Conclusions on playing Civ5-6 back & forth.

[InsidiousMage]

But I think the ways it handles religious denominations

Yeah, one thing I've always felt was missing in Civ6 was splinter movements and heresies but those don't work too well with the religious victory, which I'm fine with removing if it leads to better mechanics.

it removes religion from direct player control

The problem with this is that if you remove a major mechanic from the player's control then they kind of have to a smaller influence on the game because excessive RNG makes a game unfun. Obviously, if you are slow to found a religion in Civ6 you are going to end up with a subpar religion but getting a subpar religion that also works against the victory type you are going simply because of RNG for isn't great either, which is the problem. Even CK3 give you total control over reforming or creating a religion, which I think is actually necessary if it is going to directly influence the game. If a mechanic can directly influence then the player needs fairly direct control over it. I feel like that's just a byproduct of Civ being a game - things are more fun if you can interact and engage with them instead of just sitting in the background and the player just passively interacting with them.

it uses religion to form diplomatic blocs is a good source of inspiration.

This is definitely something that I think Old World does better than Civ6 since you can adopt a religion wholesale but then the you have the issue that everyone convert to the same religion because of opinion bonuses.

 

[nzcamel]

States are not and never have been what drive religion, though. I'd like to see religion removed from something the player controls to something the player responds to.

I don't disagree and wouldn't mind a very nuanced system, but on that basis the scientific victory needs to go as well. Yes, in the early stages of space exploration, only governments of massive economies could pursue that; but that is coming to an end; and overall throughout history science has been as much something outside the control of authorities as religion is. The state can harness science or fight it, or take a more nuanced approach, but regardless of the choice authorities make, science will carry on regardless. Ditto with culture. So I think you're arguing the wrong point

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think the need for revision becomes especially apparent when exactly one religious civ in Civ6 actually founded its religion--Arabia.

Does Byzantium not count?

I don't disagree and wouldn't mind a very nuanced system, but on that basis the scientific victory needs to go as well. Yes, in the early stages of space exploration, only governments of massive economies could pursue that; but that is coming to an end; and overall throughout history science has been as much something outside the control of authorities as religion is. The state can harness science or fight it, or take a more nuanced approach, but regardless of the choice authorities make, science will carry on regardless. Ditto with culture. So I think you're arguing the wrong point

Corporations too, at least today, which I would like to see implemented in an Economic Victory.
But I do actually agree with getting rid of religious victory, only to incorporate into the cultural victory considering how big religion played in the development of culture in civilizations.

 

[Evie]

The science victory does indeed need to go as such. Space Race, however, shoudl stay.

Victory in the game should fundamentally mean *ending* the game in some fundamental way - the game has reached the limits of what it's allowed to simulate. There are no more players (well, only one) left to play. The civs have now moved on beyond earth and are no longer limited by what happens on their starting planet. The preset turn-limit is reached, All of these means the game has gone past what it can simulate, and thus, the game naturally ends, and we crown a winner.

Hackneyed arbitrary X number of points and similar victories are just an attempt to make various aspects of the game matter without actually makign them matter (ie, by making them important toward the existing victory conditions).

 

[Horizons]

Keep most things. Civ5 was pretty one-dimensional. It was also painfully slow in the early game. To that end, reduce production costs in early game to allow plenty of action.

The Civ6 ability to create corps and armies instead of having to wait for a random GG to appear to create one. I did like the Civ5 ability of GG to create a fort that expanded your boundaries. I'd like a system where you can lay claim to land without settling on it first, and be able to sell that land. I also liked the Civ4 systems of corporations and being able to split off territory on a separate continent as a new nation. Please tone down the global warning stuff. Don't put stupid things in like GDRs. Spies should be able to do other stuff like poison water supply. Implement pandemics. Implement mass transit, perhaps as a city improvement (like in Civ4). Ability to build hospitals (city health and heal units) and police stations (reduce effectiveness of spies and dissidents). Let city states turn into neutral nations by allowing them to have more cities. Let barbs build cities instead of whack-a-mole barb camps. (Again, from Civ4)

I also liked the wild animal barbs from Civ4 lol!

