to stand up to something you find a little souring.
5:50 I think the actual graphics are great but I hate how the UI feels like it was made for the iPad version of the game which isn’t great, like why can’t I use the scroll wheel to go through my tech trees and policy cards?! Just an example but there are so many issues with the UI ok PC that have never been fixed
Why so many dislikes? This is a pretty legit review, and he even compares it to paradox's games & brings up pirates. If someone brings up EU4, sid pirates, sid railroads, and all those in one video, you know this man knows the strategy genre like the back of his hand. Cut this man some slack; he's experienced and credible.
Are you fucking stupid? You can not compare two DIFFERENT game franchises. There are vastly different mechanics in both series! They have their own themes and settings and appeal to different audiences. They’re NOT comparable.
we can all agree stupid things happen ALOT in this game but one thing i don't understand is why is it that my ally AI decides to settle a city 3 tiles from my border thus having me tell them stop settling close, they agree, they then settle a city 1 tile from my border i warn them again, they apologize AGAIN, then 2 turns later settled a city ON my border. What happened after this is I waited for our alliance to end and somehow declare my first war in the late game (for some reason brazil wasn't triggered that I had great people and england wasn't triggered that i was on the other side of the world) and well... They recieved a present of about 8 nuclear devices and 5 thermonuclear devices
I have been on the fence for awhile but your video has convinced me. I love the districts. They add a layer of strategy and personality to each city considering you're limited by terrain and population as to which ones you can build and when. So it becomes a high wire balancing act. Maybe you'll have to go to war and take another Civ's city so you can get the land you want, maybe you'll have to be a little more clever. Sure, playing tall isn't viable anymore but honestly? In a game like this, it shouldn't be. You expect an island like Indonesia or Barbados to be a global super power? No? They lack the size and resources? Well so does your Civ, so it should logically lose as well.
Doesn’t make sense to have 10 wonders with things such as the pyramids, sprawling factories, and everyone who lives there in one tile. I’m glad they spread them out, now the land is ACTUALLY being used instead of just a mine on every hill and a farm on every plain. Pillaging is now actually worth it
Cathrine de Medici was the queen of France for twelve years and was married to a prince for 8 years before then. She was the queen regent for her second KING son because he was to young to rule for 3 years. Also she became the queen because she basically saved France with her money. She is one of the most influential and important people for France in recorded history. She was the wife of the king of France for 12 years, birthed three kings of France and a queen of France. Was a queen regent and birthed the queen of Spain. Also was a main advisor for 5 kings in France and lived for 70 years in a time where people were lucky to live for 50. She should be in the game because she was powerful even more than you know.
@@hududiyya There are certain fields leaders in Civ are good in, Catherine is a good cultural leader so she fits better than Napoleon who would be a military leader
This game was the biggest waste of $3 in my 50 years of existence. They don't tell you how to end your turn and after checking every menu it just stays on day 1. Might as well just bought a screen saver. Fuck this game, I love civ 2 but fuck 6
This whole review sounds like nostalgia fever. Many of the comments, especially abt districts and great people sound like comments made by someone who hasn’t actually played most of the game, or only tried 2 or 3 games. The districts are wildly powerful, entertaining and well thought out. Great people and government policies are powerful and unique, and you made no commentary on /why/ they are unintuitive or poorly implemented. Just that they were. Great people are synced well with districts and give benefits that are helpful and potentially game changing, and the right timing of policy shifts and civic research can make or break wars, space races or religious victories
When did they put trade back in the game? I've had Civ 4 and Civ 5 and there's no trade in either one. Last version that I played that had trade was Civ 2.
France will not hate you if you send delegations and trade routes. That counts as espionage to her because you are gaining access into a civs activities
One thing I hate to this day about the civ 6 AI is how some nations will have you simply because you’re better than them at something, it’s a pain in the ass receding lung what feels like a salty text from your jealous ex every time you build a new wonder or paint a painting
Not using the same leaders we've seen a million times before is bad, how? AI was equally bad in Civ 5, only thing I'll give you there is that the need for planning ahead for districts means it's more visible/impaction that the AI is bad at city placement. Adding districts, new movement system and agendas is good, actually. Oh no I have to learn new things and do more strategic thinking. Oh no. Graphics being good and clear is a godsend. I do agree that less representative unit models is a shame, though I usually just play with RED for that. The more streamlined unit tree I am a fan of, though that's just preference. Makes the upgrades less tedious and more meaningful. Great people being unique makes them bad because "I have to learn and think ahead"? Also saying you can only have one type per era or whatever is just a lie. Also yes the DLC policy sucks ass. No DLC sharing if the host has it, the best civs being in overpriced CIV packs.
I like the districts it adds another layer of strategy of having to plan the layout of your city rather than building tall just “yup build the next thing click, click, click”
Imagine an AI declaring war on you and you fight them, then the other AI call you a warmonger
Well....glad I haven't played it yet
This is why I go for domination most of the time since it will be worth it
walter with hat worst feel 😂
Good thing grievances was added
They declare war? Conquer Their whole empire! Of course in self defense!
Cathrine: "I hate you"
You: "Why?"
Catherine: "Cuz you don't have spies"
You: "We're in the ancient era, what are spies?"
Catherine: "How should I know, you don't have any for me to identify!"
My biggest gripe about this game is how barbarians get tanks before everyone else does.
I declare war on you because you have not spread your religion to me! [Since there is a religious victory condition, that's like saying I declare war on you because you haven't attacked me yet].
woman moment
shit man... kinda sounds like my ex girlfriend
I just don’t like how a civ can go from loving you to denouncing you in like 3 turns
Try playing eu4.
Allies for fifty years, when suddenly they rival you.
@@romegypt5675 "Prussia, you and we the Polish have been friends for over 100 years. We've had royal marriages to the point where we are all the same family. Our economies are so intertwined that we basically share it. If I didn't know any better I'd say we were almost one country our own!"
*PROTESTANT WARS BEGIN*
What do you mean? That's just like real life lol
@Processed Grain Some will denounce you for no reason whatsoever.
For example, Cleopatra and Queen Gorgo will denounce you for having such a puny military. Others, such as Gilgamesh, are just completely paranoid and will denounce you regardless.
Which is why I unleashed my nuclear arsenal on Sumeria because poke the bear enough and see what happens.
