Civ VI is done. So how does Civ V look in comparison?

Yes I can and I do compare them. First of all, Firaxis has had 5 years to fix the AI in Civ VI - is that really "limited"? And the devs are being paid!

And why don't we have Vox Populi for Civ VI? Because Firaxis won't release the dll code.

And the mechanics the AI can't handle? Again, Firaxis made those choice which is POOR game design,

So let's not make excuses for Firaxis here.
Can Civ VI have a better AI? Yes, it can. Is it a poor Game Design to introduce mechanics that the AI can't handle very well? Yes, it is.

But is it a bad Choice for a Game Company to prioritise the Player Experience (that isn't necessarilly tied to a competitive AI, but maybe a passive one, which is the case for Civ VI) over a good and competitive AI? No. Because If the Game is good enough (engaging mechanisms/replayability), and made in such a way that the Player Experience isn't tied to a good AI, and perhaps also support Multiplayer, then the Game doesn't need a proper AI to make good Sells.
Which is the case for Civ VI, but also, because of its cartoonish art style and Board Game feeling, it is more appealing to new Players, especially younger ones. Civ VI is also a much better Game for Casual Players than Civ V (which I think is designed on Purpose by the Devs). And looking at the NFP Game Modes which are poorly handled by AI, but were a Success for Firaxis, it's the perfect example for this (a successful Game not needing a proper AI).

And just to be clear, I'm neither defending 2K/Firaxis for neglecting the AI nor I'm happy with Civ VI's current AI state. But I'm also not blaming 2K/Firaxis for making such Choices. Yes, we are expecting FXS to improve the AI, but It's not like they promised us a good AI for the Game but didn't deliver what was promised. On the other hand, Bugfixes and Gamebalance are rightfully expected from us, since we paid for a Game that should work as intended and not break now and then.

I'm also on the same Boat, that seemingly most of CivFanatics on this Forum are in, of People that won't Buy Civ VII till the Game is in a good state, in terms of Playability (Gameplay Design) and Modability.

Modders have less time to work then firaxis staff.
Modders have real jobs and obligations while firaxis programmers are being paid to do their job on a daily basis.

I don't know where this "Modders have more time to fix stuff" myth comes from.It is blatantly false and disrespectful toward people using up their free time to make mods.
I won't repeat what Gedemon already explained thoroughly, but add that even if Modders aren't paid for their work and have less Time to Mod (Yes, we have Duties, Work, Studies...etc), we can freely Plan our Modding Projects, work Together and also ask the Comunity for Playtesting while Mods are still in a WIP state. There are Modders that started their Modding Projects Months before they release the finished Mods.

It's not about the Amount of freetime we have, but about the periode of Time we have in order to finish a Project. In our case, its not an Issue, it's a matter of Time till a Mod is finished, but in the case of the Devs, it's limited. they have a limited Periode of Time and a fixed date to finish a Project. Which results in Devs making Priorities, such as: Making something really good (balance, AI, Bugs Fixes) but simple, or something deep and complex but not quite complete (no balance, many Bugs, poor to no AI decisions...etc).


That aside,
I really think that the Devs will be much more open in terms of Communication for Civ VII. especially since NFP and also because of the Humankind Approach durring it's developpement Time (which has proved that prerelease testings can be very advantageous). So I really think/hope that there is going to be open Beta testings for Civ VII.
 
The development cost of a better AI is not only about the cost in money, it's also about the cost in time.

You've seen the result with 1 programmer, but developing a better AI requires more time, not really more programmers, you need to lock the game's rules first then develop the AI for those.

Problem is the game's rules are not locked at release, they change with patches, balance, DLC, expansions. So the AI is programmed to be easily tweaked, at the cost of it being less specialized. It's also a requirement to work with mods.

Now that the development is ended, you can start working on an AI more specialized. But of course, the issue is also that the development has ended, meaning you can only rely on modders now to make it better.

Of course that doesn't excuse the state of the AI at the end of the development cycle, but explain why we have more time.
It is not time.
It is modern software development.
In the old days it was the main designer who also the programmer and the one making the ai.
Now the same role has been broken into a million small roles.The ai dev can have infinite time but won't do anything because he is not making the rules for the game and gets thrown a barely cubelled version of the game on a weekly/monthly basis.
It is not possible to make functioning ai with this development way.You can still try(like not making spelling errors screw the ai).
 
