Civ6 unpopular opinions thread

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.
I don't personally mind the idea of a religious victory either.
That being said I personally like the idea of combining the ideas of both religious conversion and tourism into victory conditions for a culture victory for future games.
 
Unpopular opinion: Civ6 is better than Humankind. Judging from youtube comments, that game is supposedly superior in every way. That said, that game's combat and trade systems are far superior than civ6. It's obvious 1UPT has to go away. It appears it's never going to work. Civ6's AI is abysmal because of it. The other major issue is designing Civ6 AI with kiddie gloves and the AI being passive not only regarding war, but attaining victory. It's okay to treat us like grown adults Firaxis. A more dynamic AI (scaling to difficulty level) would be most welcome.

Unpopular opinion: I like that the map of civ6 is clear and mostly concise (hills the exception) unlike a certain other game I mentioned. It's not a gargantuan mess like that other mentioned game. A city is a city, not something that spans half a continent.
 
Inca are overrated and rather weak.
The civ's only redeeming quality is a strong mountain bias, but this says more about how good mountains are in civ 6, than how good the Inca are.
The civ appeals to the "yield porn" crowd, but imo yields by themselves do not make for a good civ.
Incas worked well in civ 5 where food was king during the "4 city tall tradition" meta, but severely lacks now.
Instant reroll if I get these guys in a random game.
 
Unpopular opinion: Civ6 is better than Humankind. Judging from youtube comments, that game is supposedly superior in every way. That said, that game's combat and trade systems are far superior than civ6. It's obvious 1UPT has to go away. It appears it's never going to work. Civ6's AI is abysmal because of it. The other major issue is designing Civ6 AI with kiddie gloves and the AI being passive not only regarding war, but attaining victory. It's okay to treat us like grown adults Firaxis. A more dynamic AI (scaling to difficulty level) would be most welcome.

Unpopular opinion: I like that the map of civ6 is clear and mostly concise (hills the exception) unlike a certain other game I mentioned. It's not a gargantuan mess like that other mentioned game. A city is a city, not something that spans half a continent.

Thoroughly agree: Humankind's maps are gorgeous, but much less useful than Civ VI's as part of a GUI, which is, after all, what they are supposed to be. There's gotta be a Sweet Spot between the two, though, because Civ VI's look much too cartoony for my taste and are just not fun to watch while Humankind's are not fun to play on.

Civ VI's cities are at least as much of a mess as Humankind's - a bunch of disconnected Districts scattered all over the map looking for adjacency bonuses, with 'city walls' that only surround the City Center and some disconnected Encampment. Again, there's gotta be a place in between the straggling line of Quarters Across the Continent in Humankind and the Scattered Shards of City in Civ VI, and Civ VII better be looking for it.
 
Lots of interesting unpopular Opinions here, some I fully agree with, some quite the opposite.
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."
Can't agree more.
So here is my small List of Unpopular Opinions:
The other major issue is designing Civ6 AI with kiddie gloves and the AI being passive not only regarding war, but attaining victory. It's okay to treat us like grown adults Firaxis
- Absolutely. I mean, what else is there that Difficuly Settings for? Higher difficulty should mean smarter and (in Deity extremely) challenging AI, not more and more cheating AI with a bit harder Diplomacy (which you can overcome if you plan for it, at least with most Players). (although I don't really think that this is unpopular)

- As, surprisingly, many people here, I'm also a fan of the 1UPT. I just don't like how the Combat Systeme of it is done in Civ6. I think allowing Units of different Types to occupy the same tile, as well as giving them +1 Movement, at least on larger Maps, and no +2 Range Distance (I'm speaking of how they are done in Civ6) in addition to making position and location of Units durring Battles play a much bigger role (similarly to how it's done in Humankind), and make the AI make good use of this set-up, would make 1UPT Combat much more Fun and Challenging IMO. And Ideally, make Battles/Combats, just like in Humankind, take 3/4 Battle Turns durring a Game/Player Turn, and make the Production of Units take only 1 Turn in the early Game and some few in the Mid/Late Game, but with the dreawback of a Limit of how much Units you can have at a Time (similar to how it's done in the Units Limit Mod), as well as making Unit Production and Maintenance more costly (not just in Gold, but also in other resources), and maybe with a Caveat of only producing 1~3 Units in a set amount of Turns, in combination with a cool down periode, per City, which would also solve the Issue of Maps filled with Mili Units. That would be the Ideal Solution to the current Issues of 1UPT IMHO.