Other civs claimed I declared war without provocation but if that were the case then explain why a brute like Gilgamesh is constantly taunting me.
Diplomacy takes more effort maybe
AI Civ: *settles literally at my border*
Me: *settles 4 tiles away from nearby AI Civ city*
AI Civ: “HEY STOP SETTLING TOO CLOSE ON MY BORDERS!!!”
You can ask for them to promise to not settle near you (pretty much the same thing they do with you when you settle near them). lf they choose not to listen to you then you get grievances towards them for an eventual war
“This game looks like an iOS game”
Uhh I have something to tell you..
+Zantic Trant The game is on mobile lol
it is not
therodolfool yes it is
it is...
Is it free if u have it on Steam ?
You keep saying "edgy". I don't think that word means what you think it means.
If you hadn't said that, I would have
Bump
INCONCEIVABLE
This guy right here's on to something.
Thats an edgy statement
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Sid Meier hasn't had anything to do with the Civ serious since the original
Didn't he found Firaxis?
He's creative director at Firaxis IIRC, so he definitely has some input, though it of course isn't the same as in the beginning. I don't think the series ever had the same lead designer twice (including spin-offs), so over the years there were tons of non-sid influences, although that may have gotten down with 5 and how it scrapped a lot of the things that just kept piling up over time.
@@klobiforpresident2254 he lost any say after Civ3, now he is practically a Consultant.
I find it hard to praise Civ V’s AI when they can declare war on me, lose a city on the first offensive, stalemate the war and then offer to give up another city for peace only to randomly declare war again after it’s over.
Well Germany did that in real life, too
@@gefitrop3496 really?
It was trash too
Thats kinda awesome tho
They actually ported civ 6 to the iOS.
And that's why the UI sucked all along...they planned for this. Just like that Peter Molyneux game that flopped, Godus. Ruined by mobile.
IOS/2 Was the greatest os ever.
And the switch...
Because iOS devices are becoming far more powerful and are now actually very capable of running full pc games
@@Benjamin-bj6xj thank you. I know theres a stigma, but more and more full games are released for mobiles and are great.
"The base game of Civ 5 still feels a lot more complete and playable than Civ 6 does."
*cough*
*cough*
10 HP system nightmare
no trade routes
no religion
no espionage
no tourism
ranged only ships
EDIT: Changed trade to trade routes
Oh God, I remember the 10 HP, your Giant Death Robot was fearsome, but 10 Archers? Unstoppable
Civ5 was terrible on release, I remember starting it up and doing my first domination victory was sorta fun but took to long to get to the war parts... and that was tedious due to the happiness system.
Tried out a cultural victory, and that was pretty boring too, not much too it just spammed out landmarks everywhere and won as Russia for reasons.
Then I played a Science victory, that was fun as I understood the game better. Then I realized from reading later that mathematically you don't even want more than 4 cities, a problem they never fixed and that was terrible.
So the game pigeon holed you into building tall and then gave very few options for choice or even systems to manage while being tall. Civ5 was terrible on release for the player, Civ 6's main issue was it's AI which was horrendous on release.
Heck yeah, @@alecshockowitz8385! Civ 5: God and Kings didn't help much in this area too. Going full warmonger you were forced to destroy cities that got too close to 0 Happiness. Then Razing Cities took as many turns as there were surviving Population. So if you took over a 10 Population City and razed it it would take ten effin' turns for you to burn them down to the ground and move onto the next enemy City to conquer. At least in Civ 6: Rise and Fall, the one I've been frequently playing for over a year now, you can go full warmonger without any serious Happiness penalties. Instead of Happiness issues it's Loyalty issues and that's an entirely different hellhole of a problem. The only two serious problems with going full warmonger in Civ 6: Rise and Fall are politics and Loyalty sides.
Davo does have some legitimate complaints about the game's terrible AI, but at the same time Davo apparently hasn't heard of deliberately causing a War or critical Loyalty issue in the "offending" City or Civilization. This way you can go to war without such crippling warmongering penalties with other Civilizations by going full bully on people. The Loyalty issue is so you can turn them into a Free City and hopefully sooner or later they'll willingly join your Civilization. This if you don't want to go over and conquer them while the City is a Free City.
Other than this, Civilization VI: Rise and Fall actually gets alot of things better than Civ V: Gods and Kings to me. Sure, the graphical upgrades are wonderful, but Hill tiles are treated differently than Civ 5. You only get 2 Food and Production each with all Hill tiles in 5. All Hill tiles are treated identically. This is great if you happen to settle one or more cities particularly your Capital in a hilly area. In Civ 6: Of Rise and Fall you're forced to choose between high Production with Plains Hills and a balance of Food and Production with Grassland Hills. Civ 6: Rise and Fall to me is so much more balanced and strategic to me than 5 could ever.
For example, you settle a City in an area that has a number of Hills within one and two tiles of your City, but within three or four tiles of one or more other Civs' Cities. This can spell certain doom for your City should either one or both of them declare a Surprise or Formal War on you. However, using an Encampment District on the most optimal Hill tile that is as close to in middle the opposing Civs or their Cities will help ensure to give you up to four attacks without that defensive Governor, but with him up to five attacks since one of his Promotions enables an additional City attack. If you build at least Ancient Walls in your city and you have an Encampment District it'll gain those Walls immediately. It'll gain the same level of Walls your City has as well. However, both Walls are independent of each other so your Encampment can take a pounding and have seriously damaged Walls but your City Walls are barely touched, if that. This you an opportunity for some very serious strategic District placement(s) such as an Encampment District. This truly can make and break an enemy's run on your City.
Davo apparently never heard of District Adjacency bonuses as well. This also pairs well with strategic District placements as well. Campuses go best adjacent to Mountains while the money district goes best river adjacent tiles, and the Theater Districts go best adjacent to multiple built Wonders. I also love how every Wonder has a set of prerequisites for you to even be able to build them in the first place. If you don't meet all of them you're SOL on that Wonder til you meet the criteria, assuming you can meet their build criteria. This way you can't literally queue Wonder after Wonder within the confines of your chosen Government system. Otherwise if you set things up correctly you could theoretically build literally every Wonder in the game in one City in Civilization V: Gods and Kings like I used to do fairly often. In Civ 6: Rise and Fall you have alot of conditions and other things to think about before you plop down your Cities.
