Civ6 unpopular opinions thread

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Krajzen, Sep 5, 2021.

  1. PiR

    PiR Emperor Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,200
    Gender:
    Male
    Something like +1000% maintenance cost for warheads then.

    And that will an incentive to... not build any immediately use them! :D
     
    racha and ShakaKhan like this.
  2. Zaarin

    Zaarin Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    9,959
    Location:
    Babylon 5
    Yeah, I'm sure, and I'm fine with that as long as India gets a proper leader from the get-go for once...
     
  3. TheMarshmallowBear

    TheMarshmallowBear Benelovent Chieftain of the BearKingdom

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,672
    Location:
    Inside an Ikanda.
    To be fair they did add the easter egg in Civ 6 by giving him a 100% of rolling the Nuke Happy agenda.
     
  4. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,127
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Unpopular Opinion: the movement rules in Civ 6 are the best of the series.
    Actually, I don't think it is that unpopular (thanks in part to my leaping to its defense every opportunity I had :mischief: ) but you certainly do not hear it being praised as much as derided.

    I agree from the POV that the religious game is one big unending war. I am glad that we have much more unit variety in 6 than ever before from the POV of not just the military game having things to move around, but that moving around is a hassle if we're staying with 1UPT, so please have more ways to link units together, like being able to pair weak Gurus and missionaries with apostles. And...other options...that I can't think of right now.

    100%. And if they're going to do something along the line of rock bands, make it work in such a way that I can turn off any interruption to my beloved soundtrack. Change the written pop up to a notification so I don't miss it if you have to, but leave my score in peace!

    Hell yeah. Tone down the fantastical elements a bit, and have them arrive in the medieval era, with any world council pushed back to the industrial or even later eras.

    :lol::lol::lol:
     
  5. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,127
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Unpopular opinion 2: Naval units need to be much more impactful on every map aside from Pangaea - see linked thread in my signature for details :D

    :agree: I think that could make unit building more of a trade off. Certainly all military units. Not so sure about others.

    Yep.
    And/or like what Oldworld has done where you can pick between an AI that plays like a human would vs an AI that plays more like the casual gamer wants it to play like.

    I agree with everything you say here, except the bit where any of it rules him out as a leader in Civ :p I don't think leaders must be good ones by definition; though it makes sense many will be.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  6. aieeegrunt

    aieeegrunt King

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2021
    Messages:
    780
    Gender:
    Male
    If you want naval units to actually matter, then have trade and movement work the way it does in reality, where moving material and troops over seas and down rivers is dramatically faster and cheaper than over land.

    Civ6 does the exact opposite. Like this is a pretty basic concept for a 4X game to get completely and utterly wrong
     
    Krajzen, Amrunril, nzcamel and 4 others like this.
  7. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    4,333
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Unfortunately, getting this basic geographical/economic fact wrong isn't unique to Civ. The Grand Ages:Medieval game, which was virtually all about trading, had no effect from sea or river transport at all, which would have come as a mighty shock to any real medieval merchant - or the entire Hanseatic League, for that matter. the game Humankind differentiates between 'naval' and other trade routes (some Civics and infrastructures give bonuses to the naval routes), but as far as I can tell doesn't give any particular intrinsic advantage to the former and rivers seem to play no part in trade routes at all.

    Given that there is evidence of trade by sea almost as soon as there is evidence of any kind of paddled boat (in other words, from the Pre-Game Neolithic), this is a Gaping Hole in game design, that needs to be filled somehow in Civ VII - I've given up any hope for Civ VI at this point . . .
     
    Scrum Lord, Jeppetto and aieeegrunt like this.
  8. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,821
    Yes been chatted about many times before, civ V doubled the value of sea routes and in response to someones babble they finally did it in VI. But it is a poor mans answer to what was just fact. If you look at what goods were on these ancient ships, let’s see them shift that much copper and tin by cart over rough roads prone to raiding.
     