- I don't know if this unpopular, but I started to like the Loyalty System since the past Year. However I think it shouldn't be relying on the Pressure of (your Neighbours's) Citizens, but, and here would be a Stability Yield/Currency/Resource Ideal, on how well you're managing your Cities/Empire. Wich would have less effect on Cities in the Outskirt of your Empire. However, Colonies (or just Cities on foreign Continent), should be more stable than these latter, but shouldn't flip to other Cities when declaring independence, but instantly found a new Civ or City-State (no turning into Free Cities).

- I'm not a Fan of Disasters taking multiple Turns. I like their Effects/Bonuses and their Consquences, but IMO they should just last for One Turn (Droughts taking multple Turns? Come On! a City would have actually been left behind by its citizens by the first Turn (early Game), let alone more). They are called "Events", so just keep them as that . . . like something that happened durring a Year/Turn.

- I saw that many People like that Envoys Stay the same for the whole Game, I'm not of that Opinion. I think they should decay with Time. (why should you still have that Influence on a CS in the Late Game, that you sent Envoys to in the Ancient Era?). Envoys should last for the Era You sent them and the Following one (2 Eras - and in case you send them at the end of an Era, then they should also stay the next next era). Or ideally a Turns Count for each Envoy (changes with Game speed).

- if Espionage isn't done well/interesting, and most importantly, not something that just feels annoying, then just remove it completely from the Game. Although Civ6's Espionage is much better than the WC, it's much more annoying IMO.

- Firaxis, Please don't waste developement Time and Resources on Rock Bands and GDR for Civ VII !!
 
Contrary to a couple opinions here I think Religious Victory should be removed from the game.

Religion should be restructured to be more like what they tried to do with secret societies. No one religion will ever become "the" religion of the world (except maybe agnostic) but it does a fabulous job of starting wars, complicating relations, and giving people with pretty much the same values a reason to hate each other.
 
- Tech quotes are mostly fine, tongue in cheek is ok
Agree...
except...

"Always try to rub up against money, for if you rub against money long enough, some of it may rub off on you" always makes me cringe - to the point that I'm actually glad Capitalism is a leaf civic so I have the option of forgoing the benefits of the civic and finishing the game without ever having to hear Sean Bean's majestic voice be tarnished by the idiocy of what some D-grade writing class student came up with on the spot when he forgot to do his homework.

Right now Specialists are kind of garbage.
Not unpopular at all, I think it just fell to the wayside because we stopped moaning and complaining about it - classic case of "squeeky wheel." Specialists are so bad that when they were buffed by having their yields increase 50% when you complete the 3rd tier building, many of us didn't know about it and those who did know found the increase unnoticeable. I don't know why they fixed what wasn't broken - having them be the source of great person generation as they were in previous games was much better, especially as many of the great people in accumulation are a game changing element, and having methods of increasing their yields so that running them in lieu of a tile was a legitimate option made the game more versatile. Now they're just kind of a "well, the city's using all its good tiles, so do we borrow tiles from other cities or relegate the excess pop to specialists?" To make an extremely bad analogy, I kind of feel like when we found out that the final expansions, patches, and updates were released and no more changes were officially going to be made to the game, we all felt like when Thanos snapped his fingers, only instead of losing half of the people we lost half of the potential, and we are all left talking to Steve Rogers in a therapy session trying to accept that this is just how it is going to be from now on... "But Steve, it's such a great game... but specialists still suck ...And I can't play monopolies mode unless I turn off culture victory ... and how are we supposed to just say 'it's OK' after what they did to Poland..."