I'm surprised Davo didn't whine about how OP the Barbarians are in Civ 6: Rise and Fall's Early Game. Oh my effin' God... I thought they were very close to 5's Rampaging Barbarian setting when I first started to play Civ 6. NOPE! In 6 they're relatively easily beaten *if* their fricken Scout doesn't find your Capital, another Civ's Capital, and/or a City-State and come back to their originating Barbarian Encampment. If this happens unless if you have a bunch of strong Military units already you're completely effed to venture far from your Capital. Sure, you can use this strategy: "Use a Slinger to get within one or two tiles away from said Barbarian Encampment while you have your own Scout or Warrior sneak up from behind or adjacent to said Barbarian Encampment. The Barbarian *usually* goes after your Slinger apparently in high hopes of easily killing them. Use your adjacent unit to clear out the Encampment.". This permanently stops that specific Encampment from spawning more insane numbers of Horseman units. In Civ 6: Rise and Fall Early Games Barbarian Horseman units are incredibly OP. They can wipe out your entire measly Military if you're not careful.
Otherwise Civilization 6: Rise and Fall offers a far more balanced and incredibly strategic Civilization experience than 5 ever did. As a side note in 4 I really hated how Barbarians could easily take over your Cities by just walking over onto them should your Stack of Doom not be there or be too weak to fend them off. As another side note, I really love how City Wall Bombardments are no longer omni-directional. You can no longer fire over Mountain tiles. If you want a chance at omni-directional firing settle your City on a Hill tile, but Mountain tiles are automatically impossible to fire over.
@@adamgray1753so your saying that civ 6 is way to easy and are made for kids?
BNW fixed all of that tho
7:38 - What do you mean Civs can only earn 1 Great Person per type per Era? That's not even close to correct.
The great people are "era-specific" even though technically you're right, you can earn more than one great person type per era.
I think he meant that there is only one great person per type per era, not that civs selectively have that limit.
Flazzorb Even that is not true, there can be more
If i remember correctly, every general is more than once per era
There are several great persons of each type per era besides prophets: you just dont see them all because players/ai choose them when you are not looking
Im fairly certain there is a list of great people just like the list of city states. depending on how many civs are included changes the number of great people available in that game. it then chooses from the list which great people show up that game. If to want to see lots of great people from the same era try maxing out the number of players.
Around turn 50 the AI has spammed too many cities for you to expand. You either go early aggro or you lose generally. It's terrible considering the game is all about having many different ways to play, its way too meta.
This is my biggest issue with the game
Yeah, I've tried playing the game several times but it always ends up like this. I don't want to waste my already limited production spamming cities that I will need to micromanage. Make sure I leave room for wonders, no thanks.
You can espionage in the ancient era with embassies.
And trading post
Just like this point, many of his other criticisms show a lack of experience and knowledge of the game. That or just not being able to adapt to change.
Delegations, to be exact
I know
@@SherbertLomon almost like he was talking about it a year ago so they probably changed a lot of the things that he complained about.
I have to say that like you, I wasn’t too fond of a lot of mechanics at first, but they grew on me over time. The district mechanic for example makes it so each city is more unique in what it builds instead of the same build order for every city. Districts also mean you can’t just have one overpowered city that becomes more and more overpowered with each wonder.
I feel like a majority of things done make it so you have more things to do for every aspect of the game. You said how great people each having their own special abilities was confusing, but I think it makes them a lot more fun and relevant to who they represent instead of doing the same generic thing, which gets boring after awhile.
I feel like your opinion may have changed as time goes on and things get better. I would like to see what you think about it now.
"Districts also mean you can’t just have one overpowered city that becomes more and more overpowered with each wonder."
You say this like it's a good thing
Nukestarmaster What are you telling me that you enjoy Egypt’s one high production city stealing every wonder in the world just because they can?
You still can build tall in this game, it is just that you can’t reach such truly ridiculous levels like in Civ V.
I don’t build wonders because they take up a tile and they take too much time. There pretty useless anyway, and if you decide to go for a culture victory just take over every city of the Civ that is about to win in culture.
JBBrickman I have no idea what you are talking about, a wonder is much more useful then a random unused plains tile, hell I’d find it useful to destroy even some more productive tiles for later wonders.
Also couldn’t you apply the logic of destroying every other civ that is about to win to every victory? And that really defeats the point of trying to go for a victory like the Tourism Victory in the first place.
I mean, the reason wonders take up so much time is because they are so incredibly useful. I mean I’ve pulled ahead in some pretty bleak situations thanks to wonders before
Bobby Ferg do we play the same game? Have you ever played another civ game? Wonders are absolute shit In terms of cost/benefit minus like literally 2 of them. I have won so many games in the hardest difficulty without getting one single wonder easily and quicker then someone who would waist their time building them. I’m really not tryna be rude but ur absolutely objectively wrong. Civ 5 was a different story however.
In the early game you can satisfy the spycraft with DeMedici by having a delegation or anything that allows you to know what other countries are doing
"And if you don't..."
I fully expected you to finish this sentence with "...I will DENOUNCE you."
i got civ 5 and basically every dlc ever released for it on steam sale for $1.99
these assholes now selling it for $27 in black friday
Oh yeah well I got Civ 6 and no DLCs on epic store for $0
Well I got both of them with all DLC for free from Fitgirl lol.
@@flashpunk7333 ZEAHAHAHAH SAME
You can still play tall just not traditional tall it more of a ya know building up your culture, religion, and districts/city.
also Gandhi looks like ET
gandhi go home
ayy lmao
He did look like ET IRL
Even more than in the game
Better that than the bronze dildo in civ 5
@@davo_ i like how you only responded to this comment.
Edit:actually not only this one
Even if this is an old video, learn more about the game before ranting..you got a good bit of things wrong, other commenters even agree.
Seems like a lot of his complaints come from a core misunderstanding of various mechanics
Thats the point of districts and wonder placement, so you can't have one city with 15 wonders in it. Playing tall is easy, Brazil with 4 cities and a shit ton of culture or Korea spamming science. As for the art and aesthetics I got over them after two playthroughs.
As for the art, I really agree on his point about the maps though. It looks really cool, but I would greatly prefer that the FOW on already explored areas stayed looking like visible areas instead of reverting into the drawn style
Except that kills off the fun of screwing over the other players with Wonder Rushing.