I recently played a few games of VI and explored the new optional modes, and to give the game another shot.

IV - I loved this game and played it often. I think it's the pinnacle of the original design (tiles, sliders, stacks of doom) - I like to think of it as the end of Series 1.
V - I liked the changes - hexes, 1UPT, Diplomacy, City States. It wasn't overly complex, and I thought the way the AI and leaders were programmed made for great emergent stories. I thought the systems worked well together and made for interesting choices most of the time. It's the entry in the series I'm most likely to play. I like the art style, and the original Art Deco design.
VI - I like districts and wonders taking up tiles outside of the city center. I love the large selection of cultures and leaders, though I don't like how bizarre leaders end up acting because of their focuses. Expanding the city radius and spreading out districts and wonders forces better planning and allows for more choices of actions in warfare and espionage. Unfortunately, I feel that many of the system don't work well together, and many of the additional choices presented to the player are uninteresting or irrelevant. I thought policy cards were great at first, but can't remember the last time they had much of an impact on a game I played. Most of the time I use a few cards, and having to switch them out or review new ones I'm not using feels like busywork. The World Council I think is a downgrade from Civ V - it's messy and if you guess right on votes (even if you don't spend favor) you can rack up significant VP's through luck. Religion feels more like a near constant total war - constantly having to churn out and manage Apostles to fight the Apostles of other religions. AI still unable to handle later eras - including severe AI diplomatic reactions to war (and an inability to make use of later military units) makes for a very boring endgame for me...I struggle to finish games once I get to the Industrial era. After VII comes out, I doubt I will revisit this game.

I hope, for VII, they combine the best of V and VI. Trim out the busywork systems, keep the expanded cities, move back to a Civ V style World Congress and do...something...with Religion.
 
@Lanthar I like your summary, even that IV was the natural evolution from II and III. Except did you play SMAC? It was so good. A different genre really, but it spoiled III and IV for me. On the other hand, IV (eventually) included enough modules that it kept me quite entertained. But that comes down to IV supporting modding like never before (or since).

I cannot reconcile the opinions of people who, like you, cannot be bothered to finish games (which was my experience), and the folks who prefer VI to V.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PiR
@beetle Thank you! I liked SMAC, and I liked a lot of things that were done with that game, but didn't mention it as this is a Civ-focused forum and SMAC so far has been a one shot game. It didn't ruin III or IV for me. III ruined itself for me with some of the aspects of II that got carried through plus the horrible corruption penalties III saddled your cities with.

To be clear, I have finished games in VI, but I struggle to do so. The endgame of VI hasn't improved (for me) from the vanilla release...I feel that it is a boring slog of busywork decisions that largely don't impact the ultimate outcome. There are even more things (like Rock Bands) that require more micromanagement that have been added in since the beginning. Since my gaming time isn't unlimited, the boring finishes are hard to keep going with.
 
We can't compare Modded Civ 5 with unmodded Civ VI. The Modders that made AI overhaul Mods, such as Vox Populi for CiV, were dedicated to that specific Project and spent all the Time needed to make such Mods. Something that we can't say about FXS AI Programmers, which have a limited Timeframe durring the developpement cycle to write the AI, and I also don't think that FXS's Focus durring that time is the AI. Which isn't a bad thing for a Company. The Civ Games will sell well anyway, even if AI isn't great (best example: Civ VI), at least as long as it isn't really dumb.

So we can't compare Modded Civ V with unmodded Civ VI, just like we can't compare a possible Civ VI Vox Populi with unmodded Civ 5 (especially since Civ VI has a much better Frame for that than CiV, and base Civ VI is basically CiV 2.0).

I think the Civ VI Problem with AI is that its Mechanics were not fully designed with AI under consideration (or was it and the Devs wanted to code the AI accordingly after they are finished with the Concepts, but didn't come to it because of Time Pressure and Priorities?). Nevertheless, I don't think that Civ VI's AI is bad, dumb or anything. It's actually pretty good, considering the Many stuff it has to .. think about (?). And we just think it is bad, because we mostly notice its dumbness in situations where it pops out, such as War, where it has so many things to consider (Flanking, Terrain Bonuses, Unit Types/CS, Support...etc), and with Districts (AI planning ahead? I oftentimes ignore this myself).

