One of the reasons I quit (and there are many lol) is the Civs themselves, which I don't see mentioned alot. They don't seem... coherent, complete, flow-y, thematic. Like there are so many words to describe the abilities, there are multiple abilities within abilities, but the attempted complexity just makes the civ uninteresting. Simplicity is best when it comes to thematics. Take the Inca from Civ5 for example. It's so simple.
- Half cost roads.
- Free roads on hills.
- All units move faster on hills.
- Can build farms on hills that are more powerful next to mountains.
- Unique archer that withdraws if attacked by melee.
I used just ~30 words to accurately describe the entire kit of Inca. Not because I was trying to keep the word count low, but because the kit itself is simple. It makes sense when you look at it and imagine playing it. "Ok, I'll settle near some mountains and hills. That should get me some good growth from the farms, and give me a movement advantage in wars. So I can grow big and defend my land. Cool, let's try it out". And that's that. Simple wording, simple kit, thematic, feels good to play. The bonuses aren't complex, but super impactful (especially the movement on hills, you can 'feel' that bonus from turn 1).
In comparison, the Civ6 bonuses just seem over-complicated but non-impactful at the same time. Takes over 100 words to describe Britain's abilities (there's even a scroll bar near the Civ's description in-game lol), and they don't even come across as thematic imo. So say the theme is world domination (which would be fitting). Ok, unique ship for conquering seas, unique melee for invading foreign continents, unique harbor for claiming and utilizing the seas. These all make sense. But why does she have a random cultural/tourism bonus? Am I going to invade a bit of the world, then stop to set up museums and whatnot before conquering the rest? And why do I get a melee unit after taking a city? Why does she have 5 bonuses at all, when all other civs only get 4? Wouldn't this make more sense;
Victoria bonus - All cities conquered on foreign continents receive a free trade route or All cities conquered on foreign continents create less war weariness.
UU - Redcoat as-is
UU2 - Sea Dog minus the invisibility (why does it have invisibility lol)
UD - Royal Navy Dockyard. As-is plus; If city is located on foreign continent, provides free trader unit upon completion.
So the theme is straight forward, the bonuses are simple and interdependent, and you can imagine quite clearly before even getting into the game how you would play it out. It's exciting, it's concise, it's thematic. You also understand what Victoria stands for in the hands of the AI. "Oh there's that *&Q@#* again, she's going to expand to my continent mid-game and go for world dom. I should probably rush her early or become her friend early". Strong themes, strong playstyles, strong characters, all clearly defined. This, to me, is fun. Not overly complicated, could go 3 victory types, dependent on map, super contextually weak/strong, overall scattered bonuses that make civs seem just.. gray. I think the most coherent civ in Civ6 is the Aztecs. Go to war early. Capture land, which provides more luxes, which provides stronger units, which fuels the war. Take workers and rush districts to stay relevant regarding infrastructure. Makes great sense on paper and in-game.
I just can't have fun with the game when I don't see the civs as clearly defined characters to play around. I have no idea what some of these civs stand for or how they play out, so when I see them in-game I have no immersion. I don't care. They're just another gray civ that is in the way of X victory path because they're not thematically concise. I much preferred Civ5's civs, as they were bolder. I knew which were peaceful, which were cultural, scientific, which were backstabby, etc. It was like I was playing with old friends.
