Collated list of remaining issues

[Hellenism Salesman]

I'm not going to say that Civ VI is perfect (far from it), but some people are taking these rather small flaws which admittedly exist and blowing them way out of proportion.

Some of these things are annoying, yes. But they really aren't that bad.

Not everything needs to be utilized as a weapon to push your opinion. Some of these posts just make me think of this...

 

[aieeegrunt]

I see this thread and it blows my mind how butt was this game regarding balancing and bug fixing. They really couldn't bother.

And mind you i don't blame the devs, i like to think they would have liked to improve the game. I blame the company decisions. That being said i can't help but find hypocritical and hollow PR the "cheery, happy" dev videos and the thread saying "thank you"

Talk
Is
Cheap

Actions and results tell the true tale, and clearly playtesting and follow up don’t happen, for whatever reason

I'm not going to say that Civ VI is perfect (far from it), but some people are taking these rather small flaws which admittedly exist and blowing them way out of proportion.

Some of these things are annoying, yes. But they really aren't that bad.

Not everything needs to be utilized as a weapon to push your opinion. Some of these posts just make me think of this...

I don’t recall people complaining about “cartoon graphics” as the biggest concern in theads like these, but very very real game breaking things like the hilarious BS of AI not improving luxuries in the Corporations mode, or the absurd runaway tourism effects

Things which should have been obvious after a single playtest and fixed BEFORE the mode was released

 

[Aurelesk]

If your civ bonuses don’t apply in the first couple eras they might as well not exist, as the game is usually decided by then

This is deeper than I thought. Early bonuses allows to take an early advantage, but what about late bonuses:

• Should they be as strong in order to catch-up the early lead?
  • Then why bother: being weaker in the early game just to be on the same footing on the late game is quite counterproductive. Why pick a late game Civilization instead of an early one?
• Should they be even more stronger in order to have an edge?
  • Then those civilizations would be better at winning a set condition... except being bullied heavily in the early game. Furthermore, starting the game at later era would make them even more stronger.

Is there a good answer? If civilizations with late bonuses are intended to only catch-up early civilizations with early bonuses, then the early ones would be better. If civilizations with late bonuses are intended to reverse the balance with early civilizations, the late ones would be better instead. I guess the balance lies within both.

Having all Civilizations having all their bonuses kicking from turn 1 would remove a lot of variety in the game too.

I don’t recall people complaining about “cartoon graphics” as the biggest concern

It was the biggest concern when it was the only thing we could judge: trailer videos before the game were available. Graphics were the only thing we could really witness back then. I do recall many people complaining that the game looked like a mobile game, and were afraid that Civilization VI will move away from being a realistic and historical game to a more shiny and fantasy.

In the end, both V and VI have graphics that have their fans and detractors. V is considered as more realistic but dull, while VI is considered as more lifeful but cartoony. I believe that other game managed to gauge the realism while not being too dull and the liveliness while not being too cartoony just right.
Maybe Civ VII will manage to offer new kind of graphics that will put to shame everyone, and add new element of design that nobody have thought before!

 

[Alaindor]

I'm not going to say that Civ VI is perfect (far from it), but some people are taking these rather small flaws which admittedly exist and blowing them way out of proportion.

Some of these things are annoying, yes. But they really aren't that bad.

Not everything needs to be utilized as a weapon to push your opinion. Some of these posts just make me think of this...

I couldn't agree more. It's only a game, folks: something we're supposed to enjoy and have fun with. If you don't neither, if you're not inclined to make proposals or build mods to improve at least some of the game aspects which can be, there's one simple way out: just stop playing it. Constructive criticism should be encouraged; constant ranting does not really add much. As frustrating as having paid for a product and it not living up to expectations, I have far worse experiences, far more important in life.

Not specifically addressing people in this thread (rather the overall tone of the forums) and I definitely salute the effort of @Pietato and others here to build this summary, most of which we would like to get addressed as most can be qualified as bugs. I hope you're reading, Devs...

 

[Pietato]

Should they be even more stronger in order to have an edge?

• Then those civilizations would be better at winning a set condition... except being bullied heavily in the early game. Furthermore, starting the game at later era would make them even more stronger.

First point is not really relevant, as the early bonus civs will be ahead by a lot, meaning the late bonus civs will have to catch up first. The second point is valid, though, but I doubt they ever consider that when balancing the game.

 

[Leah and Rachael]

I think 'balancing' the game is never going to happen. It's part of the fun of Civ, that not all civs are equal. Although, admittedly, some inequality is a little extreme - but those are exceptions. Some of the criticisms on these forums makes it sound like it's the norm.

I agree with most of the OP, except maybe the leylines issue. That's part of the intrigue of picking that secret society - that you don't know what you're going to get. It might be worth it, but could also suck. Otherwise, this is one of the best critiques on Civfanatics.

As for lingering bugs, that complaint is fair. Even though the online community sometimes blows them out of proportion, it is the devs' responsibility to fix aspects of the game that are not working properly.

And, finally, the AI.
Well... could an AI be made that the human player could NEVER beat? Probably. Does the AI have issues? Oh, you bet! That said, I think the devs planned to make an AI that behaves the same at all difficulties so that consumers can have a consistent experience. The 'difficulty' comes from the advantages the human/AI gets.
The specific niggling issues will always be there because it is not possible to account for everything, and even if you could the fact that changing one aspect will inversely affect another means an all-round AI is impossible*. For now, at least.

*Point does not include bugs (e.g. AI not improving resources in Monopolies and Corporations)

 

[Abaxial]

You forgot to add: finish World Builder!

 

[Pietato]

Updated a few things.

You forgot to add: finish World Builder!

