Sid Meier's Civilization

[Computer God Autism]

Personally, I think the Loyalty worked well to stop the forward settling problem. If also introduced another layer to gameplay in that a lot of the territory adjacent to your own that wasn't yet claimed was still de facto yours because no one else could claim it.

Sure, it limited forward settling, it was also the final nail in the coffin of traditional colonization mechanics and continued the trend in Civ games of smoothing out every possible civilizational bell curve.

 

[The Pierrot]

There was a lot of (IMO unfounded) hate for the Loyalty system that the first Rise&Fall Expansion for Civ VI introduced.

Admittedly, I love the Loyalty mechanic because I still find Eleanor a funny leader to play with her gimmick, but I also agree with most of your points here. It's why I liked it.

I do think it could have been refined better into a system that didn't feel it would be outright hostile to the idea of someone having little colonies in different parts of the world, though. The British unique ability always felt unattractive to me because of it.

Seems pretty lame to have a second Exploration Age in the game on launch that's supposed to be about Exploration and Expansion by sea. And yet they've only included two nominal Colonial civs (even Normandy is only colonial-adjacent) and a Genghis Khan Golden Horde that was expansionist but didn't involve naval prowess at all outside of an invasion of Japan rekked by weather.

Even wilder with how Portugal is the nation credited for the Age of Exploration and it doesn't appear at all, really.

 

[Shining Wit]

I do think it could have been refined better into a system that didn't feel it would be outright hostile to the idea of someone having little colonies in different parts of the world, though. The British unique ability always felt unattractive to me because of it.

"It could have been refined better" is the ultimate descriptor of civ6

To be fair to loyalty, if its an unsettled continent/island, you shouldnt have muh pressure. And if you're doing it medieval/renaissance, you should have enough tools to limit loyalty loss (and if not, go full colonial and conquer the natives to remove that pressure)

 

[Computer God Autism]

"It could have been refined better" is the ultimate descriptor of civ6

Civ 6 had a decent launch but squandered almost all of its potential. When it came out I thought it was a good step forward but if someone found a way to retrofit some of its changes into V (religious warfare/victory, trade routes crossing land and sea, barbarian camps spawning armies, local amenities) I would have had no reason to get it, and about four years worth of development and dlc bloat has made that into the most optimistic opinion I have on it.

 

[Foxxo]

Has someone noted that they're ripping off Age of Wonders 4 as well?

You now unlock the alternate leader personalities (a concept addded in... 6, if I remember correctly) by finishing games... piecemeal. These eventually outclass the starting leaders.

That or the perks you unlock on this (supposedly free) battle pass system can be applied to any leader.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

Has someone noted that they're ripping off Age of Wonders 4 as well?

You now unlock the alternate leader personalities (a concept addded in... 6, if I remember correctly) by finishing games... piecemeal. These eventually outclass the starting leaders.

That or the perks you unlock on this (supposedly free) battle pass system can be applied to any leader.

I think the gameplay design committee went something like this:
"Civ VI was too much like Civ V and as such only performed slightly better than Civ V, we need to make the new game radically different. Let's look at our competition and "improve" upon it."
We should count ourselves lucky that Stellaris is a space 4x or they would steal the pops system. And that Millenia is small indie trash or they would steal the era system as well. I'm surprised they didn't copy the light RPG elements of Old World as well.

 

[The Big A]

A little :Late: but the nearly twenty-year old Realism Invictus mod for Civ 4 had a pretty major update last year: https://www.moddb.com/mods/realism-invictus/news/realism-invictus-37-released

Modding is the sole reason I still place Civ IV as my favorite in the series, it's a shame Firaxis didn't take more concepts from that mod instead of ripping off Humankind and Age of Wonders.

Representing a civilization as the people but changing the flavor based around the government choices you make added much to differentiate between your dudes as time passed along, even if it was just a name and a new flag almost all the time, it showed real progression.
Going from "Frankish Tribes" (start of the game) to "Frankish Kingdom" once more organized to "Kingdom of France" with some kind of feudal civic/policy, and carrying on to a French Republic, the Avingion Papacy, The Paris Commune, the French State, or the French Empire depending on the government, civics, and tenants you go with.

You don't have to copy that system bit for bit, but judging by the success of paradox games, people are suckers for some flavor and role-playing in their map games. Switching from one civilization to another entirely from era to era is not only largely nonsensical, but unoriginal as well.

I saw the art style of Civ VII and it looked promising, but nonsense like Harriet Tubman as a leader and the game ending around AD 1960, as well as a lineup of ten civilizations to start with, a lower number than Civ I's fourteen. This seems like an odd way to combat Civ's "peaking" when they can roll out a really good Unique Unit or Building, a system present since Civ III that nobody had an issue with.

