Civ6 unpopular opinions thread

[Zaarin]

As for Tibet, it is inarguable that they have everything required to be presented with a good Civ design, but we won't get them because of obvious political reasons. We have more chance to get Israel than Tibet, so a close representation of Tibet like Bhutan or Nepal is the best we can potentially see.

Again, though, Paradox gets away with it, and they're partially owned by China. I don't think the PRC has any objection to a Medieval Tibet civ as long as you don't write "FREE TIBET" in the Civilopedia. (By the way, I am entirely onboard with writing "FREE TIBET" in the Civilopedia.)

 

[Leucarum]

Well Paradox is a different kettle of fish to an extent. Given their attempt to model everything in the world what would they do? Have a blank space in the Himalayas? Arguably they also specify a dynasty in most of their games as opposed to specifically China.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Again, though, Paradox gets away with it, and they're partially owned by China. I don't think the PRC has any objection to a Medieval Tibet civ as long as you don't write "FREE TIBET" in the Civilopedia. (By the way, I am entirely onboard with writing "FREE TIBET" in the Civilopedia.)

Do they actually? Wow, I haven't tried HK yet so I have no idea. Is Tibet a separate and playable culture in HK, or do they have some mentions of it in some forms? How do they handle it? If Tibet is a separate, fully playable civ, then I can see some hope for seeing Tibet in the future.

 

[pokiehl]

Humankind isn’t a Paradox game (it’s Amplitude). I think he’s referring to EU4 specifically.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Because of course when someone suggests Taiwan, what they are actually thinking of is the Indigenous people of the island (sarcasm obviously). It is very easy to find that there are more than 1 group of people that are currently being listed under the umbrella term "Taiwanese Indigenous," all of whom combine for only 2% of the island's population. Even if I try to give some intellectual credits to the original Taiwan suggestion (that somehow he meant the various groups of Indigenous instead of the ROC), how do we call that "civ"? We can't name them under an umbrella term like Civ4's Native American, and each separate group of Indigenous is too minor to justify an inclusion, and for overwhelmingly obvious reasons, it cannot be simply called "Taiwan". Even if there were a central authority for any of those groups (in this case, as you pointed out, there wasn't), any "Taiwan" suggestion, ranging from the ROC to the various Indigenous groups, is a poor suggestion.
And just for the record, Taiwan is the Chinese name for the island, so it is only normal that every mention of that name will bring with it an implication of Chinese influence. Since most of these Indigenous groups don't speak a Sinitic language, I'd assume they call the island differently.
As for Tibet, it is inarguable that they have everything required to be presented with a good Civ design, but we won't get them because of obvious political reasons. We have more chance to get Israel than Tibet, so a close representation of Tibet like Bhutan or Nepal is the best we can potentially see.

As I clearly stated, there is no real basis for a separate Taiwanese Civ in the game, because of a lack of basic information that the Civ game system requires. On the other hand, the Chinese population of Taiwan today virtually all arrived in the past 260 years - before 1760 the Chinese government restricted immigration to the island, so the 1993 PRC 'White Paper' which stated that "Taiwan has belonged to China since ancient times" is another of the many examples of what we in the trade call Bald Faced Lies from the current Chinese government.

Although it may be currently commercially/political realistic, that this or any other BFL from any government should be the basis for game design is nothing to celebrate.

 

[Zaarin]

Do they actually? Wow, I haven't tried HK yet so I have no idea. Is Tibet a separate and playable culture in HK, or do they have some mentions of it in some forms? How do they handle it? If Tibet is a separate, fully playable civ, then I can see some hope for seeing Tibet in the future.

Humankind isn’t a Paradox game (it’s Amplitude). I think he’s referring to EU4 specifically.

Also CK2 and CK3. And yes, Tibet is a fully playable culture, a rather powerful one if I understand correctly (I've never played them); in addition to Tibetan playable rulers it also features Tibetan shamanism (Bön) as a pagan religion.

