CivLuvah
Deity
here are no civil wars, no slowing down of players pulling too far ahead like you would have with paradox games. There is no real threat from the ai being mad at you, no coalition wars an no dangerous hostility.
There is no downside to massive conquest, amenities are not so much of an issue and your empire does not risk civil wars, rebellions or slower tech growth.
This is the greatest barrier to civ in my opinion, it is afraid to punish the player and pose a challenge.
Let me just point out that that point of the argument is basically comparing Civ6 with Paradox games, which has become the new "standard" of what a 4X game should be.
I would rather compare Civ6 on its own - by that I mean the rest of the franchise. Paradox games let you play with mechanics that closely reflect historical conditions, so they're more like an alternative history/historical simulation game. The Civilization franchise is mostly semi-fantastical, in which you start from scratch (4000BC), and play on what is essentially an extended, interactive, sophisticated board game in which you pretend to be a unique civilization with a unique leader. If I would want to have a global Irish empire with Great Britain as its core, I would go and play a Paradox game. If I would want to play as the Irish against the Maori, Maya, and Germany, I would play a Civ game. Comparing the two is like comparing tangerines and oranges, sometimes I like tangerines, sometimes oranges. They're both different fruits with the same content.
In addition, I would agree that the main target audience of Civ6 is a general one while Paradox games seem to cater to those who want a deeper strategy.
Last edited: