Just out of curiosity: What are you thinking about when you talk of "choice" in Civ6 - are you meaning no single strategy is optimal, or something else?
Like others have mentioned above, I think the comparison Civ5 to Civ6 is meaningful. I had expected Civ6 to come out as the clear winner after the 2nd expansion, but sadly, that is not how things have gone - in fact, the more I play Civ6, the less I feel it stands up to the previous iteration. Yes, it improves on some of 5's flaws, but it also has its own set of limitations, most importantly that there's much less variation between games in 6 than I felt there was in 5. In far the majority of my Civ6 games, I pick the same strategy, more or less the same tech path, the same governments, the same religious beliefs, and not least use the same policies. The latter is a real downer, because for all the lack of flexibility in Civ5's social policy trees, they offered a real variation between games (at least after being what I felt was balanced through some of the mods I used). I could pick a certain civ, and depending on whether I opened with Tradition, Liberty or Honor, and followed with Piety, Patronage, Aesthetics or Commerce, the game would evolve in radically different directions. 5's system was not perfect - for a starter, all policy trees could have had the "pick a subset" mechanism of the latter Ideologies to offer even more variation and customization between games - but it's better than Civ6, where I will find myself switching in an out of the same about dozen or so policies throughout the game in every single game, with quite little variation.
To improve Civ6, I think they need to make the policies fewer and more general, and then make it so you can only switch on special occasions - like when entering a new era, and additionally when changing to a different government - to prevent the cheesy switch-in, switch-out strategies.
That confuses me heavily. Are you just going into MR when you're putting out faith? Are you taken Crusade/Defender of the Faith if you're not at war. Are you picking Oligarchy when not at war? Are you archer rushing a nonexistent neighbor?
In a game where nobody can agree on what to build first, I really don't think every game plays the same; rather people choose to play the same.
I mean I agree that some things are really poorly balanced like religious beliefs as 80% of them are useless and pantheons sotta (but even pantheons can be a debate if the no-brainer Religious Settlements are taken)
I also don't think I ever take the same set of cards every game either.
There is always an optimal strategy when you refine it down but when there is such contention purely about the opening moves there is clearly some choice involved.
Civ VI is not perfect but I tend to find the opposite of what you are saying. In V there were certain things that seemed much more repetitive.
In VI I feel more able to do what I want and there is more mechanics to keep me amused. Yes they often are just different flavours of the same thing but overall I find it richer, more diverse and more contentious. ever played with Conquistadors? RNDY, Sugaba? ... all make the civ play quite differently.
Me neither
Is Civ 6 repetitive?
No, not at all.
Civ 5’s repetitive “four city tradition rush national college” sounds a little overblown to me. From what I’ve read and seen, that may have been nearly always the most
optimal approach, but it sounds like other approaches were viable.
Bit regardless, I completed agree with
@Archon_Wing and
@Victoria that Civ 6 games are much more situational. If you are playing well, maybe even efficiently, then you really are forced to adapt. I basically play the same Civ with the same map settings at the same difficulty every game (England, C&I, Immortal, D3), and I never have two games that play the same way.
But there is some nuance to that. First, there are some beats that are the same in most games. I’m nearly always pushing for 8-10 Cities by turn 100; I’m nearly always rushing to feudalism, and it Recorded History etc. But the timing and the order varies, and that’s more about key goals and the real question is how you reach those goals.
Second, yes, I do research the same techs and try to hit the same Eurekas every game, but it’s not really repetitive. I mean, I’ll research Masonary every game, and I’ll always try to build a quarry first. But I’m always going to want quarries, and why and when I research Masonary changes (sometimes I need walls early, sometimes I need rams, sometimes I need none of these and I get to it much later and sometimes I have no quarries and have to hard tech it). I certainly don’t have a set order or timing of doing things. It’s much more variable.
(The Era system also maybe pushes towards some repetitive play. I basically always have to build a flipping galley for the +2. But even that’s not too bad. Most things that earn era score are things I would do anyway, so Era is really more about opportunity and timing. I mean, I’ll always want to clear this barb camp, but do I do it now and potentially waste Era Score, or delay until it’s optimal but risk the camp spawning out of control or someone else clearing it?)
Third, because the challenge level is relatively low, you can get away with playing the same way every game. Added to that, if you get fixated on certain plays (I must always build colloseum) then, yeah, games will be similar. But if you play the same way every game you’re going to have a lot of games where you’re really grinding because your play isn’t at all efficient or optimal, and you may just get smashed by the AI or lag. Basically, to play well, you need to adapt, but the game doesn’t usually massively punish you for not playing well.
Social Policies v Culture Tree
I’ve said above that I think the lack of something like a Social Policies tree is a big difference between Civ 5 and 6. But I wanted to add one thing.
I don’t think the Civ 6 culture tree really replaces Civ 5 Social Policies. Sure, SPs were made to run on culture and filled in the role of “governments” and “social institutions”, but really it was a mechanism for changing and specialising your empire (IMO). Indeed, I think that’s why it didn’t work as a stand in for government / institutions because “changing and specialising your empire” is very different and inherently inflexible.
Basically, I think Civ 6 has a proper government and policy system - and Civ 5 basically didn’t. But Civ 5 had a system for changing and adapting your empire, and that’s something key that Civ 6 is missing.
Really, every version of Civ other than Civ 5 (to a degree) has treated social institutions as a kind of technology (which they are). The only thing Civ 6 did was put this technology in its own separate tree. Social Policies just aren’t an equivalent to this, whatever there pros and cons.
They may be called the same, but they work so differently, they are really completely different systems. Social Policies in Civ V are permanent bonuses you get to choose as you reach certain culture tresholds. This is not unique to Civ V, several strategy games have this, and most have more apt names for the systems: in Beyond Earth, it is called "Virtues", in Stellaris, it's "Traditions", and in Europa Universalis, it's "National Ideas". The concept should also be familiar for RPG players, as Social Policies in Civ V are very similar to what you would call "Perks". This is nothing at all like Social Policies in Civ VI, which are basically ways to customize your governement.
