Builder mechanic, visual style and that we cant remove districts is main draw backs of CIV VI – do a

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Bismarck359, Jun 27, 2019.

  1. Bismarck359

    Bismarck359 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    14
    Builder mechanic, visual style and that we cant remove districts is main draw backs of CIV VI which me prevent that I fall in love with last Civ game like I love all other Civ games before and due that buying of Civilization VI deluxe edition is my biggest regrets!


    1. Builders who instantly build improvements and disappear after few uses give me fell like many mobile strategy games on phones not a real empire building game like old CIVs games

    2. Visual style is too cartoonish and also give mobile game fell – this is mostly resolved with mods

    3. And biggest issue for me is that we cant remove districts this is one of game main problem because we are don't robots which can predicts needs of cities of our empire for entire game. Example on begin of game we need districts which help us to expand and build army and resources after we grow up first cities which we build don't need military and expansion districts so sum of thing which I want to tell is that priorities on game city development is not same in every part of game so we need ability of razing districts which we don’t need anymore that we can replace it with other.


    Do anyone feel same?
     
    Civrinn likes this.
  2. Naeshar

    Naeshar Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    303
    Gender:
    Male
    No.

    1. Builders are definitely a major overhaul of the system, and I may say very well done. It's a different approach, creating a good immersion (imagine millenia of forced work on your builders … let them rest after work done :)).

    2. I don't play mobile games. Not cartoonish to me :D.

    3. Removing districts could be a feature, but very unnecessary. It's a strategy game, where you expand on what you built before. Plan and specialize - and you will be rewarded. Rebuilding would take long - though there is the mechanic of changing power plant type.
    You don't really need encampment for building an army. Actually, you will conquer faster without. It's more of a defensive tool.
    Oh, and you can raze districts - just raze the city. :satan::devil::satan:
     
    jgsb2001, Gorbles, conorbebe and 9 others like this.
  3. Bismarck359

    Bismarck359 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    14
    1. ok I see your point but I sill think that one turn build for improvements give too phone/tablet games fell but for see that you should to try st least some mobile strategy games
    2. same as one :D :D :D
    3. I can't planning that much in future + situation in game needs&priorities changes as you expand change ages begin war with major powers so ability to raze districts will be great
     
  4. Tech Osen

    Tech Osen Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,861
    Don't agree on 1and 2. It shouldn't take centuries to build a farm and the art style doesn't bother me.

    On 3 I can agree somewhat but no big deal to me. More annoyed that strategic and luxury resources block district placement. If I can build my city centre on them why not my other districts?
     
    Karmah, jozef57, Kjimmet and 4 others like this.
  5. Deliverator

    Deliverator Graphical Hackificator

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,751
    Location:
    London, UK
    There is a mod for this too - Removable Districts.
     
  6. Duuk

    Duuk Doom-Sayer Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,975
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    I don't like builders with charges. I prefer either workers (Civ4 style) or Public Works points/currency (Call to Power style). I can't stand having to build a unit, move it to the tile, and spend charges. It bothers me endlessly.

    Otherwise I disagree with your post entirely.
     
  7. Medopu

    Medopu Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    151
    When gathering storm expansion was announced i thought that volcanos and floods would wreck whole districts, but they only damage them.

    So yes, i'm totally for removable districts, i just don't see many useful cases when that would even be beneficial to waste your production on.
     
  8. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    6,075
    I've come around to prefer the "builder" model.
     
  9. AntSou

    AntSou Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2019
    Messages:
    2,088
    Newly conquered cities, new players, first time playing with a civ with a unique district with specific mechanics, etc, events that cause you to reconsider district production order.

    Above all you should be able to cancel a district under construction immediately. Unlike buildings, however, doing so would reset all of the production. Something that one wouldn't usually do, but the option should still be there.
     