Yes. Yes we absolutly can compare them

Not releasing the dll was a decision they made, an incredibly stupid and short sighted one

Fallout and Elder Scrolls are deservedly memes for the base game being a hilariously broken unfinished sad limited experience. The series sells like crazy, hell you ended up with people buying Skyrim twice because Bethesda is smart enough to leverage and foster a modding community.

Even bringing mods to console

You will note that the one title to not have mods literally bankrupted them

Yes I can and I do compare them. First of all, Firaxis has had 5 years to fix the AI in Civ VI - is that really "limited"? And the devs are being paid!

And why don't we have Vox Populi for Civ VI? Because Firaxis won't release the dll code.

And the mechanics the AI can't handle? Again, Firaxis made those choice which is POOR game design,

So let's not make excuses for Firaxis here.

The AI is clearly not a priority for them, even remotely. This game is indeed a micro fest; an AI that plays it well should be easy mode honestly.

I don't blame Firaxis, maybe the decision come from 2K, but whatever the reasons, I'm on the same boat here, I don't plan to buy/mod civ7 until I'm sure it's fully moddable this time.

The money I had set aside for Civ7 will probably end up going for a cheap PC and Civ4.

I have a feeling that the things I hate about Civ6; 1 UPT, dumbed down board game mechanics, terrible AI will continue to be core features of Civ now

And so Civ follows Halo, Gears, and Far Cry in the “franchise ruined for me by post capitalism publishers” category.

Thank God for Borderlands, Fallout, Elder Scrolls and the Master Chief Collection.

I have high holes for Back 4 Blood and OH DAYUM SON THE NEXT BATTLEFIELD HAS BOTS AGAIN
 
Well I'm definitely not buying 7 until they finalize it.

While I did enjoy 6, I'm not going to pay to be a beta tester (which is what Vanilla and 1st expansion seem to be for games nowadays)
 
I would not compare them head-to-head.
Civ VI is just so far ahead in every aspect.

Sure V had a really rough start being unplayable and all, but they fixed it, at least partially.

VI would compare to IV better. VI has some problems with AI, but both do their core gameplay well enough.
 
I guess I'm in the minority on this, but I actually enjoyed Civ 5 on release. I get why people criticise it, especially as it was compared to a very full-featured Civ 4 (which was itself an excellent game). For me, however, I was taken by the innovations it brought. The very large and obvious one was the transition from square tiles to hexagons, which as well as making more sense in gameplay terms, made the map look much more organic. I also appreciated things like culture being used to unlock bonuses ("Social Policies"), resources being quantified, more tactical combat, situational building requirements, and so on. It was of course flawed, and much less full-featured than its predecessor, but it improved dramatically with each expansion.

Civ 6 started out in a much more complete state, building on the innovations of its predecessor. If the expansions had improved the game in the same way they did for Civ 5, I believe 6 could have been fantastic. However, they did not, instead focusing on adding ever more content on top, without making sure it was well integrated and without refining what is already in the game in any significant way. I'm not adverse to more content in general, but I think you need to make sure you have a solid core first and foremost. Unfortunately, the way things are, I end up mostly ignoring a lot of what the game offers. On the plus side, this doesn't seem to impede my ability to play the game much, as Civ 6's systems are very disconnected. You can for the most part ignore religion, tourism, espionage, the world congress, governors, and more, and still do okay.

It's a shame, because Civ 6 does have a lot of good ideas going for it.
 
I generally prefer Civ VI to any of the previous releases in the series, and I played them all over the years. Specifically I do not share the love for Civ IV that so many in the CivFanatics community seem to express - I still get angry when I remember the reliance of combat on all those ridiculous stacks of doom.

However, there is stuff I do not like in Civ VI.

I dislike the fantasy elements in some of the game modes. To me, Civilization games have always been about history, real-world cultures and concepts. Do not get me wrong, I enjoy some fantasy games, but I do not want any fantastical elements in my historical simulator. Yes, I know modes are optional, but I dread the thought of fantasy usurping its place in future versions of the game.

The amount of micromanagement - just let me repair the district AND all of its buildings with one command, please... And there is more of this stuff.

The constant introduction of bugs with every patch/content upgrade - seriously? Since the April update the game has become nearly unplayable on my system, with constant crashes. I have to jump through hoops - downgrading drivers etc. - to play a few turns without a crash. And this in a game I paid 200 euro or so over the years.
 