Well Paradox is a different kettle of fish to an extent. Given their attempt to model everything in the world what would they do? Have a blank space in the Himalayas? Arguably they also specify a dynasty in most of their games as opposed to specifically China.

While you make a good point, Tibet is a fully independent kingdom in CK3 and, as I understand, a pretty powerful one (which is period-accurate). (CK3, of course, only features China in a very limited extent as the map doesn't extend to the Han heartland...at least not yet.) Either way, I think it's sufficient evidence that the PRC wouldn't throw a hissy fit over Civ including the Medieval Tibetan Empire. They might get testy about Trisong Detsen, who captured Chang'an, but there are plenty of other emperors to choose from.

 

[Jeppetto]

Nuclear Gandhi is not a serious argument regarding any subject, because it is a fanservice joke easter egg made specifically to be as ridiculous as the famous ancient bug.

I mentoined Ghandi as the example off the top of my head because he's the face of that aspect, because, you know, the point of meme is repetetiveness, and what's funny is subjective. If Ghandi triggers something bad here, I could say Nuclear Frederick or Nuclear Victoria and I don't see how my argument is any more blessed suddenly. But I shouldn't avoid some trigger words so that my actual argument's point would not be ignored. I still stand by the fact that If the game allows you to play the Civ your way, it could easily do without binding leaders and civs together.

 

[Leucarum]

Also CK2 and CK3. And yes, Tibet is a fully playable culture, a rather powerful one if I understand correctly (I've never played them); in addition to Tibetan playable rulers it also features Tibetan shamanism (Bön) as a pagan religion.


While you make a good point, Tibet is a fully independent kingdom in CK3 and, as I understand, a pretty powerful one (which is period-accurate). (CK3, of course, only features China in a very limited extent as the map doesn't extend to the Han heartland...at least not yet.) Either way, I think it's sufficient evidence that the PRC wouldn't throw a hissy fit over Civ including the Medieval Tibetan Empire. They might get testy about Trisong Detsen, who captured Chang'an, but there are plenty of other emperors to choose from.

Tibet in the Victoria or Hearts of Iron series might be the most... On the nose, thinking about it.

 

[Jeppetto]

We don't need tiles.

Elaborate? I am not sure what I should imagine under it and I am intrigued.

 

[MrRadar]

I do believe that the most unpopular opinion re Civ VI is the following, well, at least at 2K HQ:

Spoiler :

 

[nzcamel]

"Watch those abbreviations" Alert!

Firaxis ... and include HK ('Hong Kong' or 'Humankind')? WHICH are you referring to?!!

Context is your friend Jaybe

I just played Civ 4 for the first time in years and forgot about the way this was handled. You need to have a trade connection with another civ in order to be able to trade resources. Roads always make a trade connection, but as you progress through the tech tree, trade capability is also enabled on water - first on rivers, then along the coast, and then across oceans. Also, your naval units could blockade cities and tiles. I think these are interesting mechanics that I would like to see come back.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the rivers give you city connection from the start of the game. If not, very close to it...

 

[Time Tested]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the rivers give you city connection from the start of the game. If not, very close to it...

For Vanilla, it was from the very start. In BTS, it was changed to unlock river trade at Sailing.

 

[civac]

Inside you own culture rivers (and coast) provide trade connections without tech requirements. Outside of your own culture Sailing is needed for trading connections along rivers and coast. This both for trade routes as well as for resource trading.

 

[criZp]

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?

Nah, should be easy enough. Put on sailing tech "land units move along rivers as if they were level one roads", put on some later tech "land units move along rivers as if they were level two roads" etc.

 

[AntSou]

Elaborate? I am not sure what I should imagine under it and I am intrigued.

The most fundamental aspect of Civ (besides the historical focus) is obviously the turn-based system. Civ is unconceivable without it. But I don't think tiles are a necessity. The game could drop tiles altogether and use unit movement more akin to the total war campaign map.

