Best elements of Civ 6 that should be retained

[Zaarin]

Districts, wonders on the map, Builder charges, unique Great People, and maximally asymmetric civilization designs are, IMO, Civ6's best features that I want to return. It's a little thing, but walls contributing to tourism is another feature I really like. I also love unique improvements and districts--I think every civ should have some feature(s) that make my territory look like my territory. In fact, I think every civ should ideally have a couple different things making their cities look unique (including Civ6's greater attention to unique architecture--a trait that needs to extend to districts IMO).

There are also some things that Civ6 did well or well enough that I would not necessarily want to return or at least would want fine-tuned before returning. I like Traders building roads, but I think the system needs some adjustment. Unique City-States is a great feature, but I'd like to see it replaced with more civ-like minor factions, more akin to those you'd find in an Amplitude game like Endless Space 2 or even the dreary Humankind. The art style of Civ6 is great--much better than the gaping eyesore that is Civ5--but that doesn't mean I don't want to see a new approach for Civ7; leaders in particular could use some stronger art direction. Era themes were a great idea but lead to a lot of repeated music; I'd prefer an approach that leads to more ambient music. Disasters are a feature I love, but things like tornadoes are just too ephemeral and local to be included. Keep the risk/reward factor, but tone down some of the random wantonness (I'm particularly looking at tornadoes and hurricanes here). I would also love to see some of Civ4's random events return as I think they're a great addition to the narrative; I was hoping for them in R+F or GS.

 

[kaspergm]

Having builders auto create roads in any tile they enter neatly solves this problem

That would probably be a bit much, not to mention would be annoying in cases where you don't want enemies to follow your builder, but having traders as the only option to create roads with no control of pathing (including annoying embarking) was not a good solution

 

[Leucarum]

I apologize for the tone

The point stands that if you have issues with the AI settling “inside” you this goes back to being too spread out

The AI not being able to defend it’s territory is a general problem with how bad the AI is, and applies to all of their cities, not just forward settled ones.

Thanks.

I don't think it's always a bad idea for the player to forward settle or spread out. Sometimes you really need to claim specific sites or resources. And I'm not saying it is difficult for the player to handle the AI forward settling. It's a problem that the AI just hands you cities for free.

Loyalty doesn't completely solve the AI's issues - as the many posts on here would attest - and it could definitely be improved in a future iteration, but compared to vanilla, loyalty made the game a lot less tedious.

 

[Xur]

1. As a rule they should cut content, that the AI cant handle.
2. I’d like to see workers again - I dislike the builders. At endgame I want to automate workers, builders just add useless micromanagement in the late game.
3. Less focus on leaders and drop the moronic agenda system.
4. Drop city defence and city attack. Let units handle this.
5. Add auto-build for cities. There are useless cities late game that are better left on auto-build.

I realize there isn’t much I like about civ6. The focus should be AI and not making endgame boring with a billion pointless tasks. Automation is good - make a PC game and not a board game.

 

[Zaarin]

1. As a rule they should cut content, that the AI cant handle.
2. I’d like to see workers again - I dislike the builders. At endgame I want to automate workers, builders just add useless micromanagement in the late game.
3. Less focus on leaders and drop the moronic agenda system.
4. Drop city defence and city attack. Let units handle this.
5. Add auto-build for cities. There are useless cities late game that are better left on auto-build.

I realize there isn’t much I like about civ6. The focus should be AI and not making endgame boring with a billion pointless tasks. Automation is good - make a PC game and not a board game.

"Sir, this is a Wendy's." This thread is about keeping good features...

 

[AntSou]

Having builders auto create roads in any tile they enter neatly solves this problem

Agree with kaspergm that that might be a bit too much. I think building roads should consume the builder's turn, but not cost charges.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Agree with a lot that has been said here. I want to reiterate that I hope the barb clans and monopolies/corporations return in Civ 7. I just hope the AI can handle them better.

Unpopular opinion: I actually like how the WC is implemented in Civ 6. I like not being able to choose what the topic is, so that it can't be weaponized by the WC host. Now maybe it should be broken up a bit, so that the topic is presented, then a target chosen, then a yea/nay vote on whether to enact it, rather than making it all in one step.

Emergencies: I like this and would like it to be fleshed out even further.

