Civ VI Civs - Failing in Uniqueness

[steveg700]

You also minimize ability types to "X condition Y reward", when some of the best Civ abilities are unconditional, and the reward is that you can break through the typical actions in the game. They allow you to DO things that are unique. There's a big "fun factor" difference between getting to settle islands effectively (Indonesia), in a way that no other Civ can, versus the suggestion that you should make your cities happier to get something (Scotland). Too many abilities just suggest that you perform the same actions in slightly different ways to get things.

I'm not saying every Civ needs this type of thing, but in my opinion the game needs to break open from its own mold. Something like a movable Mongolian encampment, as some posters were hoping for, seems forever out of the question at this rate. Most of the new Civs now just feel like SQL injection mods, like the developers aren't willing to touch their own base code.

Yeah, Indonesia is a reasonable example of a civ that opens doors for the player to try something they'd normally be averse to. The tentpole is the kampong, which encourages players to build where they normally wouldn't. Similar to Russia's ability to use tundra. But the kampong is interesting strategically not just because you "can" build it on water, but you "must" build it on water. Structure lends itself to interesting choices, and structure means boundaries.

That's the divide in the camps I mentioned. The golden hammer camp doesn't want the boundaries. They just want empowerment so they can do whatever they want without having to make choices. On the other hand, the rapier camp is looking to achieve mastery within a framework.

Contrast that to the goofy golf course in Scottland. Where can you build a golf course? It might be restrictive, but probably pretty much anywhere. So, the design of the civ is "Bonuses when you're happy. Here's a tile improvement that makes you happier. You know what to do." Scottland would have made for a more interesting civ had they just left the player to figure out how to get happier. Amenities are a mechanism for checking growth, and players aren't going to check growth to get bonuses to science and production, as that's counter-productive. So, Scottland will lean on a strategy that incorporates building entertainment centers and plopping golf courses around them. Little in the way of structure and boundaries, so it doesn't lend itself to interesting choices.

 

[bdp612]

The fact that fun is subjective is at the root of why this thread's argument is flawed. People are trying to portray a personal problem as a universal one.

Ah man, don't make me reference my first post again. Check the disclaimer. I literally included a disclaimer. It's not a premise that I'm submitting as infallable, it's an admittedly subjective point of discussion.

I did not portray my issues as universal game design flaws, but it's clearly not coming out of nowhere either, as you already know from the reactions to certain Civ reveals, and as you can read from other replies in this thread.

Maybe I shouldn't have used Scotland as an example and left you open to highlight them again. Scotland is alright, it's pretty well designed in my opinion (do I have to say IMO every time now?). It's certainly not the cause of my problems with the overall Civ designs. Yet out of the eight abilities you detail in your two posts, only one has the weight to make me choose a Civ on its own, and that is the Kampung. You can compare it to Golf Courses if you want, and say they are just as fun or unique. I don't feel the same.

The Golf Course might make make me influence my district placement a little (a puzzle itself which is not rare in the game). I would choose it over a farm. A Kampung will allow me to have fun playing on teenie wittle islands in the middle of the ocean. Settling in locations other Civs can't settle in = I will always come back to this Civ. Five years from now, when I am anxiously awaiting Civ VII, I will still say "I feel like a Kampung night." I will not say "I feel like a slight boost to my internal trade routes" night.

Listen, Civ is a game full of nuance, and I love it. It's why I'm not on the Call of Duty forums. I play at high levels because I like it to feel difficult, not easy, and I understand the nuances and impacts of the non-splashy abilities, which I don't believe should be removed. Oh yeah, and I like Civ VI more than I like Civ V. I'm not pining for some lost, forgotten time when it all was working. To really summarize, I just believe there should be far more Civs with unique, Kampung-level effects on game play.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I can't really agree. How many civs in this game play the same way really? Aztecs is very different, China is very different, England is pretty different, Germany is pretty unique, I'd even say both Greek leaders play differently...

With a few exceptions of bad design, there aren't many redundant civilizations.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

I did not portray my issues as universal game design flaws, but it's clearly not coming out of nowhere either, as you already know from the reactions to certain Civ reveals, and as you can read from other replies in this thread.

Yet out of the eight abilities you detail in your two posts, only one has the weight to make me choose a Civ on its own, and that is the Kampung. You can compare it to Golf Courses if you want, and say they are just as fun or unique. I don't feel the same.

The Golf Course might make make me influence my district placement a little (a puzzle itself which is not rare in the game). I would choose it over a farm. A Kampung will allow me to have fun playing on teenie wittle islands in the middle of the ocean. Settling in locations other Civs can't settle in = I will always come back to this Civ. Five years from now, when I am anxiously awaiting Civ VII, I will still say "I feel like a Kampung night." I will not say "I feel like a slight boost to my internal trade routes" night.

These issue are coming from people's entirely unreasonable expectations. They want more civs and they want each of those civs to have more bonuses and they want each of those bonuses to be entirely unique and unlike anything any other civ can do and they want those bonuses to pander specifically to their own preferred playstyles and not the preferred playstyles of other people.

It's great that you enjoy civs that reward you for settling in suboptimal terrain. You're definitely not the only person who feels that way, which is why we keep seeing civilizations like Russia, Nubia, and Indonesia. But that playstyle does not have universal appeal. There is nothing inherently more "unique", "creative", "innovative", "flashy", or "fun" about designing a civ with that kind of bonus than there is designing a civ with casus belli bonuses, culture bomb bonuses, or any of the myriad of other bonus categories that are present in the design of multiple civs. It only seems better because that's how you enjoy playing the game.

 

[UWHabs]

These issue are coming from people's entirely unreasonable expectations. They want more civs and they want each of those civs to have more bonuses and they want each of those bonuses to be entirely unique and unlike anything any other civ can do and they want those bonuses to pander specifically to their own preferred playstyles and not the preferred playstyles of other people.

It's great that you enjoy civs that reward you for settling in suboptimal terrain. You're definitely not the only person who feels that way, which is why we keep seeing civilizations like Russia, Nubia, and Indonesia. But that playstyle does not have universal appeal. There is nothing inherently more "unique", "creative", "innovative", "flashy", or "fun" about designing a civ with that kind of bonus than there is designing a civ with casus belli bonuses, culture bomb bonuses, or any of the myriad of other bonus categories that are present in the design of multiple civs. It only seems better because that's how you enjoy playing the game.

Yeah, you can't have 40 civs with 40 completely unique playstyles. I do think the way they position the bonuses, each civ does have a sort of "target" style, and it's enough that if you're not fully min-maxing, you can choose. So I'll often sit down and think, "Do I want to play a water map or not? Do I want a religion game or not? Early rush or not?" and with pretty much any combo of choices, there's a civ that sort of fits that playstyle.

Of course, that being said, I do think they could have gone a little further to make the uniques more special. So while a few of the UI are situationally strong enough to be fun (Ziggurat and Stepwell as two examples - while the stepwell may not be the strongest UI at least it's got a unique style to it), a few of them are just not strong enough to really alter your style. The Kurgan is a prime example of that. Yeah, it can give you a little faith early on, but it's the sort of UI that I build one or two early, but basically ignore later since it's pretty much useless. Not like Scythia needs a lot of bonuses, but it still feels like they could have done more with it. I don't know exactly what, but you can experiment with options. Maybe it becomes a tile improvement that gives great people points? Or increases GPP for neighbouring districts? Or provides loyalty? Or even have one civ with a UI that doesn't cost a builder charge, so that you can literally spam it on every tile for free. I don't know, but it definitely feels like they can do more with a few "unique" items to increase the flavour.

 

[steveg700]

Ah man, don't make me reference my first post again. Check the disclaimer. I literally included a disclaimer. It's not a premise that I'm submitting as infallable, it's an admittedly subjective point of discussion.

I did not portray my issues as universal game design flaws, but it's clearly not coming out of nowhere either, as you already know from the reactions to certain Civ reveals, and as you can read from other replies in this thread.

I can posit that "Fifty Shades" is an awful novel/movie/franchise, and then proceed to explain why it's awful. Someone else can come along and dismissively posit that my criticisms are based on an unrealistic standard, note all the people who paid good money to see it, and ultimately push an equivocal position that no movie can be better than any other movie because quality is in the eye of the beholder. Should I engage this equivocation, or just stick to engaging discussion with those who want to listen to what I have to say enough to appreciate that there's a distinction between that which is subjective and that which is arbitrary?