I am someone who loves to build wonders that other players are building, even if it wastes my Great Engineer. Civ VI doesn't give that to me.
And even then, building more wonders just means more people are tempted to attack that one city.
Even Civ 4 had the options where you can toggle fog of war(it just brightens it, not really showing what's there)
There's nothing wrong with that.
My favorite civilization from civilization 6 and 5 is empire of Brazil and Rome
Same
I liked the new wonders mechanic.It prevents the ai to gather all the wonders available (as if a city could accommodate everything like Hermione's bag in Harry potter). In civ 5, whenever an AI gets 1 wonder, for sure that ai will take the succeeding wonders entirely esp at higher difficulties.
2:40 its called access level. Send trade routes, delegations, open borders agreements, or literally anything to raise the access level. If you want to see more, open the diplomacy menu for the civ and view the access level area with them. At the bottom, it gives you a list of things you can do to improve your access level early. Maybe you should do a bit more reaearch before bitching ;)
1:40 "Base game Civ 6 feels more complete than base game civ 5"
..... how? Civ 6 base game had religion, trade routes (and other systems that 5 also had at launch) and 20 civs. Thats 2 more (both mechanics and civs) than what base 5 had.
1:45 the AI.
I will in no way deny that 6 has some horrible AI, but it did recieve a major improvement in Rise & Fall, even if it still is really bad.
2:10 "one particularly bad feature is the leader agendas"
I don't know if you mean bad as in that the feature idea in itself is bad or that the feature in it's current state just dosen't function well. In the case of the latter i guess thats fair at the time of this videos release, but if you mean that the feature in itself is a bad idea... diplomacy has always been one of the more lacking areas of both 5 and 6, so givng the AI an actual personality that you can predict them from is by no means a bad idea. It allows you to actually try to become friends with people you want to be friendly with by following their agenda. Might need some tinkering, sure. but i think the idea of agendas is a great way to spice up the diplomatic game a bit.
2:27 "Catherine, who always hates people who don't have good spy networks"
Catherines agenda actually has nothing to do with spies at all, but goes after your acces level to other civs. Yes, the most effective way to increase this (later in the game) is with spys, but a delegation (early game) or an embassy (mid/late game) can also suffice. So, there is not "quite litteraly nothing you can to to stop France from hating you" in the early game.
2:49
It's also a pretty fucking big oversight to completely misunderstand a civ agenda and ranting about how horrible it is for half a minute.
3:40 the district mechanic.
for a dedicated civ 5 player i guess this can be a bit tedius, but it's not longer needed to have EVERYTHING in ALL you cities. Thismechanic not only stops wonder whores to snowball (in addition to the standard lack of army problem for them) but it also actually requres you to THINK what you but in which cities. In civ 5, you can have everything in all cities, it was raely a question wether to build it or not. The only times thinking was required was when choosing whether to build a unit or another building. Here, you also choose what building. It also gives tiles moe purpose, rather than just having slaveworkers improving them for 6000 years.
3:55 builders.
Builders are just as usefull as in civ 5, just not exactly the same way. The instant build allows you to make quick decisions like boosting a wonder by choping a forest (or just straight up boosting it if you're the Chinese).
You can place a city just to get great tiles or great district placements, but then you know that certain city will be weaker in other regards. (Which is not a bad thing for the game, that just adds more strategy). It works best to find a balance between district placements and tile yields.
4:09 playing tall.
I will admit it can be harder to make a tall civ work in 6 than it was in 5, but it still works. Tall civs with a few cities close together can put districts close together to maximise adjecency bonuses, which in some cases can be better than the tile you otherwise would have gotten. If you also don't put every district in every city, you can get more tiles to work. It's better to specialize cities in 6, rather than just craming everything into every city as in 5, the governors in R&F further improves this specializing strategy.
4:41 unit movement.
Sure, this change was not needed, but i don't get how it makes anything less tactcal. If you chased a unit in civ 5, and you both reached a river, it was a good chanse that both could just run over the river with their second movement point as if it wasn't even there. Only in a large jungle or hilly area did it actually matter. In 6, things like single hills and rivers matter more for combat. Slightly more anoying, sure. But i don't find it less tacticsl in any way.
Also, civ 6 has a tendency of having roads almost everywhere towards the midgame.
6:23
Wait what, really? The uncharted and non-visible areas are too similar? How... but... are you blind? The only single time i have ever just for a small moment mistaken non-visible and uncharted territory was in a desert. And thats after 500 hours of gameplay. And i only have 20% eyesight... ok, i'm sorry, i don't want to be rude. but i seriusly just can't understand how this can be a problem. I really don't. If this actually is a genuine problem you could just turn on tile yiels, like in the video where you show the map, making it even easier to distinguish the two.
7:31 "great people all have their own spesific bonus now which is not a good thing because it just makes them more situational and confusng"
So... is civ 6 dumbed down or too complicated? Most seem to say it's dumbed down but here it's aparently confusing that different people have different effects, that are clearly written and explained on every single one of them? Also, only a few of them are really that situational, and even for them... theres a pass button. It's right there! It adds more strategy and depth to great people, something i always missed from civ 5, that the only unique thing about them was their names...
7:37 "and the way they can only be earned by one civ per type per era is also fucking stupid"
I agree. That would be a fucking stupid mechanic, luckily, thats not a mechanic in the game. Where you got it from i have no clue, but it's certainly not from the game... unless you only ever gained a great prophet. In that case you either suck increadibly at the game or you haven't played anywhere near long enough to justify making this video.
8:29
True, but they did do the exact same thing for 5 and you seem to love that...
Still, this was a good video. Not too toxic as thingg like these tend to be. But i do miss some comments about the incredible music, could have recieved a mention. Hope this comment wasn't to toxic either, tried to prevent that, hope i succeeded.
Sondre Bol I want to take this comment seriously but .. what's with the minecraft profile pic ?
He was honestly nit-picking and making up shit to complain about the game when really it’s just a bias towards civ 5 since apparently that game is so fucking superior to any and all other civ games. Yes it’s a great game but just like civ 6 it had its problems and I hate when people bring up the DLC thing for civ 6 which is kinda scummy charging like 8 dollars for a single civ pack with a wonder or two and scenarios and city states is decent but $10 for a scenario pack is stupid. Civ 6 offered so much but the base game was sort of lacking, but like civ 5 the base game is gonna be a little bland but the expansions complete it.
