I'll start of by saying that civ IV is by far my favorite version of civ. I agree with some of what you say, but I think a lot of it is unfair criticism.
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.
Yeah the AI is terrible - probably the worst its ever been. Although, this doesn't bother me personally that much since I don't find playing against a 3/10 AI to be significantly more enjoyable than playing against a 1/10 AI.
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.
Agree 100% - especially with regards to industrialization. This is probably my biggest gripe about the game.
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).
The difference between a +3 and a +2 campus in the early game is actually quite significant. This gap also increases throughout the game with certain policy cards and/or dedications. Big cities suck in Civ VI, and while that is something that needs to be addressed, I don't feel there was much enjoyment in spamming cottages/farms on all your flat tiles. The end result was satisfying though.
Placing wonders on the map: fine, but does it really make the game more fun?
Don't really have an opinion on this.
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?)
I don't think trade routes are too powerful. The bigger problem stems from lack of production which makes gold buying superior to hard building in a lot of situations. The strategy in trade routes has more to do with timing than route selection. And quite frankly, I'm okay with this as I doubt I'd have much enjoyment out of micromanaging 20+ trade routes.
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)
Agreed.
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
Settling near an early game natural wonder is an extremely strong play often giving you precious yields such as culture, science, and faith. Starting near a good natural wonder can definitely slingshot you forward in this game.
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)
Well from a historic point of view it doesn't make much sense for it to take 500 years to march your troops across your empire. Of all the historical immersion complaints, city-states lasting forever seems like it would pretty far down on the list.
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)
Beelining certain civics can be strong (ie political philosophy), but for the most I agree.
City specialists: A traditional and great CIV mechanic is unusable in this iteration.\
Agree 100%.
No research trading: big change, I think I’m ok with it.
I agree. I'd kind of like to see a system where techs from previous eras were discounted while techs from future eras have extra cost. The AI is simply incapable of catching up on tech if it ever falls behind. Tech trading mitigated this problem to some degree, but it always felt gamey.
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…
Yeah this is a big problem. However, lack of late game production is a bigger culprit than 1 UPT. It is just far more efficient to build your army in the ancient/classical eras when units can actually be produced quickly.
Natural disasters: for me it’s another mechanic that usually has small impact and can be ignored
I agree.
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?
I'd like to see them bring back the grassland -> plains -> desert transformation that occured in prior games. I find global warming a nuisance right now. It discourages settling from the coast which is already weak, and pushes you to beeline flood walls which then take a painfully long time to build because of the lack of late game production (see a trend here?) And of course you can just ignore the whole mechanic and be fine.
- 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
Eh don't have much of an opinion on this.
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….
Don't have a strong opinion on this either.