CIVILIZATION VI - £12.49 on steam

Ironhide wrote:I really hope that's early build footage, there'd best be more than 8 civs to choose from at launch otherwise I won't be buying it.

Alvin Flummux wrote:The Romans should be lead by Hadrian. He did build a strawberry float ton of walls, after all.

Knoyleo wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:The Romans should be lead by Hadrian. He did build a strawberry float ton of walls, after all.

That would be good. They do seem to be going for a few different leaders this time round. Although he was Spanish, and they may want a more "Roman" Roman leader.

jiggles wrote:It's been Augustus for the last two games. Give Trajan his time in the sun.

Cuttooth wrote:"The Barbarians are much more aggressive than they were in the past."



All looking good. The connection between both the layout of the map (with districts) and how you use your units making a real difference to your progress with things like Tech Boosts is exactly what I want from Civilisation.

I never seem to play with a look to the end victory, usually seeing it more of a role play of trying to make the best, most content civilisation based on its unique traits and the resource situation it's in at any given time, so my strategy is only ever really planned a few technologies ahead. My only concern is the district stuff might cause more micromanagement than I'd want.

It's a shame too that the World Congress has been removed because I thought that was a neat addition to Civ V.

Kezzer wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:"The Barbarians are much more aggressive than they were in the past."



All looking good. The connection between both the layout of the map (with districts) and how you use your units making a real difference to your progress with things like Tech Boosts is exactly what I want from Civilisation.

I never seem to play with a look to the end victory, usually seeing it more of a role play of trying to make the best, most content civilisation based on its unique traits and the resource situation it's in at any given time, so my strategy is only ever really planned a few technologies ahead. My only concern is the district stuff might cause more micromanagement than I'd want.

It's a shame too that the World Congress has been removed because I thought that was a neat addition to Civ V.

they need to save something for the DLC

I am looking forward to the stacked units, in my most recent games I have been trying to make a realistic military force as possible.
And I hope you can still re-name your units as they get promoted... ya get wee when you see "69 Troop" has survived the entire game

UNIT STACKING IS BACK

As mentioned before, in Civ 5, military units can generally only inhabit one space. This is only not true when you have land, sea and air units in the same space, or when you have multiple air units.

Now, players can attach very specific land units to one another in order to create symbiotic boosts or to create limited "armies" made up of the same unit. We saw this used in Civilization Revolution — the console version of Civilization — in which it was barely worth fighting until you had created a multiple unit army.

"WE HAD TOO MUCH CONGESTION ON THE MAP."
"When we unstacked the armies in Civ 5, all the tactical nuances of having cavalry and archers and melee units separated on separate tiles created little rock-paper-scissors combinations that were very clear for players to understand," says Beach. "That was a beautiful win.

"The problem was we had too much congestion on the map. All those spread-out units took up too much real estate. We wanted to think about clever ways to combine the units, which didn’t lose that tactical mini-game. We found that there were two or three areas we could combine units together and it didn’t hurt the tactical nature of the game.

"The first was that there were a lot of units that were just additional equipment for your units. It might be a battering ram or a siege tower or an anti-aircraft gun or an anti-tank gun. In Civ 5 those were all special units that took up a whole dedicated tile. In Civ 6, we call them support units. They can stack with other military units without you having to worry about managing them on a tile by themselves.

YOU CAN ONLY COMBINE UNITS OF THE SAME TYPE.
"The other part was, we found that once you got your production going in the middle to late part of the game, sometimes you could have lots of units of a certain type. We felt like it was a more realistic part of military history at that point in time if you could concentrate your forces better and achieve what we called corps or armies, where you take two or three units and stack them together.

"That unit is going to have a lot more punch, probably have the ability to drive a hole right through the enemy battle line. That’s how that system works. Now, once you link two units into a corps, they’re individual units, but at that point they’ve been upgraded. You want to keep them in that fashion if possible.

"But you always have to combine units of the same type. You have to take two riflemen and put them together into a riflemen corps. Or you have to take three tank units and create a tank army with them."

Qikz wrote:That sounds like the perfect mix of the two.

Moving all your units in Civ 5 lategame was hell.

Knoyleo wrote:

Qikz wrote:That sounds like the perfect mix of the two.

Moving all your units in Civ 5 lategame was hell.

Combine the number of units to move, with their inability to cross over each other's tiles, you had to do a ridiculous amount of planning to make sure your combat units arrived at a city ahead of your ranged units, especially when they have different movement speeds, or if you're attacking somewhere behind a natural choke point.

Super Dragon 64 wrote:A new Civilization approaches



I'll check it out after we finish the first part of our multiplayer game of Civ V. Feel free to join us here!