Both of which are true of luxuries as well. The issue isn't with the intent of health, or the intent of making bonus resources relevant for more than tile yields, just with the implementation. Duplicating a happiness system already heavy on forced micromanagement with limited ways to manage it does nothing to add depth or strategic diversity to the game. Strange, my sense is almost the exact reverse. Building in Civ IV was tedious - a paint-by-numbers approach to choosing a resource to specialise a city in and building all the associated +X% buildings, with no real thought associated with it beyond city placement. Unfortunately Civ VI's bland build order-based districts replicate the worst of this system - everything has to be built in a set order. I don't mind the idea of prerequisites, but rigid RTS-like build orders where you have to build up your city one tier at a time doesn't allow real decision-making. Civ V was not innocent of this, but at least come BNW the different resource chains worked in slightly different ways (within the commerce chain the individual buildings did as well - markets boosted trade route income while banks gave a straight gold bonus), and you could make more generalised cities at need without being forced down the rigid paths of Civ IV or Civ VI specialisation. Civ IV AIs were aggressive and seemingly only able to win via domination. At the same time Civ V in particular isn't rewarding as a wargame, since the AI can't compete militarily and is at its best in a race for peaceful victory conditions - something Civ IV's struggled to attain. Then again, I'd have liked Civ IV more as a wargame if building units hadn't been such a chore - even something as simple as being able to build by x5 or x10 would have help cut down on the RSI. Obviously that's entirely subjective - losing and retaking cities has felt that way to me since Civ 1. Civ IV's characterless overspecialised cities don't really give me reason to think of them differently - I lose a production hub and it can be disastrous, lose a duplicate resource city or GP farm probably not so much, but either way I'm only ever thinking of them in terms of their functional value as game pieces. I've played it on and off through the Civ V and Civ VI period mainly for comparison - uninteractive trade-screen diplomacy and the tediously repetitive nature of the game's micromanagement and (particularly) unit production have always put me off getting through a full session (when I've survived the early rushes), which is a shame as I know I'm not always getting to the meatier bits of the game. I don't even recall how much time I devoted to Civ IV when it was current - it's possible I played more Civ III in its day - but at least revisiting it it's never captured the 'Civ feel' especially well or made me fully understand why people rate it so much more highly than the other games, when at its best it simply feels functionally similar. I quite enjoyed my first full post-patch playthrough - but in part that may be because I had little exposure to some of the more annoying features of the game. For instance there's a discussion above about the religion spam, and although Poland was in my game no one seemed to be focusing particularly on religion and I saw only a few missionaries and apostles. Culture also wasn't a big issue - which ultimately flags a problem with both resources as the respective victory conditions don't meaningfully interact with the rest of the game's systems (culture in particular is all about accumulating a resource that has no purpose other than to act as a victory condition - at least my high faith output thanks to captured holy sites could be turned into Great People and occasionally religious buildings). But until they get fixed playing without them makes for better gameplay. I do agree that my barometer of the playthrough's success was that it felt more like Civ V than it had before - the assorted efforts to ape Civ IV feel like exactly that, and impositions on the Civ V framework, rather than recalling Civ IV's actual gameplay well. Then again, as I mentioned earlier in the thread I consider Civ IV an anomaly for the series - whatever its merits as a standalone game it doesn't, to me, have the 'true Civ' board game feel of the first two games, and this is where I felt Civ V succeeded. I routinely lost on the highest levels of Civ V to science victories - sometimes the AI would weirdly stall and move away from building ship components, but most of the time it was quite effective at pursuing the spaceship consistently. Civ VI seems to have inherited this, which is welcome, but the AI's inability to repair spaceports needs to be fixed. Either as a deliberate fix or as a consequence of decoupling spaceports from population in the patch, the AI now builds many more of them - but can still pursue projects in only one at a time (while each project is unique, a human player in a position to do so can accelerate spaceship production by building multiple Mars modules simultaneously) and still appears not to prioritise its spaceports for counterspying. The AI came worryingly close to winning the space race in my last game, but only because I realised late how far ahead they were. Ideally that mistake would have cost me the game - instead I was able to stall the AI essentially forever by destroying spaceports each time they came close to completing the final module. If the AI can't be programmed to repair districts, the chances to disrupt rocketry should be reduced (and possibly the Rocket Scientist promotion removed), and/or the AI programmed to prioritise spaceports over other targets for its own sabotage missions.