What went wrong?

>>376212676
I don't have enough money to buy it. That's what's wrong.

Missionary tile blocking.

I genuinely enjoy the gameplay, but the cartoon artstyle alone makes it unplayable for me.
It's like god-damn mobile shovelware shit.

>>376212676
nothing that won't get fixed in the two expansions
just like every other Civ game

>>376212676
>Tomyris denounces you.
Only six religions and missionary waves.
AI not using any ships or planes.

>>376212676
Better than Civ V at launch
Some aspects like religion, diplomacy and AI are terrible.
Othewise pretty cool.

>>376213325
Building and fixing districts literally takes ages.

>>376212676
no hitler leader
LOL but Stalin is ok right??

Its a better launch than V and just like V, it will replace its predecessor after 1-2 expansions.

>>376212676
Male privilege intro video.

>>376212676
Its pretty good, the last few patches improved it a lot and once its had an expansion or two it'll be better than Civ 5 complete.

Shitty, mobile game-tier artstyle.

>>376212676
Not much, the game is as always a bit bareboned, but with the workshop up and running, you'd be crazy not to mod it to your hearts content.

>Civ V
>big buttoned interface
>chunky, satisfying tech tree and policy trees. locking in a policy feels great
>large rewarding icons pop up for free techs, free policies etc

>Civ 6
>policies relegated to a spacious tech tree
>UI minimalist and small
>no big rewarding pop ups

I WANT MY CHUNKY UI BACK REEEEEE

File: 1478509710736.jpg (13KB, 540x489px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 540x489px

>>376216080
>>376213137
It's the best style it has ever had. Anybody who thinks it looks bad has terrible aesthetic sense.

>>376216080
>>376213137
I thought the same at first but once I got used to it I just stopped caring.

>>376216234

Agreed. Playing at sunset is maximum comfy.

>>376212676
AI and Districts. While they are a cool idea it just takes way too long to actually build them up, making the game feel slow as shit in the process.

It's the better base game compared to Civ5 but it's worse if you factor in the expansions. We still need to wait until it's complete to fairly judge it.

>>376212676
5 is where it went wrong, and 6 continued what was wrong.

>>376216223

Casual detected, Civ V was a far bigger step down from Civ IV than VI was from V.

But of course, you started playing with V and never tried the earlier ones, just like 90% of this shitty playerbase.

>>376212676

Absolutely abhorrent AI and game balance that still isn't fixed after more than half a year. It's incredible how incompetent they are.

>>376212676
Liberals. Every time.

>>376213431
wouldn't mods fix this? of course someone has to care enough to make them.

>>376212676
Takes too long to feel like your civilisation is making progress

>>376218101
>>376213431
>wanting the Führer to be butchered by this atrocious artstyle

5 with expansions > 4 with expansions > 6 so far.

6 just seems.... boring. It's hard to really say why. It's more similar to 5 than 4, but with most aspects of the game weaker.

But it has good bones, let's see what the expansion packs do.

>>376212676
It's a good game but like all Civ games suffers from stupid AI and shitty diplomacy. The same problems plagued every Civilization game but were made evident by replacing doomstacks with one unit per tile and limiting the number of units a Civ can own.

While I appreciate the potential for deeper tactical warfare - and indeed more thought is definitely needed in combet as well as strategical placement of cities seeing as how the AI can't simply send seemingly infinite amount of units at you - Civ 5 or 6 aren't tactical TBS games like Order of Battle or Panzer Commander and it shows.

Also like Civ 4 and 5, Civ 6 was also released unfinished and requires DLC to be made complete

>>376216234
call me contrarian but I liked the futurist artstyle of V

>>376218738
>5>4

You're retarded.

>>376216234
You are a deranged animal. You could MAYBE argue that the leaders are good. Everything else is a millions time worse looking than Civ V.

>>376219059
>futurist

I'll just call you an idiot.

>>376219152
>MAYBE argue that the leaders are good

LMAO

The leaders look like fucking talking potatoes. Of everything that looks good in that game, the leaders look like fucking shit, and are worse than the ones in V to boot.

>>376218961
Seeing how you don't necessarily need to play with AI, most of these complaints seem pretty shitty.

It's like complaining that RTS AI sucks.

>>376219087

Keep those goggles on forever, mister dumbstacks.

File: latest.jpg (108KB, 800x546px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x546px

>>376219184
That's what it is though.

>>376219434

Who the fuck plays civ multiplayer?

RTS and 4X are totally different. 4X games last way too long for multi to be viable.

>>376212676

The AI needs help.

>>376219832
>way too long

Man, and you think you have ever played a 4X game before.

>>376219832
I only ever play civ with friends
wich coincidentally is why I haven't bought VI yet, waiting for it to get expansions and be on sale

Did they fix the balance yet or is it still spam cities with commerce and industrial districts? It was fun the first few games after only building 4 cities in civ 5, but the micro get old fast

>>376212676
small tech tree
almost no unit types
RETARDED AI

>>376219750
Civ V has too many dumb features compared to stacks which aren't even that bad, since it's a strategy game and not a tactics game.

For instance, in Civ IV, every city you build is still probably a positive compared to civ V where having more than like 4 is a bad move and you never build another again after a certain turn simply because you can't build your empire in a fucking empire building game.

>>376219756
it's art deco you philistine

>>376219254
The leaders look bad but someone put effort into them. Someone with shit taste, but still. Every other visual aspect of the game is low-effort half-assed bullshit.

>>376221758
I can't help your shit taste anon. My condolences.