  9. aieeegrunt

    aieeegrunt King

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2021
    Messages:
    780
    Gender:
    Male
    A lot of pre-railroad empires, their borders tended to stabalize around approximately the same default radius of half an oxen cart load’s march from the closest major navigable sea or river, and trade often did the same

    And just to head off the inevitable But Muh Spice Road apologia nonsense, that was for extremely high density high weight low volume products where the alternative sea routes were denied. That is covered under luxury resources mechanics.

    Here is one example; Rome imported most of it’s grain from Roman Africa and later Egypt as well because it was easier and cheaper to carry grain via sea across the Med than it was overland from the Po valley (there was some reason why you coulrn’t use the Adriatic route).
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  10. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    7,593
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I mean isn't it more realistic that movement should be harsher across rivers, hills and woods/forests than open terrain? :mischief:

    I personally don't mind the rock bands as a unit because it at least makes Cultural victory less passive, but I agree that maybe rock band sounds should be optional. That being said I wouldn't mind similar units, such as troubadours, that could be similar but unlocked earlier.
    Or maybe just allow Great Musicians to make concerts instead.
     
  11. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,127
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    I dunno about quite "the exact opposite", but it certainly doesn't do rivers and bodies of water any justice in terms of movement.

    I wonder if they're reluctant to give moving alongside a river the same as the road of it's era due to a large part of the casual player base forgetting it's an option. Of course the answer to that would be to have roads on the tiles next to rivers from the start of the game. Which would look a bit ugly though. Would a graphic in the river of little barges/boats moving along help remind people?
     
  12. BuchiTaton

    BuchiTaton Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2019
    Messages:
    394
    Gender:
    Male
    Gandhi by default mean contemporary unified India. Hope civ7 would start without the one China and one India civs.

    If in CIV6 Scotland and England are not the UK, Ottomans have a dynastic name, Alexander is not greeek and Byzantin is not Rome, so:
    > Classical Han > Medieval Yuan > Modern Qing
    > Classical Maurya > Medieval Chola > Modern Gurkani
     
  13. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    7,593
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I'm not sure if I'd be totally up for this. In the case of possibility reaching close to about 60 different civs I think that breaking up China and India into at least 3 different civs is too much.
    Here's what I would do at least:
    China represented by two different leaders (Classical Era Emperor at least and one more) along with Tibet as a different civ ideally.

    India as a civ represented by two different leaders (Gandhi is fine representing contemporary India as long as we get another). I've always pictured the possibility of the Mughals being a separate civ that could coexist alongside of India, and I think it has the name recognition of being a possibility.
    The Mughal Empire briefly had their capital at Lahore for a time under Akbar the Great, so that is also a possibility. Even so in the Mughal era of India, the city of Agra was known as Akbarabad so they could use that city name instead.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2021
    Kjimmet and Zaarin like this.
  14. Oberinspektor Derrick

    Oberinspektor Derrick Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2020
    Messages:
    289
    Gender:
    Male
    Worse still, I feel the game kind of incentivizes land routes at the moment.
    Early on I need the trade routes for roads, and it generally takes a while before I can get some sea-based routes going.
    And especially when playing any kind of early aggression, I often want an early trader to build me an "invasion highway" towards the nearest enemy city., where any trade yields are mostly irrelevant for me as I will DOW shortly after the road is built.
     
    PiR, AntSou, nzcamel and 2 others like this.
  15. BuchiTaton

    BuchiTaton Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2019
    Messages:
    394
    Gender:
    Male
    Bargain over three milleniums of history of two 1/6s of world population that were just until 500 years ago more powerfull than whole Europe?
    OK lets make more space for 4 versions of greeks, 3 moments of italians and 5 anglo states, and not forget the local pre-urban tribal nations that had the honor of be conquered by those anglo states.

    See them like this Han are Chinese, Yuan are Mongols, and Qin are Manchus, the only new one are Manchus.

    While Mauryans are buddhist Indoaryans Magadha+Bengal (India+Bangladesh), Chola are hindu Tamils (South India+ Sri Lanka) and Gurkani are muslim Turkopersian (Afghanistan+Pakistan).