Now that that's out of the way, here's my list of unpopular opinions *opening flood gates and donning boxing gloves*

-Secret Societies is the best game mode and should be part of the base game... for the roundabout reason/rationale that none of the optional game modes were patched/tweaked and only the base game elements were fixed, and while it is the best game mode, one of the four options, Hermetic Order, is completely broken in implementation and needs to be fixed, namely the chief component of that option, the ley lines, need to be a placeable improvement (with some sort of heavy placement restrictions) instead of a randomly placed feature that often blocks the ideal placement of that which it's supposed to supplement.

-(more on societies) On a continents or islands map and using the Owls of Minerva SS, the Sukiennice is a strong enough bonus that it makes up for all of the other elements of the Polish kit being completely lackluster. Fight me. EDIT- the converted military slot for the sole purpose of founding a religion is really good too.

-Babylon is an OP civ... because of the Palgum! This thing is just incredible, an extra hammer from the building (which doubles it's production, and in the early game one extra hammer can make such a difference), and an extra housing which is the limiting factor to how big (and powerful) a city can get at that point in the game, and main advantage being that all all tiles with freshwater get +1 food - that's all tiles next to a river or lake or Oasis or some wonders - not just the farms, now the plains/hill/mines make the 2 food necessary to support the citizen to work it and grassland/hill/mines and mills are now food-positive. I'll concede that free tech instead of boosted tech is a very strong advantage, but at least that overpowered bonus has a small counterbalance in that standard researching is halved.

-Mapuche, Canada, and Khmer indeed got much better with the balance patch, but the big winner was Spain, who went from the 2nd or 3rd worst civ in the game to the absolute best. Fight me.

-Ambiorix of Gaul may have some neat and strong benefits in his kit, but the district placement restriction is so annoying that it makes him unplayable. EDIT: not unplayable, just so obnoxious that I'd never opt to play him.

-Kublai Khan is better with Mongolia than China. I feel a lot of people dislike the Mongolia option because the Mongolia kit is completely geared towards Cavalry domination and the Genghis bonus is the strongest aspect of that, but my problem with Genghis is just that - it's completely geared towards cavalry domination with no economic bonus to support the army or science/culture bonus to keep the army relevant. Kublai offers some infrastructure bonuses to support that army, though it's smaller and weaker than Genghis's. The main elements of the China bonus before Kublai came around, were any early wonder you wanted and a permanent extra build charge, both of which are part of Qin Shi Huang's leader ability and you miss out on with Kublai, leaving him with just a garbage unique unit, a situationally... acceptable unique infrastructure, and a bonus to Euerkaspirations that does complement the more limited aspect of his bonus (the extra economic slot is by far stronger and more versatile.)

-I'm not saying they are one of the best civs, or even in the top half... But Georgia really isn't THAT bad, at least not to the point of Meme-level bashing. They can stay in a golden age for the whole game, have a method of generating so many extra envoys that you can always be suzerein of every city state (unless Rough Teddy is in the game maybe), both killing units and 3rd level walls get you extra faith, you want to run monarchy (and monarchic legacy after graduating) for extra housing and diplomatic favor, a tiny bit of extra tourism from walls, and between cheap walls, a +3 Man-at-Arms that gets an additional +7 in hills, and nearby city-state alliances distracting invasions make defending your territory easy. So all in all, they are an impregnable empire (in hills) constantly getting golden age bonuses with small advantages given to several different categories (envoys/suzereinities, faith, and tourism)

-Ever since they added features that give major bonuses to campus adjacency (reefs, fissures, GBR, ley lines (smirk)) without losing any of the preexisting adjacency bonuses, Korea sucks. I'm aware that +4 is a landmark cutoff as it guarantees Korea to get the full value of the second half of the Rationalism card, but +4 or more campuses are pretty commonplace now, and they are restriced to hill placement. The governor boost to science and culture is nice and scales but is too little early game and the bonuses to farms and mines adjacent to Seowons are nice, but that's about it and all-in-all much like the Hwacha, the entire Korea kit is nothing to write home about. I don't think they deserve to retain the constant perma-ban status in MP.

-War carts suck. Fight me. Yes, they are cheap, maintenance free and the strongest thing out there at the very, very beginning of the game, but I still find that you need to make so many of them right away right away right away when you're very limited on production and sacrifice so many other early game investments that the mega-early rush is too much of a gamble.