As for buildings, it could also follow something more akin to AoE3 or City Skylines, though this is more difficult. There's the danger of turning the game into a city builder. You'd need to reduce the amount of things to build and "Districts" would be the first on the chopping block. Rather than having them as infrastructure that precedes buildings, they could emerge naturally out of the particular combination of buildings in a given area. E.g. Placing a university near a harbour could speed up naval development and admiral acquisition.

In any case, this second aspect is secondary to freedom of unit movement. Imagine finally being able to actually navigate rivers, or scouts being able to pass undetected through an enemy's LoS and ZoC, etc. I think a tileless map offers a lot of freedom.

 

[Leucarum]

I don't know about getting rid of tiles, they make it much easier for you to see what is possible at a glance so I think they add more than they take away.

But the idea of having your buildings be placed on the map and letting them synergize with each other is awesome. I'd personally prefer to keep tiles but maybe replace districts with the idea of all buildings being placed on the map, maybe upgrading previous ones over time etc...

 

[shaglio]

As an avid Dungeons & Dragons player, I was highly disappointed with 4th Edition. But when they made 5th Edition, they did so with input from the players themselves, which created a far superior product.

At first, I was thinking it would be great if Firaxis followed suit and took input from Civ players when making Civ 7. But then reading this thread, I now realize that it would be impossible to get a consensus from the players when we can't seem to agree on anything. Just look at 1UPT, Districts, graphics, etc. They'd be pulling their hair out trying to make decisions on anything in Civ 7 if they listened to us.

 

[Zegangani]

At first, I was thinking it would be great if Firaxis followed suit and took input from Civ players when making Civ 7. But then reading this thread, I now realize that it would be impossible to get a consensus from the players when we can't seem to agree on anything. Just look at 1UPT, Districts, graphics, etc. They'd be pulling their hair out trying to make decisions on anything in Civ 7 if they listened to us.

The Majority of Players when Suggesting things don't take Immersion, Balance and AI under consideration. They simply suggest things that they find interesting/want to have in the Game without looking at the Big Picture from distance, without thinking at the possible Outcome of it and the many preferences of all the Players that have to be put under consideration.

But a Single Die-hard Fan/CivVeteran/Experienced Player (with thousands of Civ Hours on the account - and maybe also of other 4X Games), for whom Games on Deity are like a walking in the Park, is way familiar with the Civ Games than all the casual Players put together. These Players know the Game from the In-and-Outside, they know previous iterations very well, so they know which things worked, which didn't, what is too much for AI to handle, and what is actually in favor of it. So their Thoughts carry more weights than a random casual Player who barely handles Games on Prince, and asks for even easier and simpler mechanics (I remember someone who said that the CS System should be simpler in Civ7). Why? because their Criticisms are mostly legitimate, and even if each one has it's own preferences, they mostly agree on something that it's badly implemented and that it should de reworked/redesigned. But also Important is Realism. Civ is a History based Game, that should be designed with historicity in mind and as realistic as possible (at least sem-realistic). We have so many CivFans here that are well-versed in History, whose Ideas and Suggestion not just make sence, but are mostly much more interesting than some things that we get in the Civ Games (I like that Firaxis started going for more Historicity since Civ V).

That isn't to say that casual Players have bad Ideas, not at all, I encountered many (new) Players who have really awesome Ideas, but the majority just throws anything that they think will be interesting to have in the Game, with no Thought on the Design, Balance and AI.. well, the possible Outcome.

So IMHO, Firaxis should listen to CivVeterans and Active Members of Civ Platforms (mostly this Forum and Reddit) who make valuable contribution to the Community. Like how Humankind recruits its VIPs. If Firaxis only listens to our Suggestions and Complaints about Balance, then we will never get a Game with Features inspired by the Fans.

 

[Xur]

I don’t like builders. I don’t like traders building roads. Maybe it’s weird, but I liked building roads with workers.

 

[Dotsworthy]

I don’t like builders. I don’t like traders building roads. Maybe it’s weird, but I liked building roads with workers.

I liked workers building roads because I could get my cities interconnected very easily which is hard to do early game in VI.