This ages poorly, apart from the AI bit.
@Shlomo Bergenstein Nah game is amazing
@@dkm4338 That's what he's saying "Aged poorly" means it doesn't apply anymore.
@@clownemoji2153 yeah didnt read it correctly
Idk, whenever I play Civ 6 and then play Civ 5 I always have more fun in Civ 5.
I can’t point my finger at it, but somehow Civ 5 is better.
@@JBBrickman might be you who just prefers the other game
I don't see the problem with being able to play as smaller powers and lesser known world leaders.
Tbh I don't but they've chucked in leaders who don't make as much historical sense for that position. Cleopatra for example may have been highly intelligent but she was a poor leader. The medici's (Catherine was one) were from Florence NOT France. Like he said, she was a regent for a couple of months. Some of the Female leaders are clearly token choices, in the case of Egypt it's even more silly because one of their greatest leaders was a woman (i always forhet her name! I believe she was king tuts mother) and they chose Cleopatra, their very last leader - until they got owned by the Romans who had the excuse given to them by Cleopatra that the Egyptian empire was a clear threat by that point.
The should choose respectable and rare women leaders.
@@magicbuns4868 Napoleon wasn't from France either and nobody complained.
@@Adventure_fuel Yeah. Why isn't Adolf Hitler in the game!?
@@josgretf2800 He was from Corsica and guess what Corsica was French, go back learning history
I haven’t watched that much of the vid, but the claim that districts mean there are less viable spots because you need op districts is wrong. Watch any strong civ 6 player and they are pumping settlers out left and right.
Having delegations and embassies, trades with other civs gives you diplomatic visibility, and Catherine would like you. It's not an "impossible" agenda by any means.
I hate the fact that my enemies can move and attack while I can only move them attack next turn
Isnt thw whole series like that 😂 its called (turn-based) for a reason
I personally LOVE the map graphics, also I'm not sure that's what "edgy" means.
Edgy: (informal) at the forefront of a trend; experimental or avant-garde. Definition straight from the dictionary. Seems right to me.
Oh, sorry I guess I wasn't very correct in my statement. Thx
@@totalsyambles8308 Which dictionary?!?!
I also hate it when other civs Denounce you because of things like;
"Where's your army?"
"I'm peaceful."
".... Fuck you! Hippy! Denounced."
"Do you intend to invade me?"
"No. I just want to take a shit on your doorstep every 15 turns."
Civ VI is in my opinion worse than civ V, but just by a little. I personally really like what they did with CIV VI (although it feels quite empty, which is why I prefer civ V)
I want to know why Norway and Spain were introducing themselves to the Azteca in 400 bc
I certainly have to agree with about half of what you said. As for the other half, no need to argue opinions. One big problem I have with the interface is how half the moves you make with a unit are with the right mouse button, and the other half are made with the left mouse button, the same one you use to scroll the screen. How many times I have bombed something with my aircraft when I just meant to scroll the screen. Sid had this right in Railroad Tycoon 3, where the middle mouse button scrolled the screen, and should have done that in this game. I know you can use the middle button to center the screen, but I would rather use it to drag and scroll the screen. Big problem 2, in my book, is that with Gathering Storm and Rise and Fall, there are way too many mountains and volcanoes. Even with the world age set to "old." I also have not found a screen where I can rank my cities by production, gold produced, or any other factors. We could do this in Civ 5, but the problem there was you couldn't click on a city name and go there from the city list. And you are absolutely right about the "chart" graphics on the map. The clouds in Civ 5 were perfect, why did they change that to something that was harder to see? And it's very hard to see the hex grid unless you switch to the strategic map. I hope they are listening to people like us when they do Civ 7.
if the mid game were a little more interesting I would play the end game more. The problem with most 4X games is that as the game goes on winners tend to keep winning harder and losers keep losing harder and then there's no doubt who will win even if you're the one winning it just isn't interesting. There's no dramatic turnarounds. There's no drama at all because the AI are keeping their forces in reserve on account of being intimidated by your massive military and don't even wage war on each other.
Why are you pre-occupied with whether or not the AI likes you? You know this is a competitive game, don't you? Only one player can win.
Placing districts and wonders on tiles is a great new gameplay mechanic which depends on city placement and victory type you are going for. For instance militaristic, build encampments by chokepoints to defend or attack other Civs. And with the wonders, actually seeing a huge size version of the pyramids or hanging gardens is a massive difference from Civ 5. Which the wonders were small and felt like it didn't capture the word "Wonder". Well that's my thoughts on Civ 6 and my opinion.
I hate how they shifted from a worldly mature design style to a wacky cartoony fun style.
You can also see it in the quotes. They used to have deep hisorical quotes - but they replaced it with pop culture quotes.
The leaders are also ridiculous. Gorgo as an alternative to greece? Why not leonidas? Catherine de medici for france? Why not louis xiv? Gandhi again for india? Why not ashoka? It's a fun game but there's so many things which the game lacks which civ 5 already had
Absolutely.
The loss of the demographics hurts
There’s now mods for tha
@@pigio9033 The mods bugged my game
CEO of Vibe checks I have a bunch of mods barely any difference
Brazil in general was very important, the gold extracted from there went straight to Portugal, then Britain.
The Brazillian Wood made red dye much cheaper in the global market, this defined the british army's color of choise. Brazil also had a powerful navy for a recently declared country, and a strong economy and trade (at least before Pedro II's reign) as well as being the local powerhouse of Latin America.
And Brazil invented airplanes =) was key ally on WW2 on Italy. Brazil has so much more history than people think lol, if they'd just search they would see.
@@BryanStreet66 Indeed! Brazil's history is quite underrated.
Would be interested to know your thoughts of Civ VI with all patches and DLC considered in 2020. Is Civ V still better?
It’s been 3 years but now civ 6 is going to have a medieval swordsman, maybe internet explorer is the developer of civ 6
Civ 5 at launch was skin and bones, 6 launched with religion and tourism, so much more of a complete game.
Catherine De Medici’s agenda is based on Diplomatic Visibility, not only spies, which can be influenced at any point in the game. And this is such a tiny irrelevant detail anyways.
