• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Civ6 unpopular opinions thread

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

I don't agree at all. The separate victory conditions incentive min-maxed strategies and I find those to be fiddly, boring, and difficult to balance. Except for the science and domination types, the victory conditions feel artificial and unintuitive. I would rather the winning Civ be the all-around best across the majority of the game and not the one spams the most rock bands in the last few dozen turns.
 
Unpopular opinion: I really like Macedon in the game and I like Alexander being a separate leader from Greece. :shifty:
 
Civ 6 is the worst in the series.

Beat that one. :D

(you all know I don't really think that, but that has to be the most unpopular opinion about Civ 6, no?)

In a Thread devoted specifically to Civ 6, yeah, almost by definition that's going to be most unpopular in the context . . .
 
.... dose anyone actually do wonder victory anymore?
same with Trade Monopoly.
Yes, I win most games of AoK with wonders and most games for AoE3 with trade monopoly. Whether you enjoy them or not doesn't really change the fact that they exist.
 
the victory conditions feel artificial and unintuitive. I would rather the winning Civ be the all-around best across the majority of the game and not the one spams the most rock bands in the last few dozen turns.
that's not how history works. There are many other way for a civ or a nation to be dominant. See hard power and soft power ( like USA and Britain for example) I like how in civ you can win the game without necessary having to destroy other civs and can win "peacefully"- and create a lot of culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PiR
that's not how history works. There are many other way for a civ or a nation to be dominant. See hard power and soft power ( like USA and Britain for example) I like how in civ you can win the game without necessary having to destroy other civs and can win "peacefully"- and create a lot of culture.

I'm not asking for only a conquest or military domination victory. If you'd read my other posts you'd see I specifically said pure military domination should be virtually impossible. I'm advocating for a victory condition that combines all aspects of the game.
 
that's not how history works. There are many other way for a civ or a nation to be dominant. See hard power and soft power ( like USA and Britain for example) I like how in civ you can win the game without necessary having to destroy other civs and can win "peacefully"- and create a lot of culture.

It can easily be argued that peaceful victories are even more incentivized in a system with an all-encompassing single "victory" condition or pseudo-score.
 
If you'd read my other posts you'd see I specifically said pure military domination should be virtually impossible. I'm advocating for a victory condition that combines all aspects of the game.
like what? having only score victory? Score is kinda meaningless in my opinion as it feels bit random and unwarranted. You have got X amount of score and it means... what? influence ( we have that in terms of diplomatic victory) culture ( culture victory) science ( science victory)
Score is meaningless without context.
 
like what? having only score victory? Score is kinda meaningless in my opinion as it feels bit random and unwarranted. You have got X amount of score and it means... what? influence ( we have that in terms of diplomatic victory) culture ( culture victory) science ( science victory)
Score is meaningless without context.

Well I'm not sure, to be honest.

Maybe Civ doesn't need a victory condition at all. If I had my way the "victory condition" would be surviving the whole way through the game, something that would require not just military prowess but also diplomatic cunning, scientific advancement, skilled economic management, and religio-cultural resiliance. Basically, invert the assumptions underlying the game's logic, taking it from one that presumes success to one that presumes failure. In other words, can you take a band of people and navigate the shoals of history all the way from 4000 BCE to 2000 CE? Many times the answer would be 'no,' and at some point along the way you would find your people conquered or absorbed or withered away. But sometimes it would be 'yes,' and it would be a great accomplishment.

(Maybe think of it as "CiVII, the Roguelike.")
 
Maybe Civ doesn't need a victory condition at all. If I had my way the "victory condition" would be surviving the whole way through the game, something that would require not just military prowess but also diplomatic cunning, scientific advancement, skilled economic management, and religio-cultural stability and strength. Basically, invert the assumptions underlying the game's logic, taking it from one that presumes success to one that presumes failure. In other words, can you take a band of people and navigate the shoals of history all the way from 4000 BCE to 2000 CE? Many times the answer would be 'no,' and at some point along the way you would find your people conquered or absorbed or withered away. But sometimes it would be 'yes,' and it would be a great accomplishment.
if you consider score=influnce we already have it as a "favour" and surviving itself is not impressive enough as many good historians will say. What they found impressive about Rome is NOT that it survived for such a long time but rather how much of a influence it had on the European culture.
 
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

You can win by wonders and relics on AoE, and is a RTS anyway.
 
if you consider score=influnce we already have it as a "favour" and surviving itself is not impressive enough as many good historians will say. What they found impressive about Rome is NOT that it survived for such a long time but rather how much of a influence it had on the European culture.