Can't win everyone over. No need to either.

 

[Havendish]

My suggestion would be to make abilities and uniques more potent and advantageous, while at the same time adding a single disadvantage to each civ (or leader, or both) to balance things out while making the gameplay much more enthralling.

For example, let's look at Egypt.
(some of these bonuses and uniques are/were already included by Firaxis)

EGYPT:
Bonuses:
- bonus from Desert and Flood Plain terrain (food and/or commerce)
- 50% production output in city building The Great Pyramids (making it much easier for Egyptians to build the de facto, Egyptian great wonder)
- Sphinx Unique National Wonder - with specific boost for the civ when built.
- War Chariot - A Ranged weapon Ancient Era Unique Military Unit. Replaces Chariot. Less accurate than regular Archer but much faster movement and fires-lets arrows loose- twice as quickly as generic archer. Also, weaker than Chariot in melee combat.
-25% bonus toward all wonder production in cities, but only during the Ancient and Classical Eras.
- Religious - boost for all faith producing buildings
-Magi - Ancient Unique Religious Unit. Boosts Loyalty when present in Egyptian City.

Disadvantages:
- Tundra terrain (any cold climate terrain) - due to Egyptians being warm weather people. Units die if stopped on Tundra, can't even build roads there...
- Polytheistic Devotion - whenever a Great Religion is found (or becomes a majority religion in a city) a period of Civil Unrest will occur, lasting a few turns, depending on city size. No production gained during this time and an existing building (or more than 1 building) may get destroyed during this time by the angry mob.

I could come up with such stuff for each Civ and likely add more to Egypt later, just skipping my mind now.

This would mean more immersive and unique game play, don't you think?

 

[bdp612]

I can posit that "Fifty Shades" is an awful movie, and then proceed to explain why it's awful. Someone else can come along and dismissively posit that my criticisms are based on an unrealistic standard, note all the people who paid good money to see it, and ultimately push an equivocal position that no movie can be better than any other movie because quality is in the eye of the beholder. Should I engage this equivocation, or just stick to engaging discussion with those who want to listen to what I have to say enough to appreciate that there's a distinction between that which is subjective and that which is arbitrary?

Can't win everyone over. No need to either.

You're right. Thanks for the reset.

EGYPT:
Bonuses:
- bonus from Desert and Flood Plain terrain (food and/or commerce)
- 50% production output in city building The Great Pyramids (making it much easier for Egyptians to build the de facto, Egyptian great wonder)
- Sphinx Unique National Wonder - with specific boost for the civ when built.
- War Chariot - A Ranged weapon Ancient Era Unique Military Unit. Replaces Chariot. Less accurate than regular Archer but much faster movement and fires-lets arrows loose- twice as quickly as generic archer. Also, weaker than Chariot in melee combat.
-25% bonus toward all wonder production in cities, but only during the Ancient and Classical Eras.
- Religious - boost for all faith producing buildings
-Magi - Ancient Unique Religious Unit. Boosts Loyalty when present in Egyptian City.

Disadvantages:
- Tundra terrain (any cold climate terrain) - due to Egyptians being warm weather people. Units die if stopped on Tundra, can't even build roads there...
- Polytheistic Devotion - whenever a Great Religion is found (or becomes a majority religion in a city) a period of Civil Unrest will occur, lasting a few turns, depending on city size. No production gained during this time and an existing building (or more than 1 building) may get destroyed during this time by the angry mob.

I could come up with such stuff for each Civ and likely add more to Egypt later, just skipping my mind now.

This would mean more immersive and unique game play, don't you think?

That's what I'm talking about! Cool stuff dude. A little injection of creativity and uniqueness for each Civ. And new game play elements. A unique national wonder, specific units that boost loyalty, tile-specific disadvantages, world events causing unique disadvantages. To answer your question, yeah, this is an engaging approach, and for this specific example of Egypt, some combination of these would make me interested in them again.

I especially like the idea of Civs having advantages for their de factor wonder.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

Someone else can come along and dismissively posit that my criticisms are based on an unrealistic standard, note all the people who paid good money to see it, and ultimately push an equivocal position that no movie can be better than any other movie because quality is in the eye of the beholder.

