1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

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. returnofbabylon

    returnofbabylon Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2018
    Messages:
    50
    I have no issue with the art style.

    Not being able to remove districts (at a cost) is somewhat annoying, but it comes up rarely enough that I don't see it as an especially big deal either way.

    Builders, on the other hand, I'm not a fan of at all. They're probably the innovation of Civ VI that I dislike the most. Units with a finite number of charges that take effect instantaneously just don't fit with the rest of the game in my opinion. (The fact that missionaries work the same way also really annoys me.) Unfortunately, it seems very likely that they're here to stay, and modding them into a unit that makes more sense in the context of the game would be pretty difficult in my estimation.
     
    legalizefreedom likes this.
  2. Jaybe

    Jaybe civus fanaticus Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,557
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    I tried the Civ5 appearance mod ...
    And returned to Civ6 artwork within a few hours.
     
  3. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,917
    Gender:
    Male
    I like the art style, though that's as subjective an issue as one could think of.

    Builder instant builds I agree are disjointed from the rest of the game. I agree with @Duuk that Builders are an awkward interim step between two better systems. But I also think the direction the dev team has gone with Builders is the right one, and I'd prefer to see the disjointedness be resolved by no longer needing to wait 8 turns for city A to finish it's market, 4 turns for city B to finish it's library, etc. Wonders should take time to build, mundane buildings should be instant built. I say this as someone who has loved Civ 1+. This mechanic was fine for Civ 1. It's time to move on from it (and a few other things, especially the fill the granary to make babies mechanic).

    Districts I'm conflicted on. As an idea, I like them. In practice, I don't. What they're intended to do is positive, and I was excited for them leading up to the release of Civ 6. I'd like to see them retained and refined in future versions of civ. Being able to bulldoze them and build something new over them is one minor way they could be improved.
     
    Duuk likes this.
  4. lotrmith

    lotrmith King

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    686
    Also to be fair it's almost unheard of for a real world district equivalent to be, in essence, 'torn up' or 'razed' to make room for a different one.

    Can you imagine a Harbor, a roman forum (ie commercial district), or a campus/university, a military base, or an airport, being completely destroyed for the sheer purpose of rezoning a new district in its place and, effectively, forcing the population of that city/district out of work or to respecialize?

    I mean, it's possible. But not without era defining swings in government, revolt, or city destruction (ie random natural disasters), or else some heavy modern technology and production cost. I suppose it's *possible* it could be allowed to decommission a completely pillaged district.
     
  5. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,323
    Agreed. The advantage of using builders is that it allows FXS to play around with more mechanics - what currency you can build them with, how fast they move, how many charges, who else gets builder charges (eg Legions), what they can build and when and on what. And that ties in more generally with how improvements provide this additional layer of infrastructure between district / buildings and the map. I mean, Hokey Rinks and Gold Courses etc really are sort of “pseudo” districts.

    Love it or hate it, Civ’s main elements on the map are “units” and “cities”. Even districts are really just “mini cities” the way they are implemented.

    I think the sillier part is making Great People a type of unit. They should have either been like a “card” that you spend or should have worked like spies and traders. Oh well.

    I’m fairness, you can insta-build buildings via gold.

    I think the design is that early game you build everything with hammers. But once you have an empire wide economy, you should be building most things with gold and your cities should only spend hammers on projects or really hard to build things (spaceports, gdr, whatever).

    FXS made a decision with Districts to have each one basically specialise on one yield rather than each being more generic and then you specialise the district and or city by what you build in the district.

    I’m not saying that was a bad decision. But it does give Districts and Cities a distinctive “flavour”. Your cities basically almost never feel “real” IMO, instead they always feel a bit “power rangers meets city planner”. ie this is the BLUE POWER RANGER CITY! and this is the YELLOW POWER RANGER CITY!.

    One of the reasons I play coastal / naval so much is that the Harbour feels like a “real” district, so my cities in turn feel more real.

    The focus on one yield per district type also means your cities don’t sprawl much, because FXS has to limit how many districts you can build (on of each, one per four pop etc).

    This is getting better now we have more and better green districts, which gives you more scope to make your city feel like a city. And buffs to the encampment and IZ are great because it really adds these districts back into the mix.

    At the end of the day, Civ is a competitive “board game” style 4x game (with a bit of war game thrown in). It can certainly have some Sim City elements and empire management / grand strategy elements, and I wish it did too, but there are limits to what the game can bear.

    I’m convinced that when Civs development cycle is over I’ll end up getting into EU IV for that very reason. I really love Civ VI and love where it’s going. It scratches a few itches. But at some point the empire sim itch is going to need a bigger scratch, and it’s not really fair to make Civ V do that.

    (Hmm. On reflection, I’m not sure anyone wants me to talk that much about itching and scratching. Oh well.)
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2019
    Elhoim likes this.
  6. NukeAJS

    NukeAJS King

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    825
    Builders having charges is one of the best mechanics they changed. What you build matters. Use your charges wisely.
     
    Gorbles and acluewithout like this.
  7. Abaxial

    Abaxial Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2017
    Messages:
    563
    Gender:
    Male
    And I use it all the time. If I see the Civ VI style it looks garish to me now. Plus I can see the hills more easily.
     
  8. The Economy

    The Economy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    Messages:
    73
    Using up a builder charge is just so very satisfying. It has OOMPH.

    And much better than workers. It has actual strategy so I don't agree at all with you said.
     
  9. Medopu

    Medopu Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    151

    I could not disagree more.

    District re-zoning is obviously a major part of urbanism in any era.
    • Industrial zones are getting gentrified

    • Military and holy sites are becoming entertainment complexes more and more

    • Old harbors are becoming water parks and marinas
    It’s all around you. There are very few districts in the world that remained their purpose for thousands of years. That’s almost unheard of.
     