 

[Prester John 2]

I also do like to have something like loyalty just not how it is implemented today. I liked very much the stability system in Civ4's Rhye's and Fall where bigger empires were prone to instability and could fall apart. So was a real disincentive to go big. In Civ6 small empires are now disincentivized because a bigger empire can just overwhelm you with loyalty.

 

[kaspergm]

Eurekas and inspirations are a great idea, but I hate how they're implemented. The whole mechanic of swapping out techs before they're fully researched so as not to waste beakers, doing these little "fetch quests" which may otherwise be irrelevant to your plans in order to get the boost...I get that this is considered "active play", but it has always felt gamey and counterintuitive to me, and active play isn't worth much when you're repeating the same stuff every time.

As I said, I do like the idea. Having your civilization develop differently depending on circumstances is a good concept, but as with so many of Civ 6's good ideas, the implementation needed to be refined and overhauled. For starters, I would not have the boost be a bulk amount of beakers, but rather a percentage modifier to research speed. That would mean if you want a tech early, you may be better off starting research early. Next, I would have fewer "have N of X" triggers, as these often encourage you to do irrelevant stuff...such as building two field cannons in order to get to Democracy quicker. While less active, I think it would have been better to have conditions which are more about the circumstances of the map and civ. Conditions such has having found a natural wonder, settling a city on the coast, or being the target of a declaration of war, are all fine.

I agree with your general thoughts here. My own personal spin on Eurekas is that we need to get away from the locked Eurekas, because they become repetitive and, like you say, forces you into doing irrelevant things which kills immersion and adds a lot of micromanagement.

I would rather that technologies are grouped in broader pools based on their focus: Military, science, religion, economy, production, infrastructure, etc. And then Eurekas work such that doing an activity will have a small chance of triggering a Eureka towards the next technology related to that activity. So if you're in war, attacking a unit will have a small chance of giving you a Eureka towards the next military technology. When your workers build improvement, there will be a small chance of triggering the Eureka for an infrastructure technology, etc. This would mean that you would actually have more Eurekas in areas that you do a lot, which I think is much better than the current system. Also I think Eurekas need to be a lot rarer than the current "gotta catch them all" system.

 

[DImensiondog]

Heaps. Civ 6 was (while far from perfect) a return to the direction that 4 was going in where most every turn there were interesting decisions to be made. Too much of 5 is just clicking next turn. So it's hard for me to single out one or two things; so I'll just rattle off a bunch of stuff that I want to stay in 7 some form or other. The movement rules (best in the history of the game!!!); the split tech-civic trees; loyalty; districts; individual great people giving specific rewards; individual city states giving specifc rewards; the religious victory; and no doubt a few more things I'll add at 3am!
I'd also like eurekas and inspirations to stay, but I'd rather the game had better pacing, and they may be too big a hinderance for that.

I recently got civ 6 mechanics are great the actual content like the tech tree and buildings are rubbish i grab one to three useful techs an era after ancient and then I beeline next era, as someone who’s played civ 4 this was further from it then civ 5. Civ 5 was my favourite content wise but civ 6 had far more potential.

Ps I am only playing vanilla I don’t know if it changes with dlc

 

[Vandlys]

I like the idea that certain practices should passively contribute towards your technological and civic direction.

For instance, in Civ 5 the more you engaged in combat, the more points you gained towards Great Generals. This was removed from Civ 6 and turned into an ability for a couple of unique units.

This kind of design should be applied imo to more facets of the game.

Examples:

- You settle on coast. Rather than gaining an immediate Eureka boost, you gain a passive amount each turn which in time will result in you unlocking the tech without even needing to focus on it.