Seems like projection to me.

I can't figure out what you're on about with all this "golden hammer" talk anyway. You claim that the best designed civs are the ones that make you work for you bonuses instead of just giving them to you for free, but then you list Greece as an example. Greece, one of the few civs in the game that not only gives you a huge bonus right at the very beginning but also makes it so easy to get that you literally cannot choose not to get it, even if you wanted to. How is Plato's Republic not more of a hammer than any of the bonuses Scotland gets?

 

[Cagarustus]

First of all, to those who say that ‘the Civ ability doesn’t match the time or era of the leader’, I say that the civ ability is not supposed to reflect the leader. That’s why there are 2 abilities.

The civ ability is supposed to, IMO, reflect the defining features of the civ - eg it’s supposed to transcend all leaders.

Scottish Enlightenment makes total sense: this is a defining characteristic of the totality of the Scottish civilization. British Museum in my view doesn’t reflect this.

 

[steveg700]

First of all, to those who say that ‘the Civ ability doesn’t match the time or era of the leader’, I say that the civ ability is not supposed to reflect the leader. That’s why there are 2 abilities.

The civ ability is supposed to, IMO, reflect the defining features of the civ - eg it’s supposed to transcend all leaders.

Scottish Enlightenment makes total sense: this is a defining characteristic of the totality of the Scottish civilization. British Museum in my view doesn’t reflect this.

I don't think this is topical to this particular thread, but yes, I think it's kind of self-evident that the leader ability represents the leader's campaigns and accomplishments. As the whole point of this design is to be able to alternate leaders and bring in new abilities, while the rest of the civilization's assets remains a fixed constant, doesn't make much sense to me to think that anything other than that leader ability should be focused on one era.

But I think folks' complaint went beyond just the era, and more to do with profound shifts in identity that almost represent a different civ. I'm not Scottophile, but for a more dramatic example, consider if there was an America or Canada civ that rolled indigenous tribes in as a unique unit at a pre-colonial era.

Though like I said, era-propriety isn't really the issue here.

 

[newbie2]

Thats one of the things that make Endless Legend such a good game, on par with Civ

 

[God of Kings]

My suggestion would be to make abilities and uniques more potent and advantageous, while at the same time adding a single disadvantage to each civ (or leader, or both) to balance things out while making the gameplay much more enthralling.

For example, let's look at Egypt.
(some of these bonuses and uniques are/were already included by Firaxis)

EGYPT:
Bonuses:
- bonus from Desert and Flood Plain terrain (food and/or commerce)
- 50% production output in city building The Great Pyramids (making it much easier for Egyptians to build the de facto, Egyptian great wonder)
- Sphinx Unique National Wonder - with specific boost for the civ when built.
- War Chariot - A Ranged weapon Ancient Era Unique Military Unit. Replaces Chariot. Less accurate than regular Archer but much faster movement and fires-lets arrows loose- twice as quickly as generic archer. Also, weaker than Chariot in melee combat.
-25% bonus toward all wonder production in cities, but only during the Ancient and Classical Eras.
- Religious - boost for all faith producing buildings
-Magi - Ancient Unique Religious Unit. Boosts Loyalty when present in Egyptian City.

Disadvantages:
- Tundra terrain (any cold climate terrain) - due to Egyptians being warm weather people. Units die if stopped on Tundra, can't even build roads there...
- Polytheistic Devotion - whenever a Great Religion is found (or becomes a majority religion in a city) a period of Civil Unrest will occur, lasting a few turns, depending on city size. No production gained during this time and an existing building (or more than 1 building) may get destroyed during this time by the angry mob.

I could come up with such stuff for each Civ and likely add more to Egypt later, just skipping my mind now.

This would mean more immersive and unique game play, don't you think?

You make excellent proposals. I like the idea that every civ needs to have a major disadvantage in order for each civ to be more unique in flavour.