    Civrinn, Jkchart, Duuk and 1 other person like this.
  10. Vincent_lacruz

    Vincent_lacruz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2019
    Messages:
    48
    Location:
    France
    I think the problem with being able to remove district, or even worse move them, is that it would be far too easy to conquer cities, completly waste them (right now you can't destroy them, just damage them buy looting), then give back the cities (or even sell them.)... Even worse in multiplayer...

    Or, if we speak of relocalization, it would need to be too costly to prevent said abuse, and therefore it would never be done (if it takes more production to move the district than to build a settler or a few units, why bother??).
     
  11. legalizefreedom

    legalizefreedom Inefficiency Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Location:
    Texas
    What you build or how many you build matters way less with builders. You can build an improvement every single turn with every single builder. They have attempted to balance this "convenience" with cost, but they are still very easy to come by after the first hundred turns and you can get them to pop regularly with 5 charges, 7 if you're serious about it.

    With workers you had to use your turns wisely.

    The ONLY reason they made this change was to eliminate the army of useless workers at the end of the game. Not a good trade off IMO. At the end of the game in Civ V, workers could be built in one turn. They cost upkeep. Just delete your extras.
     
  12. KayAU

    KayAU King

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    818
    I think I prefer the builder system...although I'm no a fan of the way roads are created now. When it comes to the art style, I think it is fine, although I probably would have liked a more realistic style even more. Permanent districts are also fine, although I generally would like to see districts in larger cities be more productive than in smaller cities, and I want a boost to district workers/specialists.
     
    Builderphile and SammyKhalifa like this.
  13. Piranga

    Piranga Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2018
    Messages:
    87
    Yes, Yes, and Yes

    1. Builders being on a "charge" basis. It was an interesting change at first, but as I play the game more and more I simply get bored of having to build "builders' over and over. I prefer the old X turns to build an improvement mechanics.
    2. The visual style of the leaders just sucks. I've despised it since before release. I hate the more I play. At this point I've turned off leader animations, which is kind of sad. The game feels a whole lot less immersive, than previous games in the series, cause of that.
    3. There's a mod (called "Removable Districts") that lets you construct a project to "remove a district". Its not the best system, but works well enough for when you take over an AI's land and need to get rid of all the encampments and religious districts.
     
  14. King of Prussia

    King of Prussia Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    254
    I have come to liking the new builder system. It's not too much of a micromanagement thing where i have to baby sit them all the time. It adds more decisions into your build order. I kinda have to agree with Ed that any system that you just automate and not care about anymore isn't a great system. Needing a handful of workers for the entire game wasn't that deep strategy wise. Of course, you could make the argument that in the late game, if the game is already more or less won, having less things to build/manage as you click away is a time saver.

    The art style is pretty good. It was over the top imo when the game was first being shown off, but they toned it down. They have done a great job overall.

    Removing districts would rarely be useful. With the way things cost, unless you got a major boost to replace a district or got a "refund" on some of the cost(probably really exploitable. see farms and neighborhoods), replacing it in the mid to late game just isn't worth the time. You are better off spending those hammers on buildings, new districts, projects, units, or wonders. This would probably only be used in your core cities when certain districts are no longer needed or conquered cities that were poorly planned out by the AI, .


    On a side note, idc for the argument that something is like a mobile game.(a very broad generalization of every mobile game out there) That implies anything that is in, looks like, or similar to anything in a mobile game is bad. If you don't like something, that is fine. Using the it's like a mobile game! reasoning doesn't hold any water to me. Just say the art style doesn't fit your taste or the building is to fast/clicky or whatever reason you dont like it.
     
  15. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,587
    You say that, but then I look at the cartoon Civ IV Egyptian of your forum avatar. Are you sure it's not just a matter of what you are used to?
     
    Ondolindë, Elhoim and Stilgar08 like this.
  16. Duuk

    Duuk Doom-Sayer Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,932
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    I don't like having to "build" a "builder" and then have them burn "charges", that annoys me to no end.

    I'll compromise. Have a builder unit that has to be built and as it walks around you have to spend a currency (I'd prefer a public works currency so you're forced to manage how much you want to dedicate to infrastructure vs science vs culture) to improve your territory. The builder unit isn't expended (but can be captured), so I don't need to worry about not having a builder when I need to repair something (bonus: make a public works cost to repair!) AND you add an extra tier of empire management.

    Win.
     
    mitsho, Elhoim and ChocolateShake like this.
  17. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,351
    Location:
    Toronto
    I was about to write up a similar proposal. The biggest hassle right now for builders for me is the need to optimize. So if I need a builder, I need to double-check which policy cards are in place, and then go see if my city with Liang is nearby enough, or just take the one less charge to deal with. Or I need to scroll through my empire to see which builders I have around, and most likely they have like 1 charge left while I need 2 or 3 for this area (maybe chop + mine). Just ends up being busy work a lot of the time. A system like that would also be able to charge different per improvement. So while right now the hockey rink and the farm cost the same, with that system maybe a farm is 50g and the hockey rink is 100g.
     
    Duuk likes this.
  18. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,587
    Isn't that exactly what great people do though? I don't see the issue.
     
  19. ChocolateShake

    ChocolateShake Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2016
    Messages:
    525
    Gender:
    Male
    I think that's a great idea. Maybe the currency could be gold? A public works one sounds interesting too.
     
  20. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,847
    Gender:
    Male
    Personally, I sorta despised the whole "paint the map" thing that existed in previous game where you have 10 builders hiding somewhere doing nothing. No I don't want to manually road either. Roading in V was painful since I know I was wasting gold if doing it wrong.
     

Share This Page