I like the idea of the casus belli system, but I feel like it doesn't really get used well.

 

[Ezerin]

You don’t think they can do any better with Loyalty??

It is very binary: you either have full loyalty and zero issues, or you’re losing loyalty quickly and your city has a good chance of rebelling. I’d rather have the current Loyalty than nothing, but it doesn’t feel challenging or engaging to me at all.

The nuance just isn’t there. Ideally there would be more ways to interact with Loyalty and cities wouldn’t just be pulled to 100 or 0 like magnets.

I'm always of opinion that any system, no matter how good it already is, always has potential for improvement and Loyalty system isn't an exception, but I think it is in quite good place already. I would like to see some rebalancing, for example i'd like amenity to scale loyalty from population instead of being just static factor.

There are several reasons why it might seem binary to you, but first of all I don't think the system was intent to make your city constantly fluctuate in loyalty and be on edge of flipping to your neightbors. The system imho was meant to stop ridiculous forward settling and add some complexity to the game, not to make a game about loyalty flipping cities, and it's doing its job. Thought, I occasionaly encounter situation when loyalty is of big consideration, usually when I want to forward settle someone, but don't have loyalty foothold for doing so, in such cases it can be tricky and require a plan to do so.

Biggest problem with loyalty system is the same as with many other systems, AI can't handle it, but if every system will be designed around AI being stupid, we will end up with straightforward systems that just don't generate intersing decisions. I would much rather play with dumb AI, than with dumb system, but I suppose it's the matter of taste, someone like challenge of beating opponent, others like tinkering with mechanisms. Sadly it seems we can't get both.

 

[pokiehl]

There are several reasons why it might seem binary to you, but first of all I don't think the system was intent to make your city constantly fluctuate in loyalty and be on edge of flipping to your neightbor.

I didn't suggest that Loyalty should do that. To think that it has to either be a simple mechanism to stop forward settling or create intense tension non-stop is a bit of a false dilemma.

Look at Amenities for a great example of a system that feels much less binary, much more engaging to manage over time, and has good scaling of rewards and penalties. Amenities are never "set it and forget it," but once I get to 100 Loyalty with a new city, Loyalty may as well not even exist.

 

[Ezerin]

Amenities are never "set it and forget it," but once I get to 100 Loyalty with a new city, Loyalty may as well not even exist.

But it's probably because AI isn't capable of intentionally creating situations where loyalty would be a problem for you, and because you're competent enough at game to not put yourself in situations where it will be a problem for you. I mean, you can find spots for settling with -15 and more loyalty pressure, settle city there and then for long time solve this problem of risking your city to loyalty flip with tools available to you, but you'd rather avoid such situations instead of intentionally putting yourself in those. I don't think you'll deny that loyalty system affects many of your choices in the game.

I'm also don't know how appropriate comparison with amenity system, because player has to do things wrong for a very long time to get to the point where consequences of poor amenity management will be very impactfull. Consequences of poor loyalty management may become very impactfull (I mean, player loses a city) very fast, so it's fine for loyalty to be more extreme, when it's ussually always 100 or independance in few turns.

 

[pokiehl]

But it's probably because AI isn't capable of intentionally creating situations where loyalty would be a problem for you,

Nope, it's because Loyalty is a binary system with few ways to meaningfully interact with it.

I mean, you can find spots for settling with -15 and more loyalty pressure, settle city there and then for long time solve this problem of risking your city to loyalty flip with tools available to you, but you'd rather avoid such situations instead of intentionally putting yourself in those.

I literally settle spots with -20 Loyalty all the time. It's disappointingly simple to overcome.

1. Slot in the Limitanei and Praetorium policies.
2. Assign a governor to the new city immediately.
3. Buy a granary and a monument immediately.
4. Garrison the unit I used to escort my settler.
5. Once Loyalty stabilizes in a few turns and I have 2 or 3 full citizens, relax, and never think about Loyalty for that city again.

 

[Ezerin]

I literally settle spots with -20 Loyalty all the time. It's disappointingly simple to overcome.

You say simple and then proceed to list several points of how you would solve problem by using different game systems, and i could add as many to the list. You make a complex of decisions here. So i don't really understand what is your problem with the system? Do you don't like that you don't get rewarded for managing loyalty well, or do you want loyalty pressure to be slower but more steady so that cities spend more time being in between 0 and 100 on a scale?

