I finished a game as Gilgamesh last night and realized that there was nothing else I really wanted out of Civ 6. I deleted it. I might check in later after a patch or two, but I don't think Civ 6's big problems are patchable. I should say that I do not feel ripped off or aggrieved - I tried all of the civs at least once, and I won with every victory type. I had my fun and I think the developers did a good job, little things like the insane unit cycling notwithstanding. Maybe, as some have said on this board, the civilization concept is just a bit tired now. How could anyone make the concept fresh at this point? I feel compelled to share my thoughts as a kind of post mortem. 1) I know this is "settled law," but the way that naval units work sits wrong with me. I was chasing a damaged chariot unit across a frozen peninsula, and when they reached the coast, it just turned into a boat and sailed away. I saw them waving facetiously as they left. Where did these boats come from? Perhaps it would be better if units could embark and "turn into boats" only at harbors. If you launch an amphibious invasion, you cannot just call it off and go back to the ocean; it's capture a harbor or your units are gone. 2) Religion clearly needs to be reconceptualized. Needing to send hundreds of religious units across closed borders so they can convert ancient holy cities just makes no sense. I like the idea of a religious dimension to the game, but when I see a carpet of missionaries coming my way, I just sigh. A religious victory perhaps could consist of collecting X holy relics from each of the five world religions? This needs much more thought than it has received. 3) Most importantly: the sense of urgency is sorely lacking. Civ 4 had this sense of urgency throughout, at least until the game was in hand - you needed to get that second city; needed to get iron hooked up; needed to get those cottages in place as an investment in the future; needed to do the next thing until the game was over. Civ 5 didn't have it because you just needed four cities to win. Civ 6 doesn't have it because after the opening era (when the warmonger penalty is zero and the AI seems willing to start wars), wars only happen if the player starts them. And one always knows one will win because the AI cannot play the 1UPT game, and couldn't in Civ 5 either. (Given that the designer of Civ 5 admits that 1UPT was a failure, I don't understand why it was revived, almost completely unimproved, for Civ 6. There are so many possibilities available.) 4) Related to number 3: Eurekas make the tech tree go by too fast, and there's too much gold floating around, allowing anyone to build a flash army whenever needed, rather than building a strong defense and maintaining it. Because of the ample supplies of money, I can just buy great people at will by the midway point. My suggestion: Increase the upkeep per unit at higher levels dramatically. At the moment, it is possible to create an infinite-sized army consisting of slingers and warriors (and Sumerian war-carts if available) even at deity FOR FREE. If you add the "-1 Gold per unit" card, you can support an infinite army of warriors, slingers, spearmen, archers, galleys, chariots, and battering rams. Perhaps it could be like this: at the beginning of the game, at Prince or King, the first unit would be free. Second unit would cost 1 GPT. Third unit would cost 2 GPT. And so on. A big army, if you can produce it, would be expensive, even for lower difficulty levels. If you have seven units moving around in the ancient era, it would cost you 21 gold per turn. You can look at your balance and know whether you can afford to enlarge your army. If you don't have +7 gold for the eighth unit, you'll be running a deficit, and when you hit zero, your units will be disbanded. In later eras, the costs could be 1/2/3/4/5... and 2/3/4/5... instead of 0/1/2/3/4... Alternatively, I very much like the idea of armies as the only military unit - at the outset you get one or two armies with three to four slots, and these numbers would grow as your government matures - because it would solve the carpet of doom problem and yet make the military part of the game more strategic. (One army of just archers? One siege unit in each army? Interesting choices....) But I think this won't happen, even though it's not that far removed from the mechanics in place already. Farewell Civ 6, and for those who enjoy it, best wishes and carry on. I think I like reading your thoughts about the game more than playing it!