 

[ToothedBomb]

EGYPT:
Bonuses:
- bonus from Desert and Flood Plain terrain (food and/or commerce)
- 50% production output in city building The Great Pyramids (making it much easier for Egyptians to build the de facto, Egyptian great wonder)
- Sphinx Unique National Wonder - with specific boost for the civ when built.
- War Chariot - A Ranged weapon Ancient Era Unique Military Unit. Replaces Chariot. Less accurate than regular Archer but much faster movement and fires-lets arrows loose- twice as quickly as generic archer. Also, weaker than Chariot in melee combat.
-25% bonus toward all wonder production in cities, but only during the Ancient and Classical Eras.
- Religious - boost for all faith producing buildings
-Magi - Ancient Unique Religious Unit. Boosts Loyalty when present in Egyptian City.

Disadvantages:
- Tundra terrain (any cold climate terrain) - due to Egyptians being warm weather people. Units die if stopped on Tundra, can't even build roads there...
- Polytheistic Devotion - whenever a Great Religion is found (or becomes a majority religion in a city) a period of Civil Unrest will occur, lasting a few turns, depending on city size. No production gained during this time and an existing building (or more than 1 building) may get destroyed during this time by the angry mob.

I think you're going about this the wrong way. You're just adding even more unique traits, which would just confuse me as the player. You're also forcing a playstyle based on the geography of a civ, for example. That's going against the very spirit of the game, which works off of a "what if" scenario. I think it's much better to give each civ a simple, but big bonus to one thing they're known for. The Inca's movement in Civ V in hills is an example of this, or the Shoshone's ability to pick rewards from huts.

If I had to come up with traits for new civs for this expansion, I'd maybe introduce a civ that relies heavily on population (building military units eats up population, but the civ has bonuses towards food and housing to offset this) or a civ that has access to a unique governor (you could have Shaka as a unique governor for the Zulu for example, which no other civ can get) or a civ focused on GP, that has a unique building or TI that can hold great works, or give them some other ways to spend GP. Basically using mechanics that are already there, and adding a spin to them. I think that's what we need.

 

[Stringer1313]

I really like the Civs so far in Civ6. I try and play as a different one each time and usually it changes how I play the game in some way so I would say they are unique. I think they are more unique than the ones in 5. Also when a new Civ is released and is OP people complain they are to easy to play with and to powerful etc. So Firaxis tone it down and try not to have OP Civs and people complain they are not unique. Seems they cannot win...
What I would l like to see is more unique diplomacy with different Civs. It's always the same thing and I get quite bored of the diplomacy in the base game. I think in Civ5 alliances etc were far more interesting and useful. I'm hoping R&F will solve this problem

Yeah I hear what everyone is saying and I'm all for more flavorful uniques but for some reason the little bonuses don't bother me. It gives me a variety of subtle tools i can exploit in different situations to gain an edge, and it still fits the roleplaying aspect too. And I do think that a lot of the Civ 6 civs have a unique and flavorful edge.

I guess I feel like I agree all the civs could use some flavor especially certain ones but i'm not as upset about it as others seem to be

 

[Trengilly]

EGYPT:
Bonuses:
- bonus from Desert and . . .

The issue I have with that set of bonuses is that is FORCES Egypt to play the same way every game - build Pyramids and other ancient wonders. Forced to play in the same terrain, etc.

It would be really fun - once.

I think they are really doing a nice job with the civs and have provided lots of interesting civs for everyone. I've even seen someone post that they only play religious victories and always play with a handful of the religious civs. Not my thing (or most others either) but I'm glad there is something for everyone.

Most civs have 2 or 3 areas of focus for their abilities - sometimes you can use one, another game two, and once in a while you hit the jackpot and all the civs bonuses come into play. It makes for much more variety.

 

[clapyourhands]

I still think that overall Civ VI civs are stronger than V. It’s just that the bonuses are smaller over the long term than larger in a short time period. This makes them feel weaker, because it’s difficult to notice something that gradually increases over many turns, and also feel less rewarding, because either the bonus is inherent and requires little player interaction, or the bonus you get for fulfilling the conditions is strong only in the long term (ie: small but consistent long term yield boosts), in which case it feels unrewarding at the time of achievement.

 

[Goliht]

I have a tendency to play random civs, so sometimes I get a decent civ sometimes are horrible one, but I play them until it's obvious either I'll win or loose, sometimes even to that point. Civ 6, has clearly been designed to micro manage, no build queue in vanilla is a good indicator of this. They want you to do manual turns, the build specialised cities, with exact and specific districts.