The district system adds a layer of strategic choice based on utilizing the terrain, and the game is balanced around that; how the hell is that “taking space from improvements”? You seriously are pining because instead of 6 farms you have 5 farms and a Commercial Hub? It rewards careful city planning.
90% of these criticisms, like saying it’s bad that Great People have unique abilities (which is so clearly awesome) and the dynamic social policy card system are summed up as “I’m confused by having to make a strategic decision”.
Have you even played these games? I have dozens of Deity wins on both 5 and 6. Statements like “they removed many great features from 5” make absolutely no sense. They removed nothing except the World Congress which they stated long ago would be reintroduced in an expansion, otherwise all the game mechanics have been added to or tweaked. And if you want to get petty, how bout we make a list of all the crap Firaxis never bothered to fix in 5 even after years of patches, like the Iroquious UA straight up not working, their UB being garbage, Liberty being unviable, Honor being unviable, Tourism being unviable, Religion being a waste of time in 90% of games (both of these problems come from those mechanics being tacked on rather than part of the base game like 6), complete lack of Civ balance (far worse than 6), I could go on...
Your only reasonable complaint is that in the classic Tall v Wide, Tall is far less viable. Otherwise you are completely unqualified to discuss this debate.
I'm sorry you're bad at Civ V culture victories; I use them all the time
I'm personally not one to pick apart a video like this, but such a video kind of warrants it.
1: Brazil being a thing: Yeah, idk why they exist. Maybe a fill-in for Portugal?
2: The AI: Yeah, it is kinda retarded, but I think the agenda system is fine. They had virtually the same things in the older civ games with personality values assigned to them based on their leader. What's the problem here? It's the same thing but it's upfront about it, not hidden behind the game in the background like it is in Civ 5
3: The Districts: The Districts are good, because it feels great to get a +5 campus or holy site. It feels great to get the adjacency bonus. Sure, that means you can't improve that tile with a builder, but that gives it some more choice as to what you want to do with it, should you put a district, wonder, or improvement there?
4: Inability to play tall: What? What are you even going on about? Sure, you need space for districts, but not that much. As for the wonders, I've build like 6 wonders w/o even focusing on them. IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO PLAY TALL, just git gud.
5: Great People: You saying you can only get 1 great person per type per era is a flat-out LIE. The great people are fine in this game BECAUSE they have unique bonuses, and are not just carbon copies of each other. They feel more like actual historical figures, and not just like a generic power boost.
6: The lack of units: This was sort of true on launch, but it's been mostly fixed by rise and fall, and a little bit by gathering storm.
Overall, I think this review needs a sequel, addressing these things here, and addressing the dlc that has come out for this game.
EH MATE WELCOME TO AUSTRALIA
*Straya
Digiridont do this to me
NOT "MATE" BUT "MITE"
Maaaaaaate
I find it weird that you only mentioned Georgia aka the least exciting dlc civ.
I personally enjoy civ 6 way more than I used to since the single player has more challenges than just the barbarians. The old civ 6 pre-gathering storm was very difficult in the first 150 turns but then became super easy as you could squash the ai
The multiple fog of wars, tons of ui clutter on the ground, fewer models per unit, less units and the aesthetics killed this one for me.
Yeah the units graphics and animations took a big step back from civ 5 and that was disappointing
I can finally play as my country, Georgia and that's somehow a bad thing?
Georgia is such an interesting civ but it seems nobody gives a fuck about georgia
Yeah because ur country is irrelevant asf no offense
Not having control over roads made the game a lot less fun in competitive settings.
Civ 4 with warlords and beyond the sword was awesome.
I bought Civ 6 on sale yesterday after getting back into civ 5 after years away. I demanded and received a refund after 2 hours.
Do Civ fans not realize they hate every new Civ game until DLC comes out?
BS civ 4 vanilla was excellent and civ 2 was fine as well even though i like Test of time's fantasy and science campaign and that was not really a DLC.
Civ series - where you can play a British penal colony as a separate Civilization starting in 4000 BC, but Israelites (the guys who brought you Judaism and Christianity) are unavailable. As well as Armenians and a bunch of other truly ancient civs.
France hating your early game is fine, I mean the Gauls had a lot of wars. It actually makes sense, in any case, you can help avoid this by sending her or others a trader that helps your diplomatic access which is tied to her agenda. Anyway, yeah the AI has a lot of problems but your arguments don't explain why it actually is especially in the current state of the game where a lot of things are much better. Although I agree with a few of the other arguments on your video in general.
Very true about France, I don't think it was an "oversight" like davo suggested but I think it was intentional.
She is much more reasonable than someone like the Aztecs. XD
Me: builds plantation on chocolate
Montezuma: ITS SLAVERY TIME!!!
The least reasonable is Norway. Why would they hate inland states that have no ports and ships to compete them or even to raid...
@@cauhscrymdorn2132 *_YOuR SeAs aRe unpRoTeCtEd, My fRiENd. alL ToO eAsY To rAid._*
Also how did you mistake the uncharted land for the charted land, it's not that hard to see the difference.
0:33 hey i live there ;-;
I recently brought this and really wanted to enjoy something that wasn’t a shooter game. But 9 hours in and I’m having a mental crisis over this. I’m even on the lowest difficulty and the game still sucks and I feel like there’s never any progress. I don’t see how people pour hundreds of hours into this
I did as well. I quickly realized that going tall was not really an option anymore. Got my money back.
Agree with most your points. The map was really confusing at first and the game flat. Dropped it after a month and went back to civ 5. The dlc and battle pass are really awesome and I've been in love with the game since I bought them recently. At the end of the day it's just the same formula as 5 where the games only get good after 3 years of expansions.
i went to bermuda before and someone asked me can they borrow 5 pounds .. i dead ass thought they wanted me to just give them five pounds of weed lmao
my steam play history says it all : 25 hours on VI , 280 hours on V
Nothing is better than Civ V cuz you have Queen Elizabeth asking for a meaningless research agreement every 20 turns
"WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN A TRADE AGREEMENT WITH ENGLAND?"
My friends don’t like Civ VI but it’s honestly my favorite. It feels more natural to me. Happiness is so much easier to understand!! Now longer will you loose 50 happiness from buying a city off your ally!