Honestly, I had no idea it was unfinished...

 

[PiR]

The settler cost going up needs to be eliminated

I totally disagree. Things need to step up as we progress in the game. Damn too easy and unchallenging otherwise

Although I would separate the increase in production and the increase in gold. When you are saving money for a settler, having the price suddenly going up because you just produced one can be frustrating.

 

[Pietato]

Although I would separate the increase in production and the increase in gold. When you are saving money for a settler, having the price suddenly going up because you just produced one can be frustrating.

Faith?

 

[PiR]

Faith?

I rarely buy them with faith, so idk. It could create an exploit to buy settlers for a ridiculous price compared the hammer cost, so maybe it's not a good idea even for gold.

 

[Pietato]

I rarely buy them with faith, so idk. It could create an exploit to buy settlers for a ridiculous price compared the hammer cost, so maybe it's not a good idea even for gold.

Wait...you rarely buy settlers with faith? Monumentality golden age is extremely overpowered because of this.

 

[PiR]

I know, but for the roleplay if I generate a lot of faith I usually choose Exodus of the Evangelists. Not saying I never use Monumentality, just less (I don't care if it's optimal or not).

 

[Archon_Wing]

Exodus can be useful if you also went Crusade, or if you're pushing some kind of belief that scales with the amount of followers/cities and the land kinda sucks anyways.

In practice I usually only do it for Heroic Ages.

It may also be good for Mahabodhi Temple rushes if you're going diplo.

Also what's a world builder? I've never been able to use that thing since it just crashes even when I try to make a simple scenario. :S


Civ balance comments:
And yea, Poland is probably the worst civ in the entire game atm. Yes even Georgia has something useful with their UU.

I would give them a free relic when they culture bomb a tile for the first time, and when they make each level of encampment building for the first time. In addition their palace has 1 extra relic slot.

I suppose some would say that early relic tourism might be too much but I'd personally halve their tourism until Reformed Church, in general. Early relics from luck are pretty lame anyways.

Cree's UU probably should be cheaper than a regular scout if you ask me.

Good Egypt suggestion

China.... eh. Crouching Tiger sucks, but China always gets buffed anyways so no real concern. They also benefit every time a ancient/classical era wonder was added so their kit is incredibly bloated atm

Georgia-- Either make the UB replace walls entirely and get auto upgraded per era or give them faith per wall level. Also extra wildcard from a GA should just be standard. I can't believe they trolled us just by adding it to 1 game mode.

Yea Scotland

Nerherlands-- Add to Radio Oranje to give +1 additional culture/loyalty per level of harbor building in the originating city.

Oh, and as a side note I'd also nerf relic yields by half

 

[Abaxial]

Updated a few things.

Honestly, I had no idea it was unfinished...

Run Worldbuilder and it actually tells you it isn't finished..

 

[Vandlys]

Run Worldbuilder and it actually tells you it isn't finished..

If I worked at FXS the Worldbuilder would be a source of shame for me. Telling people you're making something (at launch), then giving them a half working one with barely any options, then sort of making a second version that works a bit better but can still be called "in early development" and then just dropping it.

So sad... That and modding need to get more attention now that Civ VI seems done.

 

[Horizons]

Issues that probably won't be fixed

Game balanced around only standard speed
Any map size beyond standard leads to LOOOONG end turns essentially stopping the game before you get to the end era's
By the time you reach the modern era you already know who will win the game
Most of the content added in the last year were gimmicks
The AI does not matter to the devs, they consider this a multiplayer game, which is why they never added full modding support..... mods to execs obsessed with multiplayer equals cheating.

If civ7 is anything like civ6 and it does not fix the above.... this series is dead.

Is there much of a multiplayer community for Civ6? It's something I never looked into. I always assume most players will not have the patience to play out a full game especially if it looks like they can't win.

Great post. Please add also:
- AI taking part in emergency aid no longer building aid projects nor giving gold, allowing the player to gain 2 diplo points with 1 gold (or: do not grant 2 DP for the emergency aids)

Ha, I wondered why the AI was no longer giving gold during aid emergencies. I assumed it was a 'fix' and that they were building aid projects instead.

Scotland should be able to build their golf courses in other civilizations who you have open borders with, and on desert tiles. Your golf courses provide culture for every civilization that you build a golf course. Gold and amenities stay the same and go to other civs as well.

Yeah.

Would also like to see corporations being able to 'muscle in' on foreign players' resources too.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I think there's a few choices that need to be balanced so that each choice is at least roughly equal.

- Monumentality is going to be the best golden age to pick almost every time (out of 4 options)

- Intelligence agency is the best mid tier government building almost every time (out of 3 options)

- Work ethic is not QUITE as dominant, but it's still going to be the best out of 9 options probably 75% of the time

- I'm not sure if I want to say "the voidsingers are almost always the best option" or "the hermetics are almost always the worst option". I think the second statement is more true. Regardless, rebalance needed.

- Out of the 20 or whatever pantheons, you pretty much always want two or three of them... Earth Goddess, the free settler one... I understand some are more situational depending on what you have around, but even if my starting area has like 20 cows/sheep around, I'd still pick earth goddess. I actually think this is mostly because early monumentality is too good; if that was nerfed, I'd pick different pantheons more.

 

[Archon_Wing]

They nerfed the crap out of Earth Goddess lately. Open sky is usually a better choice if you have a lot of pastures and/or you're not getting the classical golden age. How much faith is EG really giving you early game; especially if you have jungle?

Also Grand Master's Chapel is usually the better choice if you have faith at all.

 

[Victoria]

Call me a dinosaur weirdo but because of the GS changes I quite like divine spark.