Over the past two years, the position that V was better than VI was a hill I was willing to die on. After feeling pretty burned by my VI preorder, I didn't pick up R&F or GS.
For better or for worse, it seems like G&S is the final nail in the coffin for V. Since the community has now fully moved on to VI, I just wanted to ask a few questions about where the game is now before I buy the expansions and finish up my last game of V.
1) is diplomacy more stable as of R&F? When I started VI, it was impossible to have positive relationships with other civs. They issued a corrective patch, but overshot and made everyone far too amicable. Have things settled down?
2) is building tall viable? Doesn't need to be as powerful as it was in V, but it felt like in vanilla VI you needed to build wide in order to have a shot at any of the victory conditions.
3) is there any late game (post-industrial) politicking? While V's World Congress felt clunky and poorly executed at times, it added a reason to engage in diplomacy, since events like the World's Fair, Arts Funding, or an embargo could make or break your game. Vanilla VI just kinda felt like ancient era politics throughout the entire game, with no reason to cultivate relationships other than as a way of fighting wars.
4) one of the things I liked most about V was the ability to settle cities not in resource-rich areas but in strategically important ones. You could make a fairly decent city at a choke point in a mountain range, or on an island off the coast of your opponent's territory, giving you a staging ground for a potential invasion, or a port for short distance trade/religious prosthelytizing. The unpacked cities in VI feel, at least in vanilla, far more restrictive.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and extra thanks if you take the time to respond.
Submitted February 21, 2019 at 06:07PM by EgregiousFlamingo https://ift.tt/2DVyq0I
No comments:
Post a Comment