With the expansion the emphesis will continue to specialising. At the moment we have zoos and stadiums, factories and power plants, wonders that expand out to 4-6 tiles or what it actually is.. that's what they want us to play.

Me I just spam everything down.. factories in every soldier building city, the other cities just build science and commercials. Later on everyone gets an entertainment complex. Usually.. a few harbours here and there the odd airport. I doubt I've ever played civ the way firaxis want me to.

The idea behind Scottish Enlightenment is a nice compliment I guess to our country.. yes we invented many things, we're currently world leaders in research in bio weapons and drug research.. in engineering, medical and so forth. All in our little country. We're also very warlike, our infantry carry medals, flags and awards from the times of early kings and queens before many countries in the eu or americas even existed, there's a proud history there as well, reflected maybe in the highlander as a scout..and there's golf courses..doesn't matter where you go in scotland, there is probably 5-6 golf courses in every single town over 10k people. They are literally everywhere, in ayrshire, strathclyde, fife, lothian, grampian, argyll, sutherland and I'd not be surprise if they're even in the hebrides. So yeh, we play golf too.. they could equally have us buildling football stadiums or shinty pitches, given us the highland games or some little entertainment addon to reflect a cèilidh. (yeh I had to google the spelling)

But overall it's an ok civ, very specialised esp with emphesis on alliances etc. Be interesting to see how it actually works out and if macedonia or greece won't backstab me within the first 20 turns.. on marathon, similar to france etc..

The art of civ, is fine tuning and balancing a civ to maximise different aspects of the game, usually with the aim to somehow winning. But they mostly seem mutually exclusive.. go for science, can't build wonders, same for religion.. go for early wonders, can't expand.. can't have an army.. have to deal with greedy civs in early wars.. and so on. Some civs are more geared towards different win situations, some are better depending on luck of the map generation.

I'm starting to write a book.. the long and short is the Civs are overpowered already in some respects, in others, not so much, but they are all fun to play. Except maybe spain, he's just fun to play against.. but only when he's angry.

As for future improvements.. I'd like builders that argue with me.. like refuse to go further than 4 tiles from a city.. little !@# above their heads.. I'd like to hear, as in an actual scream in the distance from ai's that are 1 turn from building a wonder I've just built.. stuff like that. I'd like to tell my scouts to only explore the land.. explaining to them that if I need the icebergs explored.. I'll send the titanic. Only mine won't sink.

 

[valerislysander]

I have a tendency to play random civs, so sometimes I get a decent civ sometimes are horrible one, but I play them until it's obvious either I'll win or loose, sometimes even to that point. Civ 6, has clearly been designed to micro manage, no build queue in vanilla is a good indicator of this. They want you to do manual turns, the build specialised cities, with exact and specific districts.

With the expansion the emphesis will continue to specialising. At the moment we have zoos and stadiums, factories and power plants, wonders that expand out to 4-6 tiles or what it actually is.. that's what they want us to play.

Me I just spam everything down.. factories in every soldier building city, the other cities just build science and commercials. Later on everyone gets an entertainment complex. Usually.. a few harbours here and there the odd airport. I doubt I've ever played civ the way firaxis want me to.

The idea behind Scottish Enlightenment is a nice compliment I guess to our country.. yes we invented many things, we're currently world leaders in research in bio weapons and drug research.. in engineering, medical and so forth. All in our little country. We're also very warlike, our infantry carry medals, flags and awards from the times of early kings and queens before many countries in the eu or americas even existed, there's a proud history there as well, reflected maybe in the highlander as a scout..and there's golf courses..doesn't matter where you go in scotland, there is probably 5-6 golf courses in every single town over 10k people. They are literally everywhere, in ayrshire, strathclyde, fife, lothian, grampian, argyll, sutherland and I'd not be surprise if they're even in the hebrides. So yeh, we play golf too.. they could equally have us buildling football stadiums or shinty pitches, given us the highland games or some little entertainment addon to reflect a cèilidh. (yeh I had to google the spelling)

But overall it's an ok civ, very specialised esp with emphesis on alliances etc. Be interesting to see how it actually works out and if macedonia or greece won't backstab me within the first 20 turns.. on marathon, similar to france etc..