And finally, some opinions that I'm pretty sure but not certain aren't that unpopular:

-the Prophet system is stupid, where you generate faith and great prophet points (akin to science and great scientist points) and then when you win (or lose) your great prophet, all future great prophet points are discarded is just dumb.

-I've heard there's been some tweaking so that Monopoly tourism has been toned down, but it's still far too much and breaks the game mode.

-I absolutely despise the addition of resource-consuming units. I've pretty much identified the window of opportunity for frigates, line infantry, field cannons, Cuirrassiers, and Cavalry as the last chance to complete a domination victory as your military is constantly increasing in size throughout the game and then near the end, your ability to keep the units relevant is based on map luck of admittedly plentiful but ultimately finite resources.
 
my unpopular opinions:

- the AI is technically the best in the franchise (it's just that the game's design is the worst in the franchise for it. and they forget to teach it a few things, like "a fighter can be used to intercept bombers")
- districts should be stacked back in cities
- it's time to get rid of the immortal leaders
 
Last edited:
There's been a lot of discussion about whether the game would be better without religious agents as units on the map. Post Humankind, there's also been debate about whether the same is true of builders. To go a step further, I'd say we should consider whether Civ would be a better game without armies as units on the map. Tactical combat, and even larger scale strategic movements can be a fun minigame, but they take up a huge fraction of playtime and ultimately feel pretty tangential to the game's core focus.

I think changing civilizations from era to era and using avatars instead of historical leaders are great ideas... but still think Civ VI is a better game than Humankind.

Civ V and VI being "boardgamey" is a good thing. And the AI should be callibrated more towards playing the game competitively than towards roleplaying.

Civ VI would be a better game if it copied the mechanics from Gods & Kings and Brave New World wholesale, rather than trying to rework them.


Bonus Prequel Opinions:
Civ V's global happiness was a good system (albeit poorly named).
Beyond Earth required only some careful balance patching to be an amazing game.
 
- it's time to get ride of the immortal leaders
I know it was just a typo for "rid of" and I swear I'm not picking on you, I just think "Ride of the Immortal Leaders" would be a great spin-off/spoof movie-game!

There's been a lot of discussion about whether the game would be better without religious agents as units on the map. Post Humankind, there's also been debate about whether the same is true of builders. To go a step further, I'd say we should consider whether Civ would be a better game without armies as units on the map. Tactical combat, and even larger scale strategic movements can be a fun minigame, but they take up a huge fraction of playtime and ultimately feel pretty tangential to the game's core focus.
Dude, if those are you're opinions, I think you would totally be into the Master of Orion series. I stopped at MOO3, which admittedly was such a complicated game that you really needed to complete the equivalent of 64 collegiate credits just in order to have any idea what was happening, but it really mirrors your preferences. All combat became a mini-game and you could skip the space and/or the land combat sequences by auto-resolving them and just focus on the board game part of it.

I think changing civilizations from era to era and using avatars instead of historical leaders are great ideas...
The problem there is that we the fanbase are... well... nerds. Self-included. Putting the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Oda Nobunaga, Julius Caesar, and Montezuma in our content is the equivalent of putting Alex Ovechkin in a hockey skate commercial or Noah Syndergaard on a hair-growth product.
 
- 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

Not sure if this is unpopular, but I agree with it. Specifically, I think that some things added in R&F are too powerful and alter the fundamental gameplay in certain directions. To wit:
  • Monumentality is way overpowered for early (classical/medieval) peaceful expansion. With very few exceptions, you're almost always better off pumping early faith to put towards settlers regardless of civ or intended victory path. And if you're playing a civ with extreme faith generation - Russia, Ethiopia, Khmer - forget about it. The game is easy mode so long as you can get at least one early golden age.
  • Governors are good in theory but the bonuses are too imbalanced and so I end up using more or less the same ones in every game. Magnus goes touring around to chop in districts/wonders (and a few early settlers), Pingala sits in your biggest city, Liang goes somewhere to pump builders, Amani goes somewhere to get you suzerainty, and if you're going for science down the road you pick either Reyna or Moshka to buy spaceports. There are niche uses for other promotions/governors, but the vast majority of the time the early order will be some combination of Magnus for chopping, Liang for builders, Pingala in the big city, and Amani goes to your favorite city-state.
  • The Ages don't really have much dynamism most of the time - the tricky part is getting your first golden age, but it's not at all uncommon once I get one to just chain together golden ages the rest of the way (particularly if, as noted above, I have the faith generation to make use of monumentality). And outside of Dramatic Ages mode, a dark age isn't really that bad even if you get one, which leads to the perverse incentive that it's often better to fall into a dark age than stay in a normal one (so that you can follow up with heroic).
  • Loyalty works well in warfare but is pretty static in peaceful play - most of the time cities either have severe loyalty issues or no problems. I find it rare to worry about loyalty outside of war, but also find it rare to try aggressive forward settling. I would love there to be more dynamism to loyalty (outside of Eleanor, who is lots of fun to play with for that reason).
 
