[GS] The most liked and disliked features of Civilization VI (Results)

[yung.carl.jung]

You actually just proved my point. Does the fact that YOU don't like something make it a "sub-optimal product"? This is not a case of bugs or game crashes or things that are obviously broken or unintended exploits. No developer should be allowed to get away with that and community should not be asked to fix something like that.

If the fact that your opponent genuinely cannot win games in any realistic timeframe is not seen as a grave problem, then we're honestly on completely different wavelengths. We're not playing the same game. If you (not talking about you explicitly, but people in general) want Civ 6 to be a Sim-City clone where you do not have actual opponents, that is totally fine and understandable. That's your preference and I respect it. However, that is not a predecessor to Civ 4, or even Civ 5, it's just a completely different game. If Civ goes into that general direction, too bad for me, but great for the people who want that.

Games in general are often centered around one party winning and another losing. If you take away the players chance to meaningfully lose, it's hardly a game anymore. It's a simulation. Again, simulations aren't bad, and if most people want Civ to be a simulation, then that's what it'll be. But that doesn't weaken my critique of Civ as a game. It's hardly a game now, because games imply to some degree competition, challenge, winning and losing.

What we are talking about here is different tastes and preferences. As I said, no matter what they do some people will love it and some people will hate it. You seem to think that if YOU don't like something then the devs need to fix it to make it the way YOU think it should be without any consideration that maybe many other people like it just fine.

I doubt I am the only player that dislike the fact that the AI simply cannot win a peaceful game, or keep up with the player at all past the medieval age, even on Deity. But even if I was the only one, my criticism still wouldn't be less relevant. Also, the subjectiveness of my criticism (meaningful challenge is good, my opinion) doesn't weaken my argument either.

You also just completely ignored my point about applying changes only to Deity, which feels disingenious. The changes I want are entirely irrespective of what other people want, and can be included without changing the experience for 99% of the player base, as I have said repedeatly. They also do not need much work, as proved by the countless Civ 5 mods that actually did help difficulty/balance massively. You just seem to gloss over it and repeat your single argument: "You are not the center of the universe! These are just your opinions!". Yeah, I know. They're mine and those changes mean a lot to me. Instead of accepting everything "for the sake of the player base" I voice my own preferences. I think that these could help make a better game for anyone, not just for me, but that's really besides the point.

With one thing you are right, however: I do want Firaxis to cater to my wishes, or to the wishes of their "hardcore" base, whatever you want to call it. I am completely open about that. In fact, I will probably not buy anything by Firaxis anymore if they don't start catering to our needs. I put hundreds of hours into Civ 5 only because @Acken fixed the game. I will not do the same with Civ 6, or 7.

Big games like Firaxis can probably survive without the loyal fans, and make money only off of casuals. That is just the reality of the market. I'm not sure how many of their casual fans will preorder their products, buy all the DLC, put thousands of hours into the game, advertise via word of mouth, or make content (indirectly) promoting their games. I think it's close to zero. A loyal, dedicated fan-following really matters in the grand scheme of things I hope.

 

[Brutus2]

I think maybe we agree on more than we disagree. I think everyone (myself included) would love to see Firaxis improve the AI and of course the hardest difficulty levels should ideally be a challenge for the hardcore player. My points were more about the dislike of various systems and features reflected in the survey in the OP (my post was in reference to all things mentioned in the survey not just AI). I also acknowledge that right now the mod community is somewhat limited in what they can do without Firaxis releasing the necessary code (DLL?) compared to what they could do in Civ5 mods. But I guess I think releasing the code to allow moders to make AI improvements while Firaxis works on new content is the better approach. As you point out, civ5 has many such mods.

I understand you think this would be letting them get away with making a sub-optimal game and making the community do what they should have done but I don't think expecting any 4x game to release with AI capable of challenging or beating any competent much less hardcore player without cheats or advantages is realistic. That's what multiplayer is for. Of course it could be better and I repeatedly said they should continue to make improvements but personally I would rather see them making new content and allowing modders the access needed to make great AI improvements.

Again you seem to think that you speak for all the "loyal fans who buy all their products." Well, as you can see, I have been a member here since 2004. I have played all the civ games my whole life, bought every game, expansion and dlc and played thousands of hours of civ as well. I hope that qualifies me as part of the loyal dedicated fans that you think they are ignoring and I can tell you that I love civ6 and of course it's not perfect and AI can always be better in any 4x game but as a member of the loyal fan base I do not feel they have let me down at all so please stop acting like you have the right to declare that they do not care about the loyal fan base just because you are unhappy.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Again you seem to think that you speak for all the "loyal fans who buy all their products." Well, as you can see, I have been a member here since 2004. I have played all the civ games my whole life, bought every game, expansion and dlc and played thousands of hours of civ as well. I hope that qualifies me as part of the loyal dedicated fans that you think they are ignoring and I can tell you that I love civ6 and of course it's not perfect and AI can always be better in any 4x game but as a member of the loyal fan base I do not feel they have let me down at all so please stop acting like you have the right to declare that they do not care about the loyal fan base just because you are unhappy.