- The randomness effect which you speak of could be in the form of a small chance of gaining some progress towards a tech which neighbouring Civs have already unlocked. Whether you have roads to them, open borders, relationship, ongoing trade, the amount of Civs, etc... all of that would make it more or less likely to get you a small yield towards that tech each turn.

I love the idea of passive contributions to your tech research. 1 city on the coast? Small passive bonus to sailing. Many cities on the coast? Larger passive bonus to sailing.

I think civics/policies are better designed in Humankind and Civ 5. In Civ 6 it's basically another tech tree.

Policy cards also became tiresome fairly quickly. That's a design I wouldn't mind part with.

I like the tree in general better because it makes me feel it's highly structured, but I like 5's policy better because it seems more like you really want to specify. 6's card system sometimes makes me feel there is only 1 right choice, and in my 2500 hours of play I barely had the feeling that I needed that card to make a huge change. It was either no change whatsoever, or quickly switching a lot of cards to change direction. The latter being more of a tedious task than something fun.

 

[nzcamel]

I love the idea of passive contributions to your tech research. 1 city on the coast? Small passive bonus to sailing. Many cities on the coast? Larger passive bonus to sailing.

Definately agree with this, though I appreciate that applied to every tech and civic it could be much harder to implement.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

The 5 version of world congress is much better (hate the one in 6)
corps/armies in 6 is great.
Ideologies. I really like them.
Religion: I get one mostly to stop the AI, and I do like buying buildings with faith. So 6 ver (but RV needs work)
Space race: I loved putting the ship together. (and nuking the planet then clicking the last one into place)
Policy cards/Govenors: I like.
Bring back no razing of city states.
Envoys or cash for getting CS. cash. (mind you, Ideologies, then gunboat diplomacy .... )

thassit for now.

 

[blackbutterfly]

What the hell is wrong with you people wanting to get rid of loyalty? It is the single best mechanic in Civ6 and must be kept for Civ7.

From a gameplay point of view loyalty prevents forward settling.
I get it, people liked that.

But IRL if there was such a thing how on earth could the British Empire have kept Hong Kong, Gibraltar, the Falklands and even South Africa?
Or the USA and Alaska?

The world isn't clumps of contiguous territories.

Also all loyalty did was make the game easier.
Rise & Fall turned out to be a misnomer, because with loyalty you had to go wider, faster.
Then you can still forward settle opponents and you have been more aggressive in the process.

The concept of Influence is far superior and more relevant.
I much prefer Civ V's ideologies based city flipping than Civ VI's.
Or you can see how Amplitude implemented it in HUMANKIND.

Referring to the wikipedia, it cites 4 sources of influence:
political, cultural, economic and military.

Firaxis have an opportunity for Civ VII to really reimagine this concept.

So far in Civ, your military has no other purpose other than combat.
But what if it could be used to exert influence?

 

[Zaarin]

Does Byzantium not count?

...No, because Christianity still didn't originate in Byzantium, even if Eastern Orthodoxy did.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

States are not and never have been what drive religion, though. I'd like to see religion removed from something the player controls to something the player responds to. So you can set a state religion, decide to tolerate or persecute a religion, perhaps even reform a religion--but religion itself is at a level removed from the player's control. There's not really a space for a religious victory in that context. Civ6's handling of religion is, IMO, extremely dissatisfactory, and RV is responsible for at least 60% of that. I think the need for revision becomes especially apparent when exactly one religious civ in Civ6 actually founded its religion--Arabia. Christianity didn't originate in Georgia or Spain or Russia. Buddhism didn't originate with the Khmer or Japan. Hinduism didn't originate in Indonesia. Civ4 and Civ5 handled religion okay, but still with a lot of room for improvement.