    Those are different people than conquered the region of India and China. We must make any empire that growth over Middle East of the Mediterranean the same thing?

    Byzantines wanted basicaly the same as Romans, Macedonian empire was just Persia, Ottoman again very similar to those. Stop the double standard.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2021
    Krajzen likes this.
  16. aieeegrunt

    aieeegrunt King

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2021
    Messages:
    780
    Gender:
    Male
    OK like at a certain point you need to stop holding people’s hands if it means getting basic mechanics wrong

    Little barges along rivers is basically the same as little carts on roads so that should be good enough

    Cities along the same river should absolitly have basically a free trading post and “road” connecting them. Cities on a sea with a harbour should also be connected provided you have a path of navigable hexes (you have the right tech and free of enemy ZOC”) between them.

    These trade routes also happen instantly with no time lag unlike the land ones

    Holy crap, look at that, I just made Gibraltar, Suez, Singapore, Panama canal, Hormouz actually matter to a naval and/or a trading power. Not having a navy is a horrible risk if you are a trading/export nation.

    And now Wilhelmine Germany building a navy makes more sense

    Civ6 mechanics make an inland city with a big hinterland have far more economic potential than a coastal city, which basically contradicts all of history
     
    Kjimmet, Zegangani, AntSou and 3 others like this.
  17. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    7,593
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Why not have one China civ with two different leaders (Han and Qing) and of course Mongolia appearing as a separate civ? I also mentioned a separate Tibet civ, but I'm not too sure.

    I think you missed my point where I said that I would like a Mughal civ coexisting alongside another civ from the Indian subcontinent. I did say India, because I think that is most likely, but at the same time I would love them to have at least two different leaders again like they did in Civ 6. If they wanted to split it even into Maurya and Chola instead of Mughals that's fine too.

    I'd also be fine with Macedon going back into Greece, as long as we get Alexander, so no double standard here. :)
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  18. BuchiTaton

    BuchiTaton Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2019
    Messages:
    394
    Gender:
    Male
    Because Qing are supposed to be Jurchen/Manchu. The use of Qing is to reduce political reactions, because if on game you have China while Tibetans, Manchus and Mongols are different that is like said "they are not chinese", but dynastic names are specific moments on the history of China and the ethnic element is not so obvious for example Tufan dynasty instead of Tibetans.

    The same for India, Tamils and the Mughals being apart of whole contemporary India are more obvious material for political drama. All being dynasties is safer.

    I know thay are many Indians that already see Mughals as non-indian invasors but there are also the vision of them as part of India, add that to the current Pakistan vs India drama and Mughals+India are almost the same to have Tibetans+China on game. Again make all them dynasties and the problem is less likely.

    Better put Alexander as leader of Persia, dont he had persian titles, like people want to make chinese any foreign dynasty that claim chinese titles.

    So would be better to just said add Tamils and Jurchen as new civs on civ7, or they are just a footnote compared to the powerfull Hawaiians and Haidas?

    NOTE*: By the way this is on the context of common arguments about this topic, not directly about what you said Alexander's Hetaroi, sorry if sound too direct.:hug:
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2021
  19. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,127
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    From the thread in my signature:

     
  20. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    7,593
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I am unaware of the whole Mughal vs. India debate, so I don't have any input on that other than what I know is historically the Mughals came from outside contemporary borders of India so I do think there is a possibility to have them at least as separate civs if contemporary India was to even get in. If anything I would assume separating Mughals from India might help the situation?

    As far as China goes I think personally splitting them up into separate dynasties is too much and I'd rather that be alternate leaders. Sure there might be differences in Han and Qing, but what about Song and Tang? At least that's how I feel.

    Tibet or Tufans are a different story because they are at least seen as a separate kingdom from the dominant Chinese dynasties. If it wasn't for political purposes I could see this civ alongside China.

    As for Yuan there's no need to have a Yuan Dynasty when we definitely will get Mongolia. I do think the whole dynasty/culture split works better in games like Humankind instead of the Civ series.
     
    Zaarin likes this.

Share This Page