Some thoughts on civ vi from a civ iv fanatic. Hopefully some fresh stuff in there that hasn’t been mentioned more than 100 times already . Overall, I find CIV VI enjoyable and I like trying out the new mechanics after each expansion. However, I can’t see it standing the test of time since it suffers from a well-documented lack of challenge due to the terrible, terrible AI….so much so that I would go as far as calling this a bad civ iteration due to the BAD AI. A couple of general observations: the decisions one takes in VI generally seem to have smaller impact than the ones in IV. Most of the time I feel it doesn’t really matter what I will choose (e.g. which civic to research, whether I will get the +3 or +2 adjacency for a district etc…). Also, major era changes don’t feel that powerful (renaissance, industrialization etc…). I hardly feel any difference in my empire when hitting those key moments in history. quick thoughts on some of the major changes in VI compared to IV: - Placing districts on the map: fine, but is it really such an interesting/impactful decision whether you go for a +2 or +3 adjacency? It feels like a very ‘local’ decision with little impact. Creating a ‘specialist’ or ‘cottage’ city in IV was a lot more fun (and had a lot more impact thanks to the huge multipliers you could apply to a city). - Placing wonders on the map: fine, but does it really make the game more fun? - Trade routes: maybe too powerful, and maybe too much time spent on them? Time that could have been spent on more interesting/strategic decisions (most of the time you’re just sorting the trade routes by whatever benefit you want and sending the trader accordingly…where’s the strategy?) - Policies, border expansion, harbors in non-coastal cities, expendable workers, great works, no transport boats for troops at sea, no anarchy when switching governments, unique bonus per great person, limited strategic resources: all great changes, especially policy cards (one of the few areas where I find the decisions you make can have a big/strategic impact) - Natural wonders: nice, but, again, do they really matter? Overall another minor mechanic that adds some interest on the map but doesn't really change/affect much - City states: nice addition (not sure it makes sense from a historic point of view to have so many of them around for so long but at least they make the game more interesting by providing nice bonuses) - Civic tree: fine, but again most of the time it seems it doesn’t matter what I select as my next civic, I just click on whatever and move on (especially late game) - City specialists: A traditional and great CIV mechanic is unusable in this iteration. - No research trading: big change, I think I’m ok with it. - 1 UPT: very long discussion has already been made about this… Only thing to add is that I miss “preparing for massive war” by switching all major cities to building tanks and stuff (like one would do in IV). In VI you just need to keep upgrading your early units and sprinkle a few extra units here and there to create armies… - Natural disasters: for me it’s another mechanic that usually has small impact and can be ignored - CO2 stuff: probably requires another thread to discuss this in depth but I don’t really find the mechanic entertaining (too repetitive/predictable). Btw, didn’t CIV 2 have a mechanism where the sea levels would rise if one used too many nukes? - waterparks: nice but after a certain point it feels like this is all I’m building - Victory conditions: o religion: unplayable (seriously, what were the devs thinking?) o domination: fine o science: exhausting (takes too long with the GS changes) o diplo: I haven’t tried it, doesn’t look that interesting o culture: incomprehensible, but worth a try as a peaceful option And a final thought: For a CIV iteration that puts so much emphasis on the map, it is very disappointing that one cannot even see which tile has a hill and which resource has been improved….