I'm really curious what historians you're talking about here. I don't know too many concerned with measuring how "impressive" a society was.

Momentarily accepting your terms here, the Romans themselves might not care so much about their later influence if they're all dead. But that's a weird way to think about history, anyway. We're running smack into the artificiality of how Civ understands people and history. The Romans weren't all killed and didn't all disappear, they became part of other societies and, eventually today, the people we know as the Italians (and in part the Spanish, and in part the French, etc.). But in Civ terms, Rome died in the ancient era.
 
But in Civ terms, Rome died in the ancient era.
Medieval. Without even getting into the "Is Byzantium the Roman Empire?" debate, Roman culture certainly outlived the Roman Empire to evolve into or be absorbed by other cultures sometime in the Early Middle Ages. Add a millennium if you want to count Byzantium.
 
Medieval. Without even getting into the "Is Byzantium the Roman Empire?" debate, Roman culture certainly outlived the Roman Empire to evolve into or be absorbed by other cultures sometime in the Early Middle Ages. Add a millennium if you want to count Byzantium.

Totally fair point, but I will say that Civ doesn't really have any concept of "Roman culture outliving the Roman Empire." As it now stands, once a city is conquered and goes through a brief period of unrest, it's more or less treated as if was founded by the owning civ and populated exclusively by people of that culture.

Edit: A bit of expansion to make my point more clear.
 
Totally fair point, but I will say that Civ doesn't really have any concept of "Roman culture outliving the Roman Empire." As it now stands, once a city is conquered and goes through a brief period of unrest, it's more or less treated as if was founded by the owning civ and populated exclusively by people of that culture.

Edit: A bit of expansion to make my point more clear.
A topic for a different thread, but this is why I think ethnicity needs to be a thing in Civ7. But yeah, by Civ6 terms the (alleged*) end of the Roman Empire is literally the turning point from Classical to Medieval.


*Even picking an end date for the Roman Empire is a little arbitrary, Gibbon.
 
Not sure if this is unpopular, but I do like the idea of a religious victory. I just think the way it's done in Civ 6 is a bit annoying due to all the unit micromanagement (plus the AI doens't realize they can just declare war on you and murder your missionaries, so it's trivially easy to win). Sadly, I have no better ideas.
 
A topic for a different thread, but this is why I think ethnicity needs to be a thing in Civ7. But yeah, by Civ6 terms the (alleged*) end of the Roman Empire is literally the turning point from Classical to Medieval.
*Even picking an end date for the Roman Empire is a little arbitrary, Gibbon.

Agree, I would like CIV7 to have some form of POP as a key unit for every aspect of the game, those pops could have ethnicity/culture, religion, job, ideology, etc.

By the way I need to make a suggestion thread about grouping "city states" and "barbarians" by common culture, biome and bonus focus.

Like what do you prefer Zaarin, Amorites of Arameans?
Amorites are older but I like Arameans for camel cavalry, grouping them with Berbers and Somalis as camelry "minor factions" set.
 
Like what do you prefer Zaarin, Amorites of Arameans?
Amorites are older but I like Arameans for camel cavalry, grouping them with Berbers and Somalis as camelry "minor factions" set.
I'm still hoping against hope for an Aramean civ led by Zenobia, but I know it's a dark horse. :( Amorites are easily covered by an Ugarit city-state, which is currently sitting awkwardly on Phoenicia's city list (Ugarit was under Phoenicia's sphere of influence, sure, but they weren't Phoenicians or Canaanites; it's been pretty well established at this point that Ugaritic was a late form of Amorite).
 
Title: post your opinions of the game which you think may be controversial or unpopular. But they still jave to be nice and civil :)

Of course nobody fully knows 'how unpopular this opinion of mine is' but gambling and then arguing is part of fun in such threads

Mine:
- Rise and Fall expansion has completely failed its general theme and task of making the game more dynamic, making runaways fall and underdogs rise, and the next game should take some dramatically different approach to solve those great issues.
- Gathering Storm's climate and disasters stuff were nice and cool but still toys and gimmicks which didn't fundamentally change the game or solve its great issues (especially aforementioned ones), unlike BNW expansion for civ5 which targeted specific holes of that game and filled them.
- 1UPT got really old and exhausted me really much with its tedious micro and inability to design AI for it, please change it to whatever different combat system in the future game.

I have to agree with all of this

My own contribution to the thread?

Every expansion and addition to this game with the partial exception of some of the Civs made the game worse
 
Top Bottom