Religion is based upon a kinda specific example of religions being founded in a country and quickly becoming a tool of the state to the point that we could say that the point founded it (Islam for Arabia, Confucianism for China for examples), just like the way civilizations expand are based upon the very specific examples of how European countries viewed cultures, conquest and civilization. They had to choose a way to simulate it, to abstract it in a fun and engaging way (because passivity is generally less fun that actively interacting), and this way is not bad.

But, yeah, they went too far IMO. I am really enjoying the customization side of religion, definitely. However, making it tedious AND a victory condition in itself was going perhaps too far. I think that a best religion would be a mix between Civ 4 and 5 :

• From Civ 4, we take the influence on diplomacy that having the same or different religions (with the possibility of taking some sort of secularism at some point);
• From Civ 5, the customization of the religion with several tenets, going with the shtick of building your own civilization.

In fact, I'm really enjoying how religion works in Humankind. Sure, this game has lots of room for improvement, but I think religion is currently in a sweet spot. Everyone basically founds its religion, but needs followers to expand itself (so you're rewarded by propagating your religion, unlike in Civ 6), you can still customize it, and it is a part of the diplomacy, until you reach Secularism (you're immune from religious grievances) or even better, State Atheism, which is counted as a religion without bonus. This way of handling religion is, IMO, perfect.

I agree with your general thoughts here. My own personal spin on Eurekas is that we need to get away from the locked Eurekas, because they become repetitive and, like you say, forces you into doing irrelevant things which kills immersion and adds a lot of micromanagement.

I would rather that technologies are grouped in broader pools based on their focus: Military, science, religion, economy, production, infrastructure, etc. And then Eurekas work such that doing an activity will have a small chance of triggering a Eureka towards the next technology related to that activity. So if you're in war, attacking a unit will have a small chance of giving you a Eureka towards the next military technology. When your workers build improvement, there will be a small chance of triggering the Eureka for an infrastructure technology, etc. This would mean that you would actually have more Eurekas in areas that you do a lot, which I think is much better than the current system. Also I think Eurekas need to be a lot rarer than the current "gotta catch them all" system.

The whole technology tree has to go. Seriously, it's a relic from the past, that's so narrow-minded, but it's traditionnal, so why change it?

I'd prefer a system ala Stellaris way more. You choose which techs you want to research from a pool of three proposed available techs (renewed each time you researched a tech). Each tech has some weight of appearing in this specific pool, and some elements might influence it (like, previously researched techs, your own ethics, some resources discovered...). It is a much satisfying blend of the random nature of scientific research and some control for the player to not be at the mercy of the RNG gods.

If it were me, the system of techs would be entirely redesigned. We have to get out of this outdated tech trees. Having each "tech" with a chance of being randomly discovered each turn (a very small chance). Those chances increases if you have enough intellectuals/scholars/researchers in your empire, and based upon other elements, like environmental (bigger chances to discover sailing or fishing if settle near water, bigger chances to discover sailing if you discover fishing, etc...). Linking the probability of discovery of one tech to other, previous techs, could maintain some sort of the "tech tree" for those who really want it, but... We also have to get out of our European single minded tech progression. Like, you don't need to discover the wheel to know how to use money. Or you could even discover the Steam Engine during the Antiquity, but without mass metallurgy, coal, or even the economic necessity of using it (because you have much cheaper slaves), it won't help you that much.

JUST. GET. RID. OF. THE. TECH. TREE!!!!

 

[Zaarin]

Religion is based upon a kinda specific example of religions being founded in a country and quickly becoming a tool of the state to the point that we could say that the point founded it (Islam for Arabia, Confucianism for China for examples), just like the way civilizations expand are based upon the very specific examples of how European countries viewed cultures, conquest and civilization. They had to choose a way to simulate it, to abstract it in a fun and engaging way (because passivity is generally less fun that actively interacting), and this way is not bad.

But, yeah, they went too far IMO. I am really enjoying the customization side of religion, definitely. However, making it tedious AND a victory condition in itself was going perhaps too far. I think that a best religion would be a mix between Civ 4 and 5 :

• From Civ 4, we take the influence on diplomacy that having the same or different religions (with the possibility of taking some sort of secularism at some point);
• From Civ 5, the customization of the religion with several tenets, going with the shtick of building your own civilization.