I think the problem some people may be having is that Civ 6 isn't really designed to play the same way the older civ games are. This one seems to be tailored towards creating your own scenario type games instead of just choosing random civs on the big map and rushing through the tech tree every time. If you get creative with the options and civs available you can create a very different gaming experience each time. That seems like what the designers are at least hoping you'll do. I've noticed the AI plays smarter when you pay closer attention to how you set up the game. If the AI civs are thrown onto a map that doesn't play to their skills with a bunch of other civs that didn't exist when they did in real life it's like the AI doesn't know what to do with them. If you set up a game that plays to the AIs strengths it gets more challenging, interesting, and different.
If you choose a civ that's strong in the Ancient era, try slowing the game down to marathon and pick AI civs that are also strong in that era. Set the map to a world that best benefits you and them. Make the game about enjoying the early eras and fully experiencing the benefits your civ gets, and try to beat it before the game advances to the later eras when your civ is long gone in real history.
Choose a water or island map and use the civs that have unique ships to create a navy game. The navy is always underrated IMO, if you set it up right you can have a fun and challenging experience.
Make a modern era game using the "newer" civs like USA, Canada, Australia and civs that get later era bonuses.
What if only women ruled the world? How well would they get along with each other? How quickly would they destroy it? Would they be better or worse than an all male civ world?
Those are just a few ideas, to fully experience what Civ 6 has to offers you have to think outside the box and create your own experience, it's not designed or set up very well for the computer to randomly pick everything for you and isn't smart enough to get creative on its own. A bunch of mismatched civs on a mismatched map seems to make the AI a lot dumber.
hey davo, how about a civ 6 revisit now that both expansions are out? im a die hard civ fan but 6 was very off putting.
'In the ancient era when spies aren't available' Catherine's agenda is satisfied by delegations
i like civ 6 , but it is really annoying that the AI does not go to war with each other AT ALL , unless its prince difficulty and above
Districts could have been good if it also made the city actually larger, both increasing the range of what is considered adjacent and increased the max border size, but yeah, that sucks too.
That would have improved things, it’s really hard to play tall in 6 because you run out of things to build.
Personally I have never had a problem with what you stated around 6:17. It is quite easy to tell what has been explored and what hasn't. You can see the grid and tiles in explored areas.
Unintuitive is probably a good word to describe Civ 6
Anyone else think that if they went a similar visual direction of Civ V and upped it for Civ VI it would look fantastic? More so than this cartoony kind of look? Besides, since the game revolves around human history I think photorealism in leaders and the world we play in would always work out better than not.
If this were a more fiction-based and non-worldly game concept to begin with a cartoon direction like the Legend of Zelda, this kind of look would befit it much more. But it's not. Neither is there magic involved...
*>He doesn't just mod in whoopers*
The problem with Civ 6 is that it bombards you with tiny decisions which often don't matter. Especially with the policies.
I like the districts....
Come on, don't be shy !
Tell us how you REALLY feel about it. lol : ))
whats wrong with Brazil dude?
I guess it's because the country isn't even old, but then there is also Australia
@Claudia’s Atelier Should have stayed a monarchy.
@Claudia’s Atelier Well, besides the average knowledge of non-brazilians (and brazilians) about Brazil, Brazil was actually an empire for almost all XIX century, so it fits the 'needs' to be in the game... it also conquered major territories in South America that are now part of the country, so for me wasnt weird at all. If the game was to include only the major known empires by a average human it would have like 10 civs...
I think it's because pedro/joão (I can't remember)'s agenda is annoying as hell, and he's very arrogant
@Claudia’s Atelier não sei se nos anteriores tinha também, mas no 4 e 5 tem o brasil tbm
The district thing pissed me off. It's like someone played the Warlock games and went "We need this is Civ6!" without having a clue about why that works in those games. The Warlock games are way more combat focused. You don't do a ton of diplomatic or cultural stuff. The game doesn't really even have wonders and things like that. If you loose a tile it, at worst, simply means you can't build elven archers now, or whatever. But in Civ6 loosing a single tile around your city could mean you just lost the game... The game you've been playing for six hours. -_-
6:44 It's not the vanilla civ5 interface... the interface in the video is a mod called "EUI" (enhanced user interface)
i prefer the vanilla one
Civ 5 remains my most played game on Steam, and I didn’t even get it until near the end of its lifecycle. I went nuts when Civ 6 was announced, and convinced some of my friends to buy it with me and play it. And some of the new mechanics seemed great. Spread out cities, religious victories, and “improved AI” (they touted it as that) had me convinced that it would be great. But then we got into it, and it just wasn’t very fun. Spread cities seems cool until you remember that cities kind of rely on spamming tile improvements. Population limits based on water supply are a nice, realistic idea, but in practice can force you to take suboptimal city locations, and can wreck you if you have a bad start. The movement changes make things complicated for anyone who was used to the old way, but also create a situation where holding defensive terrain is really the only thing that matters in wars. And then the changes to leaders, like a Medici for France or the two different rulers for Greece, just kind of adds another level of frustration. Oh, Alexander the Great is the leader of Macedonia in the upcoming DLC? Well why the hell not make him Greece? By the time he took control and starting conquering, Macedonia was basically Greece. His father had already conquered almost all of it.
Been a few months since I've watched this video for the first time. DLC out of my mind... I still don't agree. I think it's a fine game, and more user-friendly in a lot of ways than 5, which I played extensively. The mobile claims are fair, I will admit to you, as are those regarding the situational nature of Great People. I find, as well, the game favors building wide because of the mechanics surrounding new cities and population happiness and amenities. Building tall isn't quite so out of the question as it's presented here, though, and that's usually my go-to strategy despite the advantages to building wide. I do build wider than I did in 5, certainly.
However, where the real meat and potatoes of my dissonance finds itself is in the tile improvements. I find it's actually quite elegant in the end in combination with limited-charge builders. Builders not lasting literally hundreds of thousands of years is nice in my eyes as well. Goodbye work boat unit, hello builders making work boats like any other tile improvement. The same is true of trade units, if I'm not mistaken, which is simple and consistent. The map, too, isn't nearly as bad as it's presented in the video. What is not presently in line of sight and what is completely uncharted is pretty clear to me, so I just straight-up don't agree with the assessment. It's mechanically simplified in a way I find refreshing.
I'm also quite a fan of how customizable governments feel, both before and after Rise and Fall, though governors are kinda.... Yikes. It's off putting, I suppose, how governors of cities were put together. I feel if they were recruitable in a different way than their current implementation I may like them better. Dark and light ages add another level of depth to the choices the player will be making.