No England, No Scandinavia (ik normans encompass both but eh), and of course the great Red-Placement continues with no Celts. Civ VI launched with thirty-four civs, with the worst omission being the Turks.

 

[Fig Kommandant]

I saw the art style of Civ VII and it looked promising

I much prefer 5's style. The leaders all look severe, noble or regal. Civ6 was way too cartoony and ugly, 7 is somewhat better but the leaders look like regular people instead of projecting leaderly energy.

changing the flavor based around the government choices

EU4 had a nice mechanic with government reforms, I really wish a game would implement more goverment stuff without having to micromanage a parliament to pass laws.

 

[Slap47]

Civ 6 had a decent launch but squandered almost all of its potential. When it came out I thought it was a good step forward but if someone found a way to retrofit some of its changes into V (religious warfare/victory, trade routes crossing land and sea, barbarian camps spawning armies, local amenities) I would have had no reason to get it, and about four years worth of development and dlc bloat has made that into the most optimistic opinion I have on it.

Pretty much all of Civ6's DLC made the game better.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Pretty much all of Civ6's DLC made the game better.

Same with Civ 5.

 

[Foxxo]

I think the gameplay design committee went something like this:
"Civ VI was too much like Civ V and as such only performed slightly better than Civ V, we need to make the new game radically different. Let's look at our competition and "improve" upon it."
We should count ourselves lucky that Stellaris is a space 4x or they would steal the pops system. And that Millenia is small indie trash or they would steal the era system as well. I'm surprised they didn't copy the light RPG elements of Old World as well.

In other news, Stellaris is ditching Pops to adopt Civilization's Specialist Cap system.

 

[Computer God Autism]

Pretty much all of Civ6's DLC made the game better.

Depends on how you define better. I would not call the Governor system, the new age mechanics, poorly implemented loyalty mechanics, preachy and nonsensical environmental mechanics followed by a constant barrage of overpowered, overpriced dlc civs better, certainly not compared to what 4 and 5's expansions brought.

 

[Fig Kommandant]

compared to what 4 and 5's expansions brought.

Reminder that CIV brought a pagan religion mechanic as part of the Beyond the Sword expansion. Civ5 onward only did DLC, not expansions.

 

[The Pierrot]

I think the gameplay design committee went something like this:
"Civ VI was too much like Civ V and as such only performed slightly better than Civ V, we need to make the new game radically different. Let's look at our competition and "improve" upon it."

Ohhh... that would explain their choices in leaders. They must've been copying Ara!

Half-jokes aside, here's Jose Rizal's leader video. Their suggestion is to pair him with the Hawaiian Civilization.

Also, they decided to make his co-star in terms of being featured this week the Civ that's been memed on from first announcement: Buganda.

 

[WULULULULU]

Ohhh... that would explain their choices in leaders. They must've been copying Ara!

Half-jokes aside, here's Jose Rizal's leader video. Their suggestion is to pair him with the Hawaiian Civilization.

Can the western AAA gayming studios stop tokenizing Pinoys? This retarded shit started with Neon from Valorant and Josie Rizal from Tekken 7.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

Ohhh... that would explain their choices in leaders. They must've been copying Ara!

At least most of the female leaders in Ara are nice to look at.

 

[Kane Lives]

Can the western AAA gayming studios stop tokenizing Pinoys? This retarded shit started with Neon from Valorant and Josie Rizal from Tekken 7.

That's like asking the selfsame devs to not put in token niggers everywhere.

 

[Almighty Space Duck]

but nonsense like Harriet Tubman as a leader

With any luck leaders can be blacklisted from spawning so I never see her, if that’s not the case then I will have my first target for conquest. And speaking of, I’m glad we will have to denounce before going to war (otherwise the target gets huge bonuses) because it was too easy to just ignore diplomacy all together in previous civs.

and the game ending around AD 1960,

This may change after a couple of games but I’m ok with the idea of the games tech ending in 60s/Cold War because it is so rare that I ever use them. By the time any of my games get towards the modern era I have such ridiculous science output that no sooner than I’ve researched flight and thinking where to put my aerodromes I’m already at GDR.

 

[Computer God Autism]

This may change after a couple of games but I’m ok with the idea of the games tech ending in 60s/Cold War because it is so rare that I ever use them.

Honestly, I'd actually be fine with a Civlike ending in the 1800-1900 range if they made prior ages more involved. WW1 being the conclusion of a game is an idea I'm surprised no one has really explored.

 

[Slap47]

Ohhh... that would explain their choices in leaders. They must've been copying Ara!

Half-jokes aside, here's Jose Rizal's leader video. Their suggestion is to pair him with the Hawaiian Civilization.

Also, they decided to make his co-star in terms of being featured this week the Civ that's been memed on from first announcement: Buganda.
View attachment 6902512

Filipinos love it when their country is mentioned so this will probably get a few sales.