Unpopular opinion: Civ6 is better than Humankind. Judging from youtube comments, that game is supposedly superior in every way. That said, that game's combat and trade systems are far superior than civ6. It's obvious 1UPT has to go away. It appears it's never going to work. Civ6's AI is abysmal because of it. The other major issue is designing Civ6 AI with kiddie gloves and the AI being passive not only regarding war, but attaining victory. It's okay to treat us like grown adults Firaxis. A more dynamic AI (scaling to difficulty level) would be most welcome.

Unpopular opinion: I like that the map of civ6 is clear and mostly concise (hills the exception) unlike a certain other game I mentioned. It's not a gargantuan mess like that other mentioned game. A city is a city, not something that spans half a continent.

I absolutely detest the combat system in Humankind, it is usually the reason I rage quit. Seeing people praise is making me nervous. I like 1upt, it's does it's job, it's not overly complicated to learn. Some things need to be simpler systems. I play to relax, not to have a nervous breakdown over a silly mechanic.

Although my woes could just be because of how weird the combat system deals with cities.

I honestly would prefer a system like in Disciplies 2, where you get a stack with 6 slots, better technology getse you more slots, and you just fight stack vs stack, not even with a battlefield xD
 
Last edited:
I absolutely detest the combat system in Humankind, it is usually the reason I rage quit. Seeing people praise is making me nervous. I like 1upt, it's does it's job, it's not overly complicated to learn. Some things need to be simpler systems.

I don't know if I'd go quite as strong, but the more I played the more I came to the conclusion that combat is Humankind's weakest link (along with the map being difficult to read at a glance - they definitely went for beauty over functionality).

That doesn't mean that Civ6's combat is perfect but 1UPT adds a lot of strategic depth and constantly forces choices (which humans are better than making than the AI, hence the tradeoff) which I wouldn't want to lose.
 
The combat system in HK takes too much time up, 1UPT to me is more in keeping with 4x
I really am feeling affinity with my civ now I am back playing it, not only did I change too often but so did my foes…. Where did the Hittites go?
I have seen no-one else complain about left/right mouse inconsistencies but they do my head in.
Science/civic Osmosis would be great but you have to wearing a civ’s headscarf to get some. The concept but not execution behind Neolithic is a level up but transitioning into a current civ framework would likely not be feasible.
Most of the rest is toys, and broken toys at that, I was blinded by a new game.
The graphics come at a price of carbon and I prefer the cartoons.
Stability is too … stable.
Pathing stinks but it does in civ too.
The game blatantly cheats.

Back at civ, I now appreciate the snowball limiting mechanics but what is strangely annoying is the out of turn “Idle Governor” message. It’s a small thing, and when no-one has cut your fingers off a flea bite is damn annoying.
 
Last edited:
The concept but not execution behind Neolithic is a level up

The idea of a 'push your luck' type opening is great. But the penalty for carrying on pushing your luck isn't there in humankind. Even losing your civ of choice is nothing compared to the benefits of rolling the dice more.

There's plenty of board games or similar with push your luck mechanics that some inspiration could be drawn from to improve the idea but I was wondering about a fairly basic app game called seedship - which is a push your luck game for finding a planet for some settlers before all your settlers die from spaceship malfunctions. Something similar in civ could involve looking for a better starting spot at the risk of losing starting population and/or infrastructure over time?
 