    Elhoim likes this.
  10. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,898
    Location:
    Toronto
    Yeah, I think so too. I do still feel there's a few cases where it's annoying, although for me that's mostly because they decided that some civs would have unique tile improvements and others would have unique buildings. Like, I can build a hockey arena with 1 charge of a builder, yet it takes hundreds of production points to build a generic stadium?

    And for removable districts, I think a large part of how the game works is that you have to decide things early, and live with those choices. Otherwise it would be too easy to just build districts for the eurekas and then remove then and swap in something else.

    Although maybe I would support a way to "retire" a district and turn it into a tourist attraction. So, for example, your encampment is old and not used anymore, maybe you just turn it into a tourist fort to give you a little bit of gold and culture instead of being a working encampment.
     
    Karmah and acluewithout like this.
  11. pokiehl

    pokiehl Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,571
    The art style is phenomenal. This meme of calling it "mobile game graphics" is quite tiresome after over 2 years.
     
    Ferocitus, Cerilis, Gorbles and 7 others like this.
  12. leandrombraz

    leandrombraz Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,443
    Gender:
    Male
    Could you explain what is the relation between how the system works and mobile games, or how it make it be less of a real empire building game? I don't get it. The system is more complex, it require more thought, better timing, it's the complete opposite of what people usually mean by mobile game when they use it to lessen a game and make it look bad. Mobile simplify things to fit that 5 minutes play crowd they are trying to reach, builders with charges are not a simplification. It couldn't be more further from Mobile. As for not feeling like a real empire game, why? Because it take one turn? What make it less of an Empire building game?

    Builders with charges are one of the main improvements Civ VI have over V and I'm pretty sure they are here to stay. I'll be surprised if they go back to the old Workers in Civ VII, I expect to see a new take on this same concept of limited builders.

    That's purely a matter of personal taste. Mobile don't have a monopoly on cartoonish visuals, for me a cartoonish look doesn't make it feel like mobile, just cartoonish. When I saw Civ VI for the same time it was hard to get used to it because it was unexpected. Almost 3 years later I love how it looks.


    I enjoy planning what I'll do, so for me having to think way ahead is a plus. I love the planning phase, see what will go where, set priorities. I also don't get exactly how you would like to use such a mechanic, aside from correcting district positioning, mostly in a conquered city. You want to actually remove an Encampment just because you "don't need" it, so you can build another district? That would be highly counter productive and make zero sense. I'll be honestly with you, it seems that you didn't play much of Civ VI and is talking from a perspective of someone who didn't play enough to get how the systems works, districts in this case.

    Lets take the Encampment as an example. Encampment buildings give production. They also give great general points, which have both combat advantages and a retirement ability. They add specialists slots, which can be worked for more yields. Later they help if you're going for a Scientific victory, giving 15% production towards space projects. You also have Eurekas/Inspirations that rely on them, they are useful for defense, they can be used to increase the adjacency of other districts, there's wonders that require them and probably more minor stuff that doesn't come to my mind now. Point is, there's no such thing as not needing an Encampment anymore, they still useful even if you're not building more units. Same for any other districts, they always give you something, it's always an advantage to have them.

    The only thing that could justify removing a district aside form conquered cities is the population limit but it would go against what the game is trying to achieve. Civ VI encourage you to specialize cities. You don't deal with the districts population limit by removing them, you deal with it using planning and growth. Forcing you to choose wisely where and when you gona build a district is the whole point. You can't just spam every district everywhere, so you build an Encampment on your high production city, Campus on your mountain city first while other cities give you your first commercial hubs and so on. You have to choose, think, decide. That's not a draw back, it's the exact experience this kind of game try to offer.

    Even for conquered cities I can argue that not being able to remove districts is a plus. It give cities identity of their own. The city is what it is, either take it or leave it. I don't think everything should go perfect for the player, sometimes you have to adapt, sometimes that mean a holy site with zero adjacency in a city that can reach mountains. Life is unfair, the AI have its limits.

