Civilization VI

[Kallisto]

Amenhotep (a few of them), Thutmose (a few of them), Tutankhamun and Xerxes are all widely known. At least to Age of Empires 1 players!

Well Xerxes to be fair should be a choice for Persian leader not Egyptian.

[Aruhen]

I'd love several leaders per civilization to be a thing again. Would be harder to balance between UU/B but it is one of the things I miss from CIV4. The other being vassal states... oh how I would love that to be a thing again.

[Puupi]

Amenhotep (a few of them), Thutmose (a few of them), Tutankhamun and Xerxes are all widely known. At least to Age of Empires 1 players!

Xerxes Egyptian? Oh dear!

[McLovenIt]

I'll wait and see about that. But yes, historically Civ games were for the most part lacking in the base game, and became much better with the addons.
But only 2 playthroughs? One does not just stop without taking another turn or playing another game.

lol when my bro used to play Civ 2 and early Civ 3, I couldn't understand how he liked such a boring ass game (this was during my WC2/3 and CS days)

than soon after I was diving into Civ 3 for a little and now with Civ 5, I'm always saying that old motto "just one more turn" and than here I am an hour later still preparing for war and making Def. Treaties. lol

[May90]

Xerxes Egyptian? Oh dear!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerxes_I

He was a pharaoh of Egypt, much like Cleopatra was, while not being Egyptian.

[Enjeh]

[Devonitar]

http://www.zam.com/article/796/civil...aders-revealed

I'd love that list to be true. Scythians definitely could be interesting.

[Deleted]

Japan seems odd. Don't know how the game will end up being, but I see them being either extremely underpowered or unbeatable. Either way, I don't see them being a moderate choice.

You base this on what exactly?

[Deleted]

You base this on what exactly?

Based on pretty much every strategy game going, there are 2 main playstyles, Wide and Tall. One of these is generally better than the others, depending on the game. If Tall is made better, Japan will be overpowered because they are geared towards a very Tall, compact Empire. If Wide is the better strategy, they'll be underpowered due to there bonuses being made obsolete.

[Deleted]

There is absolutely no way to judge how good or weak they are with that little amount of information.

Civ5 has someone like the celts, which is basically nothing but +faith generation at the start of the game... and that is enough to classify them as a relatively strong Civ.

Rome is designed to be a very wide empire, yet they are a weaker Civ even though Civ5 is all about wide Empires.

England doesn't even have a special building and the faction traits don't do anything to develop your Empire. Yet their two unique units make it one of the strongest factions in the game.

[Enjeh]

[Selastan]

Aztec sounds OP AF. But why Eagle over Jaguar?

[Rukh]

The last thing I care about is the graphics. It sounds like they're basically making all the Civ V things that were worse for the series better. Is combat going to be decent this time or should they abandon this path? I don't know. Being able to combine units sounds like a vast improvement over 1UPT though. Man I hated that.

[Niggums]

The last thing I care about is the graphics. It sounds like they're basically making all the Civ V things that were worse for the series better. Is combat going to be decent this time or should they abandon this path? I don't know. Being able to combine units sounds like a vast improvement over 1UPT though. Man I hated that.

Yeah the combining is a very nice step forward for those long drawn out engagements.

[Fayenoor]

http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ6_overview.html

Came across this website. Good portal for Civ 6 related stuff. It also has links to many articles from around the globe on Civ 6.

[Enjeh]

[Demoncrash]

[Televators]

I played a lot of Civ 5 and while I enjoyed it a lot, I still never got over the feeling that the choices many times were meaningless. For instance, building a series of buildings that gave a few different combinations of the exact same stats. I build a coffee house, I make 2 gold and 1 food. I build something else, I get 1 gold and 2 food. But other than that, what does it even matter than I'm building a coffee house? You're just mindlessly choosing things to build that incrementally fills up buckets of currency. It doesn't matter that you're building a coffee house. You never see the coffee house. You never drink coffee. Coffee has no effect on your populace. I don't know if this makes any sense to anyone else, but it's just boring after a while to take turns and not make many meaningful choices.

[May90]

I played a lot of Civ 5 and while I enjoyed it a lot, I still never got over the feeling that the choices many times were meaningless. For instance, building a series of buildings that gave a few different combinations of the exact same stats. I build a coffee house, I make 2 gold and 1 food. I build something else, I get 1 gold and 2 food. But other than that, what does it even matter than I'm building a coffee house? You're just mindlessly choosing things to build that incrementally fills up buckets of currency. It doesn't matter that you're building a coffee house. You never see the coffee house. You never drink coffee. Coffee has no effect on your populace. I don't know if this makes any sense to anyone else, but it's just boring after a while to take turns and not make many meaningful choices.

You probably need to play a complicated economical simulator to have the kind of meaningful choices you are talking about. Like Tropico or SimCity series.

[Zafir]

I played a lot of Civ 5 and while I enjoyed it a lot, I still never got over the feeling that the choices many times were meaningless. For instance, building a series of buildings that gave a few different combinations of the exact same stats. I build a coffee house, I make 2 gold and 1 food. I build something else, I get 1 gold and 2 food. But other than that, what does it even matter than I'm building a coffee house? You're just mindlessly choosing things to build that incrementally fills up buckets of currency. It doesn't matter that you're building a coffee house. You never see the coffee house. You never drink coffee. Coffee has no effect on your populace. I don't know if this makes any sense to anyone else, but it's just boring after a while to take turns and not make many meaningful choices.

I agree. I think it would add a lot of depth to the game if the building you built actually changed something about your civilization. It would make the game a lot harder to balance though, I think that is why it has been avoided.