I guess I'm in the minority on this, but I actually enjoyed Civ 5 on release.
Fair points! Yes, as simple as it was (compared to the VI with the expansions), it was quite different (all in good ways) and that it had potential was obvious.
…much less full-featured than its predecessor, but it improved dramatically with each expansion.
Exactly! I do think the difference GnK and BNW made to V set a very high bar. I did not expect the VI expansions to match that. But I think it is fair to expect that with the final VI expansion, the differences to the base game would be at least on par with the first expansion of IV. I suspect the pattern is set: $5 for new civs multiple times, but no significant new game play. Which I will happily buy, but only if the base game is, you know, fun.
 
I more tactical combat.

I still get angry when I remember the reliance of combat on all those ridiculous stacks of doom.

I know the community is split on this, but I really dislike the tactical combat that Civ 5 introduced and was carried through in Civ 6. As an experiment, on the new Humankind opendev I made the choice to only auto-resolve combats and WOW did I enjoy the game more. I actually lose units which means I can't maintain a small military while I go full economy in the background.

Honestly, I think 1UPT really pushed Civ down a route that ended up with the world feeling passive and, frankly, boring. It just magnifies the advantages people have over the AI and you end up with a distorted game that disproportionately rewards tactical control at the expense of interesting strategic choices.
 
Civ 6 started out in a much more complete state, building on the innovations of its predecessor. If the expansions had improved the game in the same way they did for Civ 5, I believe 6 could have been fantastic. However, they did not, instead focusing on adding ever more content on top, without making sure it was well integrated and without refining what is already in the game in any significant way. I'm not adverse to more content in general, but I think you need to make sure you have a solid core first and foremost. Unfortunately, the way things are, I end up mostly ignoring a lot of what the game offers. On the plus side, this doesn't seem to impede my ability to play the game much, as Civ 6's systems are very disconnected. You can for the most part ignore religion, tourism, espionage, the world congress, governors, and more, and still do okay.

It's a shame, because Civ 6 does have a lot of good ideas going for it.
I think you have many good points here. I think Civ5 was not-so-great when released (even if I didn't hate it, once they got to the stage that it was actually stable and playable), but got progressively and significantly better with each expansion. In contrary, I think Civ6 was great on release, but got if not worse with each expansion, then at least more cluttered and less polished with each expansion.

I remember my excitement when playing vanilla Civ6, because I figured with such a great base game, imagine what an amazing end product we could have after a couple of expansions of Civ5-like quality. But looking back on it now, even though I do think the loyalty system is an amazing addition to the game, and that the natural disaster system overall is very good, what we also got is an imo. very tedious governor system, a very gamey and immersion-killing age-system, an abysmally poorly constructed world congress, and don't get me started on vampires, zombies, ley lines and cultists.
 
I think you have many good points here. I think Civ5 was not-so-great when released (even if I didn't hate it, once they got to the stage that it was actually stable and playable), but got progressively and significantly better with each expansion. In contrary, I think Civ6 was great on release, but got if not worse with each expansion, then at least more cluttered and less polished with each expansion.

I remember my excitement when playing vanilla Civ6, because I figured with such a great base game, imagine what an amazing end product we could have after a couple of expansions of Civ5-like quality. But looking back on it now, even though I do think the loyalty system is an amazing addition to the game, and that the natural disaster system overall is very good, what we also got is an imo. very tedious governor system, a very gamey and immersion-killing age-system, an abysmally poorly constructed world congress, and don't get me started on vampires, zombies, ley lines and cultists.
I think Civ6 remained a solid game up through Gathering Storm, even if some mechanics like World Congress and Golden/Dark Ages were poorly implemented; I think it was NFP that broke Civ6. TBH I haven't had a single game of Civ6 I've really enjoyed after my Maya game right after that pack released. The NFP civs have been gimmicky and their assets simply not up to the standards set by GS--and that's not even taking modes into account. I think Civ6 would have been a better game had it ended with Gathering Storm. That being said, the Civ5 expansions practically rebuilt Civ5 from the ground up, whereas the Civ6 expansions feel layered on top and poorly integrated--compounding a trend in the base game for poorly integrated systems. Civ6 had great ideas; Civ7 needs to take those ideas and make them more coherent. (However, I still think that for all its flaws Civ6 is a better game than Civ5. It makes up for some of those flaws in personality, something Civ5 was sorely lacking.)
 
I know the community is split on this, but I really dislike the tactical combat that Civ 5 introduced and was carried through in Civ 6. As an experiment, on the new Humankind opendev I made the choice to only auto-resolve combats and WOW did I enjoy the game more. I actually lose units which means I can't maintain a small military while I go full economy in the background.

