I agree I should have waited. On a different topic are the mod tools out yet? Does anyone know? Thanks.
There are mod tools out, but afaik the modders are still waiting for more.
I'm surprised to see so many of you defend Civ VI, I guess we are now at the stage where Civ6 haters have left and only enthusiasts are still around. I'm around because I remember Civ5 getting better patches after patches and with expansions, so I read the forums to see if ever something similar happens. Several of you have a point I can understand but I greatly differ.
I'm sorry but every one of these points you mentioned is why Civ6 is an inferior to its predecessor. The district system is a trade-off system that forces you to specialize in one thing and abandon the others. You want to prioritize some districts, in other words, you'll end up building the same districts in many cities and abandoning the same ones every time. Dual tech trees can be overwhelming to casual players and newbies. (although I, for myself, like the addition) Unique great people are not great anymore as some have stronger bonuses than others and I don't expect a few Amenities bonuses from engineers to begin with. I'd rather take the tech boost/free wonder system of Civ5. Amenities/Happiness system is debatable, but again, micromanaging it for every city is overwhelming for casuals and noobs. The big smiley face on top of the interface you get when you improve a resource is a clear and simple indicator. Movement rules makes everything play in slow motion. To make maps come alive 1UPT is enough. AI is still horrible when it comes to fighting wars. The government system of Civ6 makes even less sense than the Social Policy system in Civ5 (in my opinion, discussion for another day). Not being able to build roads before Military Engineers can be inconvenient. Builder system is still just as nonsensical as the Worker system. Diplomacy is a mess, everybody hates you even if you're playing peaceful and declare war on you with no reason to raise the white flag 10 turns later. Agenda system, again, debatable, and even you agree that it is very annoying. About civs being more unique, I'd rather stare at the beautiful leader screens of Civ5 rather than listening to generic Ancient/Atomic era songs (that sound similar to literally every civ...)
One of the reasons I'm defending VI is because I've seen it greatly improve with patches so far, so there's that part already.
District system: The whole
idea behind the system is forcing you to specialize in some things and abandon others, and to be fair, there's only 3 districts (maybe 4 because Theater Squares need so much work in order to grant any real culture that you're already aiming for a culture victory if you really work on them) that are conditional or bad, and those are the Holy Site, Aquaduct and Spaceport. Holy Site and Spaceport are very much about one victory only, whereas Aquaduct is just not worth it. For the rest, I build all districts in all games, and while I indeed build more Commercial Hubs than I build Entertainment Districts, that doesn't mean I'm abandoning Entertainment Districts.
Dual tech trees: Maybe it can be overwhelming, I don't know. But I don't see how everything should be as low a threshold as possible. Sometimes, you make something more complicated than the bare minimum because it simply makes for a better game. And I don't believe it's too difficult for new people to understand.
Unique great people need some balancing, sure, but it adds a lot of flavour compared to every great person being the same.
Amenities/happiness: But you don't have to micromanage the cities. That's done automatically. All you, as player, need to do, is add a source of amenities if there's an unhappy city. And excluding giant metropolises it doesn't even matter where you add the source of amenities, as the game just pushes luxery resources around. On top of that, I was mainly referring to unhappiness being handled per city, meaning you no longer have the instant -75% growth when you're unhappy, as well as getting a boost in production and everything when you're happy, which means that there's actually a benefit to getting more happiness, while Civ V was "you get nothing for being happy but if you're ever unhappy all your people now refuse to reproduce".
Movement rules are debatable; I really prefer this, but I can see people preferring the Civ V ones. But there's a reason I ended my post with "not even one of them?"
You can't deny that the AI has improved in it's use in archers. It may still be horrible at fighting wars, but that wasn't my point. My point was that it's
use of archers had improved. Mind you, I was replying to someone who said that VI was in each and every way worse than V.
How many roads were built before the medieval era other than through traders? Only the Roman roads (built by Legions... check) and, from what I've heard, the Persian roads (who have the bonus that their roads are a level higher than other roads in the same era). Maybe it's inconvenient, but it's accurate and it adds a great flavor.
Propose something better than builders/workers.
You haven't tried diplomacy. To be fair I haven't tried it a lot either, though I still know how to get as many people to like me as to dislike me, but if you want to know what's possible with diplomacy, just ask the forumer Victoria. She's had things like 6 other civs in the game, alliance with 5 of them.
For the agenda system, I was referring to V's system with a lot of invisible modifiers and leaders lying about how they thought of you. There, you had
no idea wheter someone liked you or not, even if there was a Friendly/Neutral/Unfriendly, wheras here, you can see why they like or dislike you (assuming you have at least one of delegation/embassy, trade route and printing press) as well as their sore points (for the hidden agenda, you can often deduce it from what they say to you about it, otherwise you simply need two of the above), so you can at the very least take steps to avoid it.
And I was talking about the gameplay of civs being more unique. Not their leader screens and music.
Making gamers stuck at one particular point at a game to make them explore might be a great game mechanic, my favorite game of all time (Super Mario Galaxy) takes full advantage of it. On the other hand, hiding game mechanics is as nasty as invisible walls!
Before I could figure out how culture victory even works I left the game in frustration. Does anybody have a full grasp of it by now? Can anybody link me to a post that can explain it exhaustively?
This should be exhaustive enough. Again by Victoria.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/culture-victory-guide.25713/
. Forcing the player to work with incomplete information (IE map isn't scouted yet) is different from hiding the gameplay rules (WW, exact culture calcs, etc). Firaxis, Paradox, heck most game's I've played recently that aren't purely action have a habit of slopping in fake difficulty by forcing players to experiment just to learn the rules of the game. I have some level of disrespect for developers who do that while implementing "ironman" modes; doing that is disingenuous at best. If they're making the player responsible for his mistakes, his failings should actually be from his own poor decisions or execution!