I don't speak for the loyal fanbase, that's a misunderstanding, I speak for myself. Some people agree with me, mostly an absolute niche of people that pretty much exclusively play on Immortal/Deity. the Civ franchise has lots of loyal fans, most of them don't even like playing on anything above emperor and that's totally fine. I literally said that my concerns are those of the 1%. Doesn't make them any less meaningful, doesn't make my criticism any less biting.

I understand you think this would be letting them get away with making a sub-optimal game and making the community do what they should have done but I don't think expecting any 4x game to release with AI capable of challenging or beating any competent much less hardcore player without cheats or advantages is realistic.

I think you're blatantly wrong. If Firaxis triples both science and culture yields for the Deity AI that no player would ever win a peaceful victory against them, because they'd go to space/win culture at around T150. I'm not saying that that's a good solution, or that I want that, just that you're obviously wrong and it's super easy to make an AI that beats the player. The difficult thing is having an AI that can win, and having it be at least somewhat fair. There are numerous ways to make the AI competitive, be it via increasing their yields (artificial difficulty) or improving their flavor (making them choose better strategies).

 

[CrabHelmet]

As a new Civ VI player, here are my observations after about 5-6 games about what the major downsides were about Civ VI:

- Demands from Unfriendly AI. I've put this first because it's glaringly obvious to anyone of any skill level (including me, a new player) and comes up in every single playthrough unless you just stay friends with everyone together. I've had AI with an army well under a quarter of my military power demanding 4 Gold per turn for 30 turns from me. If I accept, they get a measly +5 to relations, if I reject, it makes no difference at all to the game except they stop asking - which is much needed because they'll ask about every 5 turns and it is incredibly annoying. This mechanics needs scrapping or reworking completely, it's horrible and unfun and terrible.
- The World Congress. I have no idea what's going on here. Diplomatic Votes are so specific, and you have to guess both the vote and the target, but you have basically no information about the latter and you get votes like "Do something with this Luxury" and there's like 12 luxuries and it's just a lottery and not very fun. Also, almost all of the resolutions are so trivial as to be pointless. Banning a single Luxury affects a grand total of 4 Amenities, the City-State options are irrelevant, etc. It's not as bad as Demands because you can mostly just ignore it, but it still needs reworking.
- Too many units to micromanage. Late-game wars are just awful. Once cities start getting tougher walls up, I stop declaring wars just because having to manage about 15 military units to clear out an opposing army and engage a siege isn't fun. Early-game warfare, where a crack squad of 6 troops can hit an off-guard target quickly, is a lot of fun, but it just becomes a drag after about the Renaissance. Similarly, Religion. The dull march of the Apostles across the map makes Religious Victory one I very rarely bother with, it just drags. I don't want to have to be moving this many units, it's so slow. I did like that you could combine units into Corps and Armies, that definitely improved things for Wars, but I think more could have been done on that front.
- Governor strategy is very repetitive. Magnus is just so obviously the correct choice.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Actually, most people nowadays don't go for Magnus first, and don't promote him aside from the Settler one. Liang or Pingala first is usually better, since you want Magnus to come online when your capital has a Government Plaza and an Ancestral Hall (if you are using that strat). I personally don't promote Magnus anymore and usually go Liang - Magnus x2 - Pingala x3 or Pingala x2 - Magnus x2 - Liang. Ping first is only good in some scenarios, Liang first is almost universally the best choice, though Amani first can also be good for era score.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Actually, most people nowadays don't go for Magnus first, and don't promote him aside from the Settler one. Liang or Pingala first is usually better, since you want Magnus to come online when your capital has a Government Plaza and an Ancestral Hall (if you are using that strat). I personally don't promote Magnus anymore and usually go Liang - Magnus x2 - Pingala x3 or Pingala x2 - Magnus x2 - Liang. Ping first is only good in some scenarios, Liang first is almost universally the best choice, though Amani first can also be good for era score.

I'm skeptical of this. The boost from chopping is already (IMO) too good, and Magnus puts it through the roof. I don't feel like one extra charge on Builders comes anywhere near to how quickly Magnus can get an army up and running.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I'm skeptical of this. The boost from chopping is already (IMO) too good, and Magnus puts it through the roof. I don't feel like one extra charge on Builders comes anywhere near to how quickly Magnus can get an army up and running.

The reason why you do not get Magnus first to chop is because you want until you have the Settler card in AND Magnus Established AND the Ancestral Hall. Remember that the bonuses apply to chops as well. The more modifiers you stack, the better your chops get. Same with units, you only want to chop units when you have that card slotted in. Also, your chops get more efficient the later you chop, obviously, because you get larger amounts of production/food.

You chopping out a settler with early Magnus is only (about) half as effective as me chopping out a Settler with the policy card and the AH and Magnus. Of course yours comes online earlier, but mine maximizes the capacities of chops. Also, weirdly enough, by delaying Magnus and having a Worker with 1 more charge, your are also somewhat improving your chops (need one less builder charge for the same amount of chops).

Note that I am not saying that Magnus + AH is the only combo, or the best. It's just one of the best if you have lots of land. AH might not always be worth building!

I have actually tried Magnus first, and chopping out units/Settlers without the settler card/AH. It really set me back and that game was one of my slowest victories to date, even though I was going to space as Korea. It's a bit lame, but it seems holding back on chops until you can stack the maximum amount of modifiers is mathematically the most effective.