Honestly, I think 1UPT really pushed Civ down a route that ended up with the world feeling passive and, frankly, boring. It just magnifies the advantages people have over the AI and you end up with a distorted game that disproportionately rewards tactical control at the expense of interesting strategic choices.

It completely ruins immersion as well
 
I think you have many good points here. I think Civ5 was not-so-great when released (even if I didn't hate it, once they got to the stage that it was actually stable and playable), but got progressively and significantly better with each expansion. In contrary, I think Civ6 was great on release, but got if not worse with each expansion, then at least more cluttered and less polished with each expansion.

I remember my excitement when playing vanilla Civ6, because I figured with such a great base game, imagine what an amazing end product we could have after a couple of expansions of Civ5-like quality. But looking back on it now, even though I do think the loyalty system is an amazing addition to the game, and that the natural disaster system overall is very good, what we also got is an imo. very tedious governor system, a very gamey and immersion-killing age-system, an abysmally poorly constructed world congress, and don't get me started on vampires, zombies, ley lines and cultists.
Largely agree, and especially about the Loyalty system. That is in fact the only thing I sometimes miss while playing Vox Populi. I also appreciate what they did with Great People. Although there's nothing wrong with the way they worked in Civ 5, I do think Civ 6 did a good thing making them unique. Those two are on a very short list of features I don't feel could use some rework in Civ 6. That's not to say that everything else is downright bad, necessarily, although much of it kind of is. The World Congress is perhaps the worst part of it, and I still can't get past the fact that they made a world congress system which is almost completely disconnected from diplomacy in general in the game.

I know the community is split on this, but I really dislike the tactical combat that Civ 5 introduced and was carried through in Civ 6. As an experiment, on the new Humankind opendev I made the choice to only auto-resolve combats and WOW did I enjoy the game more. I actually lose units which means I can't maintain a small military while I go full economy in the background.

Honestly, I think 1UPT really pushed Civ down a route that ended up with the world feeling passive and, frankly, boring. It just magnifies the advantages people have over the AI and you end up with a distorted game that disproportionately rewards tactical control at the expense of interesting strategic choices.
To be fair, many games do tactical combat a lot better than Civ 5 and 6, such as for example Fallen Enchantress and Age of Wonders. I still personally prefer Civ 5/6 combat to the stacks in previous games, but what I *really* would want is an army system. I understand Humankind has this, although I am uncertain about the quality, as I didn't like what they did in Endless Legend. However, there are many ways to do this. You could have one with zoomed in tactical combat, or you could not, or you could do something in between, such as letting the player decide when to autoresolve, or even making it situational. Whichever option they went for, I believe that an Army system would have the potential to vastly improve how combat works. Even if they ditch tactical combat completely, there could be a lot of strategic depth in how you build your armies, you could have generals with special abilities, you could have things like combined arms bonuses, formations, terrain effects, support logistics...the possibilities are vast. At the same time, you would eliminate both stacks of doom and 1UPT traffic jams.
 
Largely agree, and especially about the Loyalty system. That is in fact the only thing I sometimes miss while playing Vox Populi. I also appreciate what they did with Great People. Although there's nothing wrong with the way they worked in Civ 5, I do think Civ 6 did a good thing making them unique. Those two are on a very short list of features I don't feel could use some rework in Civ 6. That's not to say that everything else is downright bad, necessarily, although much of it kind of is. The World Congress is perhaps the worst part of it, and I still can't get past the fact that they made a world congress system which is almost completely disconnected from diplomacy in general in the game.


To be fair, many games do tactical combat a lot better than Civ 5 and 6, such as for example Fallen Enchantress and Age of Wonders. I still personally prefer Civ 5/6 combat to the stacks in previous games, but what I *really* would want is an army system. I understand Humankind has this, although I am uncertain about the quality, as I didn't like what they did in Endless Legend. However, there are many ways to do this. You could have one with zoomed in tactical combat, or you could not, or you could do something in between, such as letting the player decide when to autoresolve, or even making it situational. Whichever option they went for, I believe that an Army system would have the potential to vastly improve how combat works. Even if they ditch tactical combat completely, there could be a lot of strategic depth in how you build your armies, you could have generals with special abilities, you could have things like combined arms bonuses, formations, terrain effects, support logistics...the possibilities are vast. At the same time, you would eliminate both stacks of doom and 1UPT traffic jams.

