Looking Forward

[Askia Muhammad]

Maybe I’m alone in this but I felt that Civilization VI deviated from the earlier games in that it seems they tried their hardest to make a virtual board game.

I am really hoping they bring back some kind of immersion from earlier entries into the series. There are some things I like about Civ VI much more than it’s predecessors but I absolutely hate all of the gamey systems. They take me right out of feeling like I’m leading a nation and remind me that hey you’re playing a virtual board game.

I’m not asking for a simulator but I think they could do a bit more to make the game feel less like a board game and more like a proper game.

For one, I particularly hate the policy cards and this iteration of the world congress. I liked Agendas on paper but relationships and diplomacy in general seems to shallow in practice.
We also badly need some kind of movement QOL that will also help the AI conduct war.

For things I enjoy, I like the resource costs for units, I like loyalty as a concept but think it could use some added depth, I like the colorful style much better than prior titles, I like the design of civs generally a lot more than prior entries as they feel much more unique.

What are somethings you guys like about Civilization VI and some things you don’t like?

 

[acluewithout]

I really like the virtual game board approach. I think at its core that‘s why this version of Civ is so good.

Immersion is a tricky thing. I actually find Civ VI more immersive that many other games precisely because it’s so like a board game. The abstract mechanics let me project whatever story I want into the game. The board game feel is also itself part of the immersion, because it makes me the player feel like I am playing some “great game” with history. To me, it’s very similar to how Chess feels more like a war game to me than actual war games because of the pure abstract strategy.

This is where games like CK3, HK and OW are a real turn off for me. By trying to make their games feel more real or narrative driven, they just create this weird uncanny valley where you’re even more aware it’s a video game and not real.

The game systems are fine. Yeah, each one is sort of separate. But they are often thematically linked (eg City States and Alliances have similar “types”, Spies and Religious Units and a Rockbands use similar promotion systems). And increasingly these different mechanics do link up in subtle ways, like religion, diplomacy and loyalty; or diplomacy, visibility and war.

And while we’re at it, I absolutely love the current policy card system, I like agendas (and think they are often mischaracterised by people) and flat out think this is the best version of the World Congress (although, yeah, some of the resolutions could use a tweak and I wish it had a trigger rather than just auto-starting in the medieval era).

So, yeah. Sorry. You’re very welcome to your view and I expect many will share it. But I completely disagree with you.

 

[Zaarin]

I liked Agendas on paper but relationships and diplomacy in general seems to shallow in practice.

I love Civ6, but this is it's biggest problem for me. In an attempt to make the AI feel like "big personalities," they actually feel like they have less personality than in previous incarnations--which is a shame because the lively animations and generally improved voice acting make one want to interact with the AI more. Instead of making them have personality the agenda system just makes the AI seem manic and irrational--and not the human kind of irrational. A second pet peeve is I'd love to see a more realistic, less centralized, less nationalized approach to religion next time around (and no religious victory, please).

Overall, though, I agree with @acluewithout that Civ6's approach works well for me (though I'm enjoying CK3 and looking forward to Humankind, having loved Amplitude's previous games, so variety is nice).

flat out think this is the best version of the World Congress

It is, sadly, the best version, and that's a testament to how horrible all the WC implementations have been. I don't hate it, but it has problems. I think it would be fine if 1) it didn't trigger until someone has met everyone and then everyone meets, like Civ5; 2) it ditched the idiotic luxury ban; and 3) it added the option to defy WC at a diplomatic cost.

I absolutely love the current policy card system

Me, too. This may be Civ6's best idea after districts. Then again, I'