    Anyway, there's a mod that let you remove districts, so you can play the way you want.
     
    vixlar likes this.
  13. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,252
    Gender:
    Male
    So this game feels like a mobile game and not a real strategy game, so that's bad

    But you also don't like it because districts force you to plan ahead.....

    It's almost like it's a strategy game.

    Also this whole mobile = always bad nonsense that has been parroted around is a weak argument. The reason why mobile games have a bad reputation is that they are deliberately made unplayable unless you pay. You are weak and noncompetitive unless you pay more to buy an upgrade or whatnot. For example, you could pay money to unlock an extra build charge and it's needed because the game only lets you 1 by default. Basically money > skill when it comes to performance in-game. For obvious reasons this doesn't apply to games here, even if some of the DLCs are borderline p2w, they are not needed to actually play the game properly.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2019
    Elhoim, Civrinn, Karmah and 2 others like this.
  14. Jkchart

    Jkchart Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,241
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    yeah, builders with charges are way better than ridiculous worker stacks, or in the case of civ V, workers taking forever to build anything.

    The game is beautiful, and the planning aspect is great. I can't agree with this at all. Sure, removing districts MIGHT be useful, but rarely so IMO.
     
    King Rad and Sostratus like this.
  15. Sostratus

    Sostratus Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    2,372
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Same. It's just a lot easier to balance vs immortal workers. Big problem there was a worker is either too pricey for a tall empire or so cheap that wide empires get a huge free benefit. That was a huge problem in civ5 - and thats why it took 30 turns to make a trading post on jungle! By far the worst implementation of this was those terrascapes in CivBE. Plus getting +1 charges feels impactful. Unlike +25% worker speed.

    Similar to the change to builder charges, I think removing districts could enable some new strategic gameplay. For the record I am a super planner who will coat the map in tacks if I need to. It seems like there was a very conscious design choice to keep removable districts out - which is fine.
    But the fact that we could enables something akin to a true "industrialization" model where you have more extensive early infrastructure options, and you have more extensive mid/late game options, and you might want to encourage gameplay where players take down a couple old districts to make way for new ones. Like say, you have a Walled Quarter acting as your "castle district" (from the plague scenario) but it functionally obsoletes at urban defenses, so you replace it with a neighborhood. Or what have you.
    Likewise, the builder charge system means we could also have a greater diversity of improvements that come late game, where one could bring in concepts like more advanced improvements taking 2 charges and stuff.

    But the old system of no districts and worker units offers like, none of the flexibility of the new system. You can recreate civ5 in civ6, but not the other way around.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2019
    Jkchart, Naeshar and acluewithout like this.
  16. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    6,075
    if it's not ASCII art it's not REAL GAMES!
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2019
    Gorbles, Sostratus and Karmah like this.
  17. legalizefreedom

    legalizefreedom Inefficiency Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    661
    Location:
    Texas
    Agree totally about builders. There is very little sense of accomplishment when you can just press a button and the improvement is built. Investment is purely statistical. This is probably #1 on my list as well and a big reason I spend more time with BERT.

    I'm neutral on the graphics. They took the turn with V. VI isn't much different. I don't mind them. At least the animations are good. And hey, wonder movies are back!

    Many aspects of districts and city planning are a close second for me. I don't care to plan my entire city in the ancient era, which is essentially what you are expected to do if you want to be most efficient. I like the mechanic overall, but the implementation could be improved. High on that list is being able to remove them.
     
  18. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    6,075
    I'll concede to that, maybe you should be able to cancel a district you haven't finished yet (losing all the prod of course).

    I think CivIII looks more "cell phone graphics" than any of the other entries.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 27, 2019
  19. Builderphile

    Builderphile Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    69
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    When I first bought the game, I agreed with points 1 and 2.

    But now I love the builders and graphics.
     
  20. incroc

    incroc Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 15, 2019
    Messages:
    55
    I don't think I'd ever remove districts if it was allowed. All that waste of production can't be anywhere close to optimal. It sounds like a poor idea.
     

Share This Page