  • Monumentality is way overpowered for early (classical/medieval) peaceful expansion. With very few exceptions, you're almost always better off pumping early faith to put towards settlers regardless of civ or intended victory path. And if you're playing a civ with extreme faith generation - Russia, Ethiopia, Khmer - forget about it.
Couldn't agree more, and must admit that this is how most of my games start. I don't reroll when I miss the classical GA, but it certainly makes just about all games smooth sailing when I get it, only exception being when you have really aggressive neighbors and you can't a.) streamline your production to become a faith factory (which later pays off in military production with GMC and later with great people purchasing) and b.) blocks off the real estate for the settlers to be placed.

Again, couldn't agree more, but just to play devil's advocate, you kind of already mentioned the counter to the argument in stating that Monumentality is overpowered for early peaceful expansion. One of the longstanding gripes before this was that peaceful expansion was so much less successful than aggressive expansion, and I found Monumentality to be a good peaceful counter to be able to get the jump-start to a game that you get with aggressive expansion. So maybe it's not that Monumentality is overpowered but perhaps the conventional methods of peaceful expansion are underpowered... If it were easier to get those 8 settlers out really quickly than the other GA options may be more viable.
 
Oh, regarding playable civilizations. Although I don't think all of them are really 'unpopular', they are not exactly 'popular' opinions either.

- Alexander's Macedon being separated from Greece is a great idea, because it finally allows us to have Greece geared towards its cultural/scientific/economic power, instead of always being derailed by its leader being crazy agressive conqueror. While the presence of Alexander the Great in this series is still very welcome ;) Although Philip of Macedon would be cool as well
- The implementation of India always sucks in this franchise. It is usually bad or mediocre civ, it usually gets Gandhi time and time again which derails it to always be that boring, predictable AI pacifist wet noodle civ, and really it is terrible that 'India' IRL has contained 20 - 25% of humanity for most of history, divided between so many different cultures, and yet it always gets represented as just one civ, while small European nation states or random tribal groups across the world get individual civilizations. If we are going to have ~50 playable factions per game from now on, then India really deserves like three per game, and each of them could be very different aestethically, culturally, time-period-ically, and mechanically.
- Assyria and Sumer should replace Babylon as mainstay civ (not because I dislike it, but because it got disproportionately much presence)
- For the love of God please give Persia non - Achaemenid leader, unit, unique stuff, city list and focus, they are so overused and boring, IMO not even the most impressive achievements of Iranian history, and it's really bizarre how you have this 2500 - year old long culture with many great dynasties and yet time and time again we get Cyrus/Darius and Immortals (who weren't even particularly good military unit in reality, they are overhyped by Herodotus like everything he wrote about). It would be especially wonderful if Persia got focus on its Islamic history, which is infinitely more influential for the world regarding art, literature, architecture and science, than Achaemenid empire which was impressive in its scope but not at all in its intellectual output. But at this point even focus on Sasanians and cavalry unit would be a great improvement over endless Cyrus - Immortals - much expansionism spam.
- Islamic world was really underrepresented in civ6, getting only three civs out of 50 is weird for such gigantic network of civilizations (as I said, I don't count 100% Achaemenid Persia as an Islamic civ). Especially as the ratio has actually worsened from civ4 3/34 and civ5 3/43. I am against any enforced 'representation ratios' in this game, God forbid that, but it's slightly annoying when some very minor nations and tribes take place of some genuinely very important empires.
- Please give us Korea with non - scientific focus.
- Please give us England without Elizabeth, Victoria or Churchill; Russia without Catherine and Peter; China without Shi Huangdi or Wu Zetian; and for the love of Brahman, India without Gandhi and ever again mentioning his overused meme.
- Please give us France which bonuses are not garbage but strong for the first time since 2013 (when France in BNW got its awesome +2 culture per city ability replaced for a useless one) :p
- There should be no are almost zero sacred cows 'those civs are obligatory for the 1.0 release of a game', yes I do include classics such as Egypt here. Maybe 'India' and China should be obligatory due to their sheer enormity, but otherwise I wouldn't be offended if there was highly unorthodox roster of civs for release version. But this request is very unlikely, because people would be offended like with Aztec DLC 'hurr you took out obligatory civ and charge additional money for it'.
- I wouldn't be offended by Franks led by Charlemagne instead of Germany and France civs in the release version (see 'very few sacred cows'), with those civs being reintroduced later. Though I am afraid French and German people would ruin my flesh for such disgrace to their empires.
- I am from Poland and I don't think Poland is big enough for it to necessarily come back every civ game. Excuse me now there are some people banging at my door screaming something
- The most unpopular opinion: I still think that tribal groups, nomads etc should have the last priority to be included in a game devoted to global scale urbanized empires, and I'd greatly prefer to see Italy, Andalusia, Mughals and Chola in this game before I'd see Cree, Mapuche, Zulu and Maori.
- Speaking of Italy, it has to be included in civ7 and people who say 'it's already covered by Rome' should be eaten
- After eating those people we should also eat 'Byzantium is the same as Rome' folk
- Speaking of Zulu, they are such a one - note civ, always designed in the exact same way with the exact same stuff (not that there is much more historical material to work with here), that I'd love them being completely absent from the franchise for some time, in favour of actual, cough, I mean other and more interesting Subsaharan civilizations.
 