 

[bene_legionary]

Unpopular opinion: I actually like how the WC is implemented in Civ 6. I like not being able to choose what the topic is, so that it can't be weaponized by the WC host. Now maybe it should be broken up a bit, so that the topic is presented, then a target chosen, then a yea/nay vote on whether to enact it, rather than making it all in one step.

I was never able to play a full game of Civ 5, but watching the Yogscast play it terribly and seeing all the salt, laughs and chants that came out of those WCs, like choosing resident scholars, voting for nuclear non-proliferation at just the right moment to stop an oppotune nuke, or banning crabs, were some of the highlights of their Civ 5 series.

Now they all groan when the Civ 6 World Congress turns up. I know they're all nostalgic for Civ 5, but I'd do the same. Civ 6's WC is super gamey, the next gamey mechanic is policy cards but at least you can develop a strategy around them. The WC is a bad interface combined with randomness and not even vaguely believable. In this implementation, I don't want to see it come back.

 

[Zegangani]

The system imho was meant to stop ridiculous forward settling and add some complexity to the game, not to make a game about loyalty flipping cities, and it's doing its job.

I disagree with that. The Loyalty System didn't just not solve that Issue, but it added another layer of unnecessary complexity to it. What it has done a good Job at are only 2 Things (at the cost of many other Issues, mind you):
- made Conquest much more interesting.
- gave us a peaceful way to take Cities, it's not the best system for that that we have seen in Civ, but at least we have that Option, and this partially solves the AI forward Settling Issue.

re. the latter: if Loyalty was solely or mainly made as a System to counter this Issue, then it did a really bad Job at it, because:
1) There is a better Solution to that, and an even simpler one, which is to code the AI to not settle anywhere in the 9 tiles radius of other Players' Cities, except if it's necessary, a very good Strategic Position or has very good/important Yields/Resources. No complicated System necessary.
2) The AI is still forward settling the Player, and leaves vast of empty and good Lands unsettled. It doesn't take Loyalty Pressure at all under consideration, which means the AI isn't or is barely coded to use it. And that itself gives us 2 Issues:
- Bc of that, the AI loses a lot of Cities, which means it doesn't just lose all the resources it has put into it, but it also means that the potential to get returns from it are all gone. In other Words, it punishes/cripples the AI, and the Players, rightfully, complain that the AI doesn't build a powerful Empire, is dumb and struggling a lot.
- the AI still puts Cities near my Borders where I don't want to have them, bc they are too close to my Cities. And since AI is AI, the Cities are almost always in bad location. So I then either have to accept them if they loyalty flip to me, and live with the bad yields of the city, or raze the City. Why should I want to deal with that? If it's a Neighbor and there isn't much space for settling, then sure, I can live with that, but 70% of AI forward settling are just Cities too far away from any of their home Cities.
3) it introduced many other Issues on top of that:
a - It made Colonization nearly impossible. And by that I don't mean colonizing others by conquering Cities, but the colonial Cities that I settle far from my home Continent. That's neither realistic/historical nor is it a "Fun System" that encourages me to find other ways to make Colonies. There is no way to make Colonies near other Players' Territory, and if there is, they very quickly forward settle that Colony. And bc the Colony would be new and have very few Pops, it will quickly turn into a Free City. It made my favorite playstyle impossible.
b - It's totally Immersion breaking; I have the happiest People in a City, that also has many Spec Districts, the best Science and Culture, and perhaps even Faith, output in the Region and I'm the most advanced Player in the Game, but somehow the other rival Cities still managed to put enough pressure on that City to flip it, even though they are struggling behind me, have a weak culture and science output, struggle economically, their Player is at War, and previously attacked me and conquered 2 of my Cities, and my Pops hate him for that. So, what does Loyalty represent again? I have no Idea. unrealistic and unhistorical.

Other than that, I second P0kiehl, in that the Loyalty System is a very ignorable Mechanic once you made some good first steps with a new City. And considering all the Issues above, there is no to little Reason why the Loyalty Mechanic should stay in the Game.