Even a simple "3upt" system would help a lot. Like, allow one melee, one ranged/siege unit, and one mounted unit, for example, on any tile, and then have a set rule for how to resolve combat in that, and suddenly the game becomes much easier to handle. That would probably eliminate 3/4 of the traffic jams in the game. Obviously it would have some complications so that you can't just sacrifice a 1hp swordsman to protect your cannon, but something of that sort that allows a modest amount of combined arms would both be easier to handle logistics and I have to imagine would be easier on the AI setting up (other than them forgetting to protect their vulnerable units and the like).
 
I also appreciate what they did with Great People. Although there's nothing wrong with the way they worked in Civ 5, I do think Civ 6 did a good thing making them unique.
Totally agree to this - I am playing with real great people mod in civ 6 which adds real portraits. Seeing the pictures and reading the biography and unique themed bonus - is much better from immersion point of view as opposed to "Oh no, an anonymous great merchant is supposed to come in city X which for strange reasons will push back the anonymous great engineer in city Y"

To be fair, many games do tactical combat a lot better than Civ 5 and 6, such as for example Fallen Enchantress and Age of Wonders. I still personally prefer Civ 5/6 combat to the stacks in previous games, but what I *really* would want is an army system
Having stacks that move without the 1UPT traffic jams and there is zoomed in tactical combat on another battlefield when met with another army is a great idea. Besides the game mechanic improvement - it will feel better for the realism. Playing Earth map and having magical classic era archers which are capable of shooting several hundred kilometres across the entire Red Sea or Great Lakes in America was always a challenge for me to imagine.
 
Having stacks that move without the 1UPT traffic jams and there is zoomed in tactical combat on another battlefield when met with another army is a great idea. Besides the game mechanic improvement - it will feel better for the realism. Playing Earth map and having magical classic era archers which are capable of shooting several hundred kilometres across the entire Red Sea or Great Lakes in America was always a challenge for me to imagine.
This is also something I'm hoping they'll try for Civ7, but my big concern about this mechanism is to what degree it will lead to steamrolling. With an army mechanism, it will be much harder to hold your ground with a smaller army. In Civ5 and Civ6, you can basically hold a choke point with just a single unit against much superior forces, which will be much harder if not impossible with an army mechanism. Removing this aspect of the game will not necessarily be a bad thing, because it will make the game much harder for the human player (which can (ab)use this feature much better than the AI can), but it will be something that has a huge impact on the game, which has to be taken into consideration with overall balancing. However, considering how much Civ5 and Civ6 caters to the defender's advantage, I think it would be worth trying. Also, as long as units are not automatically healed after an ended battle (and that is how it works in humankind, I think), things should probably be ok in terms of slowing you down.
 
Largely agree, and especially about the Loyalty system. That is in fact the only thing I sometimes miss while playing Vox Populi. I also appreciate what they did with Great People. Although there's nothing wrong with the way they worked in Civ 5, I do think Civ 6 did a good thing making them unique. Those two are on a very short list of features I don't feel could use some rework in Civ 6. That's not to say that everything else is downright bad, necessarily, although much of it kind of is. The World Congress is perhaps the worst part of it, and I still can't get past the fact that they made a world congress system which is almost completely disconnected from diplomacy in general in the game.
I recently fired up a game of Civ 5 and a couple small, but annoying things popped up that reminded me how I prefer some of the mechanics in Civ 6:

One was when I was choosing a Pantheon and realized it will be moot if I don't found a religion. In Civ 5, the Pantheon got linked to your Religion once you founded one. If you didn't found one, you lost it to whichever religion got spread to your cities. I prefer how Civ 6 links the Pantheon to your Civilization so you don't lose it if another Religion gets spread to your cities.

The other was when I was out exploring with my Trireme and realized that, when I discovered Astronomy I'd still have to snake my way along the coast back to my territory and upgrade to Caravels before I can explore the ocean. I remember all the times I would get trapped by CSs or Civs that refused to give me Open Borders and my Triremes would just have to be parked twiddling their thumbs for centuries until I could get them back home. I much prefer how Civ 6 allows my Galleys to enter ocean tiles as soon as I discover Cartography.

They may seem trivial in the grand scheme of things, but sometime it's the little things that make a big difference. I hope Civ 7 carries over these two improvements from Civ 6.
 
Top Bottom