Last edited:
My #1 unpopular opinion is the AI is good.
"Good" in that it's historically accurate. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of real-life examples of civilizations getting diplomacy absolutely, incredibly, wrong. Take Sparta for example: they screwed up alliances and diplomacy and economic development *so badly* they weren't able to even conquer their own peninsula for more than 100 years. Nobody makes movies about the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines but they did enough right to last for 1000 years.
 
I honestly would prefer a system like in Disciplies 2, where you get a stack with 6 slots, better technology getse you more slots, and you just fight stack vs stack, not even with a battlefield xD
OMG a fellow man of culture who played and referenced Disciples 2 in 2021?

My list:
- Sumeria is literally the worst civ in the game to play on deity. AIs start with 5 Warriors and +4CS advantage, and if you can't secure a good start with War-Carts, none of your bonuses will do anything after Classical. I guess it is noob-friendly, because casual players never play on high difficulty anyway. Maybe that explains why this unit ranks so high in all elimination thread games (speaking of which, we kinda need new elimination threads for at least the 4 main civ elements after NFP). Terrible design, terrible civ to play, what a shame since this civ could have been the true cradle of civilization.
- Zulu should not make a comeback in civ7 and should stay out of the franchise for a while. One dimensional, same infrastructure, leader, unit in every iteration.
- Not realistic, but I'm fine with a civ game without America, England, France, Germany or Rome.
- Gandhi has the worst leader ability in the game, maybe only behind Peter. It is the only leader ability that depends almost completely on what others do, not you.
- I like game mechanics being a little bit arcane and requires research/testing, instead of being all readily available. It is very difficult to make every behind-the-scene mechanic thoroughly explained in game.
- I am from Poland and I don't think Poland is big enough for it to necessarily come back every civ game. Excuse me now there are some people banging at my door screaming something
I like Eastern European cultures a lot, Poland being one of them. If Poland doesn't make a comeback, I'd like to see them replaced with one of the neighbors within the area, like Czechia, maybe Hungary, Romania.
 
Last edited:
Again, couldn't agree more, but just to play devil's advocate, you kind of already mentioned the counter to the argument in stating that Monumentality is overpowered for early peaceful expansion. One of the longstanding gripes before this was that peaceful expansion was so much less successful than aggressive expansion, and I found Monumentality to be a good peaceful counter to be able to get the jump-start to a game that you get with aggressive expansion. So maybe it's not that Monumentality is overpowered but perhaps the conventional methods of peaceful expansion are underpowered... If it were easier to get those 8 settlers out really quickly than the other GA options may be more viable.

Yes, I fully agree with this. I guess a better way to describe it is that monumentality is overpowered as compared to non-monumentality expansion. I haven't gone back recently to play on easier levels - I imagine it may not be an issue there when the AI starts on similar footing - but I find that on emperor or above there's just too much of a chance to get crowded out of good early settling spots without being able to pump out settlers through monumentality.
 
Top Bottom