To me, the Loyalty System on its own, is not a bad Mechanic, I like the Ideas behind it and some of the interactions it offers, but even when ignoring the Issues it adds, it's still not a good Mechanic. And design-wise, as a Game System interacting with other Game Systems, it's one of the poorest thought out Mechanics in the Game IMHO, even the World Congess is more bearable for me tbh. It offers some few nice Interactions with the Game, but doesn't solve the Issue that it meant to solve, and instead introduces many other Issues.

 

[Ezerin]

- made Conquest much more interesting.
- gave us a peaceful way to take Cities, it's not the best system for that that we have seen in Civ, but at least we have that Option, and this partially solves the AI forward Settling Issue.

It falls under "add some complexity to the game", but well, maybe i should had elaborate a bit more on it.

There is a better Solution to that, and an even simpler one, which is to code the AI to not settle anywhere in the 9 tiles radius of other Players' Cities, except if it's necessary, a very good Strategic Position or has very good/important Yields/Resources.

It not just doesn't sound like a better solution to me, but like a good solution at all. Very easy exploitable by a player, works exclusively in a favor of a player and "except if it's necessary, a very good Strategic Position or has very good/important Yields/Resources" means AI has to be much more smarter then it currently is.

The AI is still forward settling the Player, and leaves vast of empty and good Lands unsettled. It doesn't take Loyalty Pressure at all under consideration, which means the AI isn't or is barely coded to use it.

It's true that AI is poorly handle this system, as almost every other in the game, but saying it doesn't take loyalty pressure under consideration at all just isn't true in my experience. Since introduction of the system I haven't seen a single time AI settling a city in the middle of other huge empire just because there was a tile where it could physically settle. It seems like AI can settle on tiles with low negative pressure, which could potentially be overcome by different tools like appointing governor in the city, but:
1) AI usually doesn't use these tools.
2) AI doesn't take into consideration loyalty penalties that will take place immediatly or short after settling, like negative amenity or city not following religion founded by city's owner. This penalties may actually cause city lose loyalty even if initially game shows that city will have positive loyalty on a tile.

So yes, AI still ocassionaly forward settle other empires, but not nearly to the same extent and not in so ridiculosly stupid manner, usually it happens on outer borders of empires when before they wouldn't mind to settle 3 tiles away from your capital surrounded exclusevely by your cities in 10 tiles radius. So it's still not a problem of a system itself, it's that sometimes AI coding is just that bad, probably lack of playtesting and Firaxis not willing to fix such issues, which wouldn't be hard to solve.

It made Colonization nearly impossible. And by that I don't mean colonizing others by conquering Cities, but the colonial Cities that I settle far from my home Continent. That's neigher realistic/historical nor is it a "Fun System" that encourages me to find other ways to make Colonies. There is no way to make Colonies near other Players' Territory, and if there is, they very quickly forward settle that Colony. And bc the Colony would be new and have very few Pops, it will quickly turn into a Free City. It made my favorite playstyle impossible.

Colonialism is my favorite playstyle and from my experience, there is nothing nearly impossible about it. Yes, there is places that you can't colonize without military intervention, so you can't colonize just anywhere you want, but i managed to colonize territories far far away from my nearest city and right next to other empires. Game can suggest many tools for it, but player realle have to dedicate a lot of resources for such purpose, so it's almost always just ineffective from an achiving victory standpoint, but if your goal is roleplay first, then you totally can do it.

It's totally Immersion breaking

It's debatable. Well, first of all, Civilization isn't a history simulator, it's a game first. We'll always have to deal with some conventionalities and loyalty system not even close to be one of most offensive in that sense. But even without "it's a game" argument there is still a lot of room for interpretation of what happening in game would be in real life. For example you can imagine that your city, surrounded by cities of other empire, growth in population due to influx of population of that other empire and after some time most of the city's population consist of people that identify themself with that other empire, and it will be more important factor than hapiness. It's up to your imagination, Civilization not in particular good at presentation of historical processes.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Unpopular opinion: I actually like how the WC is implemented in Civ 6. I like not being able to choose what the topic is, so that it can't be weaponized by the WC host. Now maybe it should be broken up a bit, so that the topic is presented, then a target chosen, then a yea/nay vote on whether to enact it, rather than making it all in one step.

I think it would be more interesting if every time the WC convened there was an initial vote to see which civ could host. The winner would then choose the proposals.
And you can't vote for yourself to host.