I agree with all of this.

In fact, I'm really enjoying how religion works in Humankind.

I want to like HK. I've loved Amplitude for a very long time. Unfortunately, I can't name a single thing the game has done well. Like Civ6, lots of great ideas--all of them badly implemented. And it doesn't seem to be getting better. Amplitude fixes bugs and makes balance changes, but the base game itself is just too skeletal to fix. I found HK's approach to religion extremely tepid and anemic. Many of its ideas are fine, but it doesn't feel impactful or meaningful. Or religious.

The whole technology tree has to go. Seriously, it's a relic from the past, that's so narrow-minded, but it's traditionnal, so why change it?

I'd prefer a system ala Stellaris way more. You choose which techs you want to research from a pool of three proposed available techs (renewed each time you researched a tech). Each tech has some weight of appearing in this specific pool, and some elements might influence it (like, previously researched techs, your own ethics, some resources discovered...). It is a much satisfying blend of the random nature of scientific research and some control for the player to not be at the mercy of the RNG gods.

If it were me, the system of techs would be entirely redesigned. We have to get out of this outdated tech trees. Having each "tech" with a chance of being randomly discovered each turn (a very small chance). Those chances increases if you have enough intellectuals/scholars/researchers in your empire, and based upon other elements, like environmental (bigger chances to discover sailing or fishing if settle near water, bigger chances to discover sailing if you discover fishing, etc...). Linking the probability of discovery of one tech to other, previous techs, could maintain some sort of the "tech tree" for those who really want it, but... We also have to get out of our European single minded tech progression. Like, you don't need to discover the wheel to know how to use money. Or you could even discover the Steam Engine during the Antiquity, but without mass metallurgy, coal, or even the economic necessity of using it (because you have much cheaper slaves), it won't help you that much.

JUST. GET. RID. OF. THE. TECH. TREE!!!!

I think a system like Stellaris's works better in the context of sci-fi than history, but I agree with the general sentiment. Civ6 was an attempt to rethink the tech tree by splitting it, but it could still be done better. I'd love to see a much bolder approach to tech in the future.

 

[nzcamel]

In fact, I'm really enjoying how religion works in Humankind. Sure, this game has lots of room for improvement, but I think religion is currently in a sweet spot. Everyone basically founds its religion, but needs followers to expand itself (so you're rewarded by propagating your religion, unlike in Civ 6), you can still customize it, and it is a part of the diplomacy, until you reach Secularism (you're immune from religious grievances) or even better, State Atheism, which is counted as a religion without bonus. This way of handling religion is, IMO, perfect.

As far as I can see there are benefits in 6 to propagating your religion, even if you set aside winning the game by doing so! Some of them are variable, depending upon what beliefs your religion has, but all are good.

 

[nzcamel]

I think a system like Stellaris's works better in the context of sci-fi than history, but I agree with the general sentiment. Civ6 was an attempt to rethink the tech tree by splitting it, but it could still be done better. I'd love to see a much bolder approach to tech in the future.

100%

 

[Zaarin]

As fas as I can see there are benefits in 6 to propagating your religion, even if you set aside winning the game by doing so! Some of them are variable, depending upon what beliefs your religion has, but all are good.

