• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Civ6 unpopular opinions thread

I'm a bit in-between on the 1UPT question. I prefer 1UPT over stacks of doom, but would prefer a limited-army with dedicated combat map like in Humankind (or Heroes of Might and Magic).

My own - maybe - unpopular opinion: District adjacencies played far too much of a role in Civ6. The idea of adjacencies is not bad, but it should not be the major source for science in the early game.

In the same vein: Building flat yields played far too much of a role in Civ6 compared to specialist yields. Your primary source for specialized yields should be people working in the buildings, not the buildings itself.
 
CdM's leader ability is useless; France's civ ability is fine.


Sumeria led by Gilgamesh is perfect in every aspect
*Proceeds to run away from Zaarin*
21078c6d59494f81d39f726b9d0ebbd8.gif
 
CdM's leader ability is useless; France's civ ability is fine.
I assume you mean the original one because the new one (Magnificent persona) is great.
 
I assume you mean the original one because the new one (Magnificent persona) is great.
CdM (Magnificence)'s ability looks nice on paper, but in practice I could build two or three wonders in the time it takes to perform her project. But yes, something is better than nothing. :p
 
CdM's leader ability is useless; France's civ ability is fine.

I feel the opposite way :lol:

Oh boy, I have a long list... and as a word of warning, I put basically 0 forethought into these.
  • I don't mind Gorgo as a leader
  • I don't mind Tomyris as a leader
  • Georgia's not at all bad, just niche
  • I have no idea if Australia is OP or not, but man are they annoying to play against (almost guaranteed to exceed you in Science and Production, but warring against them only adds fuel to the fire)
  • Brazil's actually pretty strong
  • Playing tall isn't that bad, you guys
  • I'm a 1UPT believer
  • Civ VI's OST is severely hamstrung by how it's played in-game
  • Persia, Gran Colombia, Poland, Russia, Sumeria, Korea, and India are all poorly designed
  • Alexander is ugly, fight me :smug:





  • (And, don't tell anyone, but the AI isn't as bad as people say. It wouldn't be a problem if the intended late game challenges like Global Warming and disasters were an actual threat.)
 
I feel the opposite way :lol:
I've seen many people express that "CdM is a great leader with no civ ability" so I expected my opinion to be unpopular. :p

Persia, Gran Colombia, Poland, Russia, Sumeria, Korea, and India are all poorly designed
:wow: Persia, Poland, and Russia are three of my favorite civs in the game, in terms of design! Granted, Persia and Russia would lose nothing at all by losing their leader abilities, but the civ abilities quite make up for them. Poland's problem is that it really isn't a great civ for doing anything specific; its an assortment of individually great abilities not exactly working in concert. I still think it's a fun design.
 
Granted, Persia and Russia would lose nothing at all by losing their leader abilities, but the civ abilities quite make up for them.

I find it extremely interesting that you think Cyrus's leader ability is the weakest part of Persia's kit. From my point of view, it's stronger than their civ ability (I hold extra movement in very high regard). But I think that shows this thread is doing its job of showing other perspectives, which I'm thankful for. Part of the reason I like Civ is because it showed me different viewpoints, so getting to hear the opinions of everyone here is a joy. Plus, it's really refreshing to share opinions in an environment where they'll be celebrated and found interesting rather than attacked and "corrected."
 
Big empires crumble, why don’t they in this game?
I completely agree. I think to balance that they should institute stricter punishments for expansion like the older versions had or even more so. Both more resources need to increase loyalty and increased war weariness.
Separate victory conditions do more harm than good and should be removed in future iterations of Civ.
What do you mean? There should be only one victory condition?
2.) Conquering the world should not be a viable goal for anyone except the absolutely most skilled and/or lucky players. Civ should be balanced around survival rather than domination.
I definitly do agree with this.

My other 'unpopular' opinion would that trade needs to be really, really buffed. I don't see a lot of people talk about this so I will say it is unpopular but I personally would enjoy the game more. I also think maintaining a large army should be just a tad more difficult in terms of gold and the AI being less freindly with you if it is too large or at least in most cases.
 
What do you mean? There should be only one victory condition?

Yes, a single, unified victory condition. Humankind does it with fame, though it need not be that. You can currently do it in Civ by turning off all the victory conditions except for Time, though I would rather see something a bit more interesting and dynamic.

My other 'unpopular' opinion would that trade needs to be really, really buffed. I don't see a lot of people talk about this so I will say it is unpopular but I personally would enjoy the game more. I also think maintaining a large army should be just a tad more difficult in terms of gold and the AI being less freindly with you if it is too large or at least in most cases.

100% agree with both of these. Trade is currently a little too useful to wholly ignore, but not nearly powerful to either build an empire around nor interesting enough to be more than a chore. Standing armies should be a drain on the treasury and difficult to maintain. That would also open up new gameplay areas surrounding levying or conscripting your populace (that could also be linked into a revised system of governors).
 
I find it extremely interesting that you think Cyrus's leader ability is the weakest part of Persia's kit. From my point of view, it's stronger than their civ ability (I hold extra movement in very high regard). But I think that shows this thread is doing its job of showing other perspectives, which I'm thankful for. Part of the reason I like Civ is because it showed me different viewpoints, so getting to hear the opinions of everyone here is a joy. Plus, it's really refreshing to share opinions in an environment where they'll be celebrated and found interesting rather than attacked and "corrected."
I'm a pacifist player so any ability based on war might as well not exist for me. :p For me what makes Persia such a fun civ is the Pairidaeza, which may be my favorite unique infrastructure in the game.
 
Yes, a single, unified victory condition. Humankind does it with fame, though it need not be that. You can currently do it in Civ by turning off all the victory conditions except for Time, though I would rather see something a bit more interesting and dynamic.
that's boring as heck... it is no better than AOE series in which there is no other winning condition than domination when even in real life there are other ways of becoming dominate power- like military or cultural influences for examples

And score victory IS THE WORST FORM THAT NEEDS TO BE GET RID OF! I HOPE TO SEE IT GONE IN CIV 7
 
Here is my REAL unpopular (?) opinion:

Civ 6 AI is BY FAR the worst in the series.
again not that unpopular as AI complaint in civ 6 has been done to death... almost as film nerds arguing how Batman and robbin is the worst superhero movie.
 
that's boring as heck... it is no better than AOE series in which there is no other winning condition than domination
Uh, wonder victory? Relic victory? Trade Monopoly in AoE3?
 
Top Bottom