 

[Zegangani]

"except if it's necessary, a very good Strategic Position or has very good/important Yields/Resources" means AI has to be much more smarter then it currently is

Not necessarilly. You don't need to train the AI to be smarter at those things, there are many ways to achieve the same goal, like just make it impossible to settle in certain places by disabling the Ability to settle a City (I'm actually planning to make a Mod that does that), so the AI would keep moving the Settler till it finds a Place that meets certain criteria. Not the best Solution, but it's easy to code and far better than nothing at all.

Since introduction of the system I haven't seen a single time AI settling a city in the middle of other huge empire just because there was a tile where it could physically settle

I see that happen in all my Games (although, you might be playing on smaller Maps, where it's less likely for AI to do that. I mostly play on larger Maps, with plenty of empty land, where AI's settling behavior is very noticeable), and I don't even know about all the Cities settled that way in places where I don't have Visibility on. The Reason why I said that the AI doesn't take Loyalty under consideration, is bc in my Experience, the Settling behavior of AI hasn't changed much for me, it still settles the same way as before AFAICT. Except that now we don't perceive it as that of a big Issue as before, since Loyalty Pressure helps us to peacefully transfer those Cities to us, making it a bit less of an issue as before, so we, either consciously or unconsciously, think that the AI has become better at settling. At least that's how I see it, others may have other Experiences with that. Tho, we can easily make some Tests with Base Game vs RnF/GS and see if AI behaves differently when settling (although, it might as well be the same AI in both DLLs, just with no Loyalty System in Base Game, a better solution is to compare it with an earlier build).

It seems like AI can settle on tiles with low negative pressure, which could potentially be overcome by different tools like appointing governor in the city, but:
1) AI usually doesn't use these tools.
2) AI doesn't take into consideration loyalty penalties that will take place immediatly or short after settling, like negative amenity or city not following religion founded by city's owner. This penalties may actually cause city lose loyalty even if initially game shows that city will have positive loyalty on a tile.

So yes, AI still ocassionaly forward settle other empires, but not nearly to the same extent and not in so ridiculosly stupid manner, usually it happens on outer borders of empires when before they wouldn't mind to settle 3 tiles away from your capital surrounded exclusevely by your cities in 10 tiles radius. So it's still not a problem of a system itself, it's that sometimes AI coding is just that bad, probably lack of playtesting and Firaxis not willing to fix such issues, which wouldn't be hard to solve.

Perhaps you're right. AI might indeed sometimes look for places with low Loyalty Pressure, but struggle with the Loyalty Issues post-settling the City. But not always, bc I still see a lot of AI's new Cities settled near Borders of Cities with 7+ Pops. Whether all that is just random AI behavior or bad coding, I don't know. I personally never perceive AI as being smart or aware of all the Game Mechanics. A lot of Game Mechanics are poorly handled by AI anyway, and in some cases even suffers from them (like Unit Gold and (especially) Resource Maintenance).

Game can suggest many tools for it, but player realle have to dedicate a lot of resources for such purpose, so it's almost always just ineffective from an achiving victory standpoint, but if your goal is roleplay first, then you totally can do it.

Well, that's my exact Issue with it. If I can only do that with some specific ways, and only in certain places, then what's the point of all that beside, like you said, roleplaying? which isn't why I like colonising foreign Territory, but to place Cities in strategic Positions, and in places with strategic/luxury Resources that I don't have access to in my home Continent. I can maybe settle 1-2 Cities that way, but that's not a Colonisation Game anymore. It feels very arbitrary, especially since Civ VI is the Game that gives the most control to the Player and puts the least restriction on him than any previous Game IMO.

It's debatable. Well, first of all, Civilization isn't a history simulator, it's a game first.

Fair. I think I missed to clarify the Point I was making with that, which is, that since Loyalty, for me, doesn't solve the AI settling behavior, although has some nice Features (I love how it improves Conquest for example - its best perk if you ask me) it isn't the best mechanic in what it was meant to do (Revolutions, Cultural Influence, Stability...etc.), and even introduces many other Issues, so at least its existance should be justified with some historicity, which it doesn't AFAICT. So, bc all of that, it being unhistorical/unrealistic is even more noticeable for me, which make me hard to enjoy it and perceive it as something other than a gamey mechanic for city flipping. An example of a Mechanic that is utterly unrealistic, but serves a role (maybe out of necessity), and does a good job at it, is Unit Promotions and Experience.