You get a like from me either way, Davo. Detailed assessment and courageous to stand up to something you find a little souring.
5:50 I think the actual graphics are great but I hate how the UI feels like it was made for the iPad version of the game which isn’t great, like why can’t I use the scroll wheel to go through my tech trees and policy cards?! Just an example but there are so many issues with the UI ok PC that have never been fixed
well the musics good...
archingelus its amazing
Civ 6 is all the same with slight variations
@June Hyun except the Japanese one during the atomic Era.
100% agree on this!
Yep, archingelus. Civ 6's music is pretty good.
Why so many dislikes? This is a pretty legit review, and he even compares it to paradox's games & brings up pirates. If someone brings up EU4, sid pirates, sid railroads, and all those in one video, you know this man knows the strategy genre like the back of his hand. Cut this man some slack; he's experienced and credible.
Are you fucking stupid? You can not compare two DIFFERENT game franchises. There are vastly different mechanics in both series! They have their own themes and settings and appeal to different audiences. They’re NOT comparable.
Only good thing about Civ 6 is the soundtracks. Thats why i play them in the background while playing Civ 5.
we can all agree stupid things happen ALOT in this game but one thing i don't understand is why is it that my ally AI decides to settle a city 3 tiles from my border thus having me tell them stop settling close, they agree, they then settle a city 1 tile from my border i warn them again, they apologize AGAIN, then 2 turns later settled a city ON my border.
What happened after this is I waited for our alliance to end and somehow declare my first war in the late game (for some reason brazil wasn't triggered that I had great people and england wasn't triggered that i was on the other side of the world) and well...
They recieved a present of about 8 nuclear devices and 5 thermonuclear devices
Nothing beats Vox Pupil Mod for Civ 5
I have been on the fence for awhile but your video has convinced me. I love the districts. They add a layer of strategy and personality to each city considering you're limited by terrain and population as to which ones you can build and when. So it becomes a high wire balancing act. Maybe you'll have to go to war and take another Civ's city so you can get the land you want, maybe you'll have to be a little more clever. Sure, playing tall isn't viable anymore but honestly? In a game like this, it shouldn't be. You expect an island like Indonesia or Barbados to be a global super power? No? They lack the size and resources? Well so does your Civ, so it should logically lose as well.
Oh... this is my first Civ game, and I like it.
Doesn’t make sense to have 10 wonders with things such as the pyramids, sprawling factories, and everyone who lives there in one tile. I’m glad they spread them out, now the land is ACTUALLY being used instead of just a mine on every hill and a farm on every plain. Pillaging is now actually worth it
^^And wonders can have yields just like a tile; not a waste and a needed balance
Cathrine de Medici was the queen of France for twelve years and was married to a prince for 8 years before then. She was the queen regent for her second KING son because he was to young to rule for 3 years. Also she became the queen because she basically saved France with her money. She is one of the most influential and important people for France in recorded history. She was the wife of the king of France for 12 years, birthed three kings of France and a queen of France. Was a queen regent and birthed the queen of Spain. Also was a main advisor for 5 kings in France and lived for 70 years in a time where people were lucky to live for 50. She should be in the game because she was powerful even more than you know.
Evan Winter was she as significant as Napoleon or Louis Quatorze? No, she was not.
@@hududiyya There are certain fields leaders in Civ are good in, Catherine is a good cultural leader so she fits better than Napoleon who would be a military leader
Vescilla Look up Louis Quatorze. Maybe it might change your mind.
@@hududiyyaNapoleon was in civ 5 and louis quartorze was in civ 4. I think Gandhi is the onyl repeated civ leader.
@@Tribune_of_Italia and they only keep Gandhi because the whole nuke thing
This game was the biggest waste of $3 in my 50 years of existence. They don't tell you how to end your turn and after checking every menu it just stays on day 1. Might as well just bought a screen saver. Fuck this game, I love civ 2 but fuck 6
This whole review sounds like nostalgia fever. Many of the comments, especially abt districts and great people sound like comments made by someone who hasn’t actually played most of the game, or only tried 2 or 3 games. The districts are wildly powerful, entertaining and well thought out. Great people and government policies are powerful and unique, and you made no commentary on /why/ they are unintuitive or poorly implemented. Just that they were. Great people are synced well with districts and give benefits that are helpful and potentially game changing, and the right timing of policy shifts and civic research can make or break wars, space races or religious victories
When did they put trade back in the game? I've had Civ 4 and Civ 5 and there's no trade in either one. Last version that I played that had trade was Civ 2.
civ 5 had trade, at least with dlc. dont know of civ 4 though.
IM GONNA SAY IT...whoopers aren’t even that good...
France will not hate you if you send delegations and trade routes. That counts as espionage to her because you are gaining access into a civs activities
0:22 omfg, that shit was funny AF.
One thing I hate to this day about the civ 6 AI is how some nations will have you simply because you’re better than them at something, it’s a pain in the ass receding lung what feels like a salty text from your jealous ex every time you build a new wonder or paint a painting
I say the main reason I hate Civ VI is because the AI sucks A##!
If you don’t like a civ game because the ai is bad I got some news for you...
@@uncomfortablyclose8481 *other reasons included of course
Lel
Lel
How is your opinion now, after all DLCs are released? 6:06 I had the same problem, but with some Graphic Mods it's no longer a problem for me.
Not using the same leaders we've seen a million times before is bad, how?
AI was equally bad in Civ 5, only thing I'll give you there is that the need for planning ahead for districts means it's more visible/impaction that the AI is bad at city placement.
Adding districts, new movement system and agendas is good, actually. Oh no I have to learn new things and do more strategic thinking. Oh no.
Graphics being good and clear is a godsend. I do agree that less representative unit models is a shame, though I usually just play with RED for that.
The more streamlined unit tree I am a fan of, though that's just preference. Makes the upgrades less tedious and more meaningful.
Great people being unique makes them bad because "I have to learn and think ahead"? Also saying you can only have one type per era or whatever is just a lie.
Also yes the DLC policy sucks ass. No DLC sharing if the host has it, the best civs being in overpriced CIV packs.
I like the districts it adds another layer of strategy of having to plan the layout of your city rather than building tall just “yup build the next thing click, click, click”