The art of civ, is fine tuning and balancing a civ to maximise different aspects of the game, usually with the aim to somehow winning. But they mostly seem mutually exclusive.. go for science, can't build wonders, same for religion.. go for early wonders, can't expand.. can't have an army.. have to deal with greedy civs in early wars.. and so on. Some civs are more geared towards different win situations, some are better depending on luck of the map generation.

I'm starting to write a book.. the long and short is the Civs are overpowered already in some respects, in others, not so much, but they are all fun to play. Except maybe spain, he's just fun to play against.. but only when he's angry.

As for future improvements.. I'd like builders that argue with me.. like refuse to go further than 4 tiles from a city.. little !@# above their heads.. I'd like to hear, as in an actual scream in the distance from ai's that are 1 turn from building a wonder I've just built.. stuff like that. I'd like to tell my scouts to only explore the land.. explaining to them that if I need the icebergs explored.. I'll send the titanic. Only mine won't sink.

This is so true, I actually think lately that I play the game as not intended By adding a Mod like CQUI I sometimes feel you lose the actual direction and motives of the game that Firaxis intended. So you add the build queue and you add the builder lense this is essentially turning the game back to Civ5 where you would spam out Workers (put them on auto) and Queue buildings up. Civ6 is supposed to make you think more with district placement, which tiles to work, adjacency bonuses, city specialisation, what to produce at a specific times and force you to come back to cities. They want you to do this to immerse you more in your Civ and the map. The problem has been that the late game becomes a micro managing slog (where I really want that queue) but I hope this new expansion adds much more to the late game and makes it more worthwhile to micro manage things.

 

[moors]

How do you like this one ?

Civilization: Turkey

Leader: Ataturk

Leader Bonuses
Public Sovereignty: Leaves a good first impression on every leader. Can change policies anytime without paying gold if the government is a classical republic, merchant republic or democracy. Foreign religious units initiate mutual migration of people with different beliefs and the followers of the religion they belong to instead of spreading religion to Turkey, only potentially helping with the spread of religious pressure. After the discovery of nationalism, receives the great general Mustafa Kemal. Mustafa Kemal also delivers +3 science and +2 culture bonus to the Turkish city he is on a tile of while Turkey is not in a war.

Leader Agenda
Kemalism: Strives to be in the newest era among the civilizations. Likes peaceful civilizations who never invaded Turkey. Does not give up on a tile that was once inside Turkey.

Civilization Ability
Nomadic Origins: Units can move inside the borders of other civilizations without open borders as peaceful visitors(without declaring a war and removing citizens from tiles or changing terrain features...) until the discovery of nationalism. War weariness does not increase for battles fought within borders or cities that were once yours. While a military unit of a warmongering enemy is inside the borders of Turkey and within 10 turns of losing a city, Turkey gets +50% production bonus towards military units.

Unique Tile Improvement
Village Institutes: Provides +2 Food. Can be built anywhere a farm can be built if it also does not have an appeal above uninviting. When next to a campus, theater square, industrial zone, commercial hub or harbor, and/or neighbourhood or aqueduct, receives the adjacency bonuses +1 science, culture, production, gold, and/or housing respectively.

Unique Building
Parliament: Becomes available after the discovery of political philosophy and provides double the amount of everything a palace provides. The government must be a classical republic, merchant republic or democracy for it to be built. When built, the palace becomes obsolete and the capital becomes where parliament is. Costs 150 production and does not require maintenance.

Unique Unit
Nusret: Turkish unique industrial era naval unit. Requires steam power research to be completed. Carries a naval mine that can be mined on or removed from water tiles using a full turn. Nusret can also go to a Turkish or ally city to replenish with a new naval mine. Turkish units except Nusrets and allies can not enter those tiles and the mines can not be seen by units of the countries who are not allies. There is a small chance that the units won’t hit the mine and the mine does a varying degree of damage between destroying the whole unit and reducing 20 health points when they are hit. (Let's say an expected damage value of 50 health for each susceptible unit entering the water tile with a mine) 5 movement points, 40 melee strength, 380 production base cost, 6 gold base maintenance cost. Upgrades to destroyer.

Music: March of Izmir
(Sth like

)