Anyway, my Point isn't that Loyalty doesn't serve any purpose, it certainly does, but IMO its Cons overweigh its Pros to a big degree. It has a lot of good of Ideas in it, but the the overall Design of it and how it's implementated feel half-complete to me. Ofc, we can say the same thing for most of the Game's Mechanics, but to me at least, it needs a complete rework before I can enjoy having it in the Game.

EDIT: On another note, Dramatic Ages Mode is one great way to make Loyalty more engaging and impactful. Too bad that the AI suffers too much from it, and that it doesn't have a Normal Age.

 

[Ezerin]

Tho, we can easily make some Tests with Base Game vs RnF/GS and see if AI behaves differently when settling (although, it might as well be the same AI in both DLLs, just with no Loyalty System in Base Game, a better solution is to compare it with an earlier build).

I don't think any testing is needed, we can just google some stuff on subject.

Spoiler forward settling in vanila Civ6 :

I haven't seen anything like this since R&F, I think only possible way to being forward settled like this now is by your cultural ally.

Spoiler typical forvard settling by AI in GS :

Still annoying, especially in combination with awful choice of settling spot, but difference is huge.

Anyway, my Point isn't that Loyalty doesn't serve any purpose, it certainly does, but IMO its Cons overweigh its Pros to a big degree. It has a lot of good of Ideas in it, but the the overall Design of it and how it's implementated feel half-complete to me. Ofc, we can say the same thing for most of the Game's Mechanics, but to me at least, it needs a complete rework before I can enjoy having it in the Game.

For me it certainly was a big improvement to the game. I wouldn't mind some rebalancing and tweaks, like maybe with Colonialism we would receive effect that halve all loyalty pressure from civilizations 2 eras behind, but I don't think any complete rework is required.

 

[Leucarum]

I don't think any testing is needed, we can just google some stuff on subject.

Spoiler forward settling in vanila Civ6 :

I haven't seen anything like this since R&F, I think only possible way to being forward settled like this now is by your cultural ally.

Spoiler typical forvard settling by AI in GS :

Still annoying, especially in combination with awful choice of settling spot, but difference is huge.


For me it certainly was a big improvement to the game. I wouldn't mind some rebalancing and tweaks, like maybe with Colonialism we would receive effect that halve all loyalty pressure from civilizations 2 eras behind, but I don't think any complete rework is required.

When the switch version came out I was commuting to work and started playing it before they added expansions... And the dumb behavior of AI trying to slot cities into any tiles they could was one of the most striking things.

In general, going back to vanilla really made me appreciate the loyalty mechanic. Could it be improved, yes. But playing without it really makes you miss it.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Variety of ways to win Culture Victory - I love that CV has many sources of tourism - you can go appeal based routes (RIP pre-Nerf Persia), Great Works, Rock Bands, etc.

I agree in essence, but I feel that they messed up great works compared to civ 5.
We can no longer theme great works of writing and music, and art only has one type of theming, not different ones that created variation.
What is the purpose of great works of musics now for instance?
They arrive super late when you're about to win anyway, give hardly any culture pr tourism, and cant even be themed.
Speaking of theming, I hated that they removed theming from wonders and that it now only applies to museums.
The old great works system was so much better, even if civ 6 added a ton of great new ways to get tourism too, as you say.

Districts: Great addition to the game. Change suggestions: Needs to go away from flat adjacency bonus and work towards a system that links bonuses with buildings and specialists.

Fully agree, districts are great and adjacency bonuses need to be toned down.
Personally I would love to see districts being natural extensions of the city centre, that gradually build outwards (next to the city centre) as the city and population grows, like cities have done organically thoughout history.
A mini sim city if you like, where you get city wide bonuses for connecting your sewer systems, electrification and public transport etc. across you different district tiles in that city.
Heck, maybe even let you expand your city walls to that new part of town for a big investment, because our new merchant class right outside the city walls are worried about bandits and foreign armies.
And please, no more of that "I'm gonna build a Campus in the year 3000 BC in this super remote mountain location, 3 tiles (half a country) away even though my city barely has population to feed and fend for itself".
This both breaks immersion, and breaks balance at the same time - it needs to go.