I think my biggest issue with the way religion works in Civ6 is that there's a benefit to spreading but not much benefit from being spread to. Religion becomes a zero-sum game in which everyone scrambles for their own religion. I actually found Civ6's religion game much more reasonable and enjoyable when I reduced the number of religions to two or three for an 8-12 player game. That way you don't have everyone in the world following their own religion, which they jealously try to propagate exclusively (and turning off RV does not affect AI behavior regarding religion). Apostles, religious combat, and religion that only spreads through active missionaries after the early game while the AI jealously guards their own religions made the religious game very tedious compared to Civ5, where AI leaders were much more accepting of being proselytized (as long as they didn't have their own religion) and passive spread was actually effective. If RV must return, I think it needs a different endgame than "convert the world," and the active elements of religion need to be nerfed or done away with. Not every system needs to be realistic if it's fun, but active religion in Civ6 isn't even fun. At least IMO. A different endgame would also be less Abrahamocentric (is that a word? ) since not every religion aims to make converts (or even accepts them). Maybe establishing some kind of utopian heaven on earth or something.

 

[nzcamel]

I think my biggest issue with the way religion works in Civ6 is that there's a benefit to spreading but not much benefit from being spread to. Religion becomes a zero-sum game in which everyone scrambles for their own religion.

I think there are significant benefits in being spread to as long as it isn't by the dominent religion and/or if you like the follower beliefs of a religion. Nurturing a religion that isn't winning the religious game stops that victory even though you cannot win it. Maybe there should be a boost to what you gain as a follower of any religion to make people see it as more beneficial than they already should. I mean in the case that the religion spread to you does have follower beliefs that aren't doing anything for you.
Certainly buffing how one is passively interacted with by others (i.e. trade routes coming to you giving you benefits too) should be reconsidered.

I actually found Civ6's religion game much more reasonable and enjoyable when I reduced the number of religions to two or three for an 8-12 player game. That way you don't have everyone in the world following their own religion, which they jealously try to propagate exclusively (and turning off RV does not affect AI behavior regarding religion). Apostles, religious combat, and religion that only spreads through active missionaries after the early game while the AI jealously guards their own religions made the religious game very tedious compared to Civ5, where AI leaders were much more accepting of being proselytized (as long as they didn't have their own religion) and passive spread was actually effective. If RV must return, I think it needs a different endgame than "convert the world," and the active elements of religion need to be nerfed or done away with. Not every system needs to be realistic if it's fun, but active religion in Civ6 isn't even fun. At least IMO. A different endgame would also be less Abrahamocentric (is that a word? ) since not every religion aims to make converts (or even accepts them). Maybe establishing some kind of utopian heaven on earth or something.

I'm absolutely open to more variety within the religious game, but I no more specifically object to the evangelical religions take on things being the favoured one re victory than I am on Mongolia and Scythia settling cities, rather than being more nomadic. I mean I'd love to see Civ find a way to show the horselords properly, but I don't know how they do that while keeping them as playable civs!

 

[aieeegrunt]

Backtrack on districts.

Some districts are clearly absolutely necessary.
E.g: Harbour (so near coastal cities can build ships).
Canal (to traverse and connect seas/oceans).
Dam (to prevent flooding and provide power).
Spaceport (a victory specific district is fine).
Aerodrome/airport (ok)
Water park
Observatory (IRL these are large constructions so giving them an entire district is ok IMO).

Backtrack on religious warfare. (Should have been a game mode).
Civ V style passive religion is better.

Bring back Civ V ideologies.
And city culture flipping.

Axe loyalty and mikey mouse governors.
Civ V puppets are much better.
Even better earlier Civ games used governors to puppet cities. That.

You can do almost all of this with the right mods, and it dramatically improves the game, especially AI performance

The problem with religion in CK3 is that it is extremely boring as a game mechanic and you can basically forget it about for the entire game. Civ6 has problems with religion but I don't think going in the direction of CK3 is a good idea.


Loyalty stops the AI from turning the map into a Jackson Pollock painting and is a good mechanic based on that alone. AI settling in the base game is absurd and loyalty fixes some of the major issues with it.

The way Loyalty is implemented in Civ6 is a hilariously terrible mechanic, both in terms of gameplay and history

If you are getting fragment settled by the AI, it means YOU forward settled and left porous borders. You shouldn’t get to have your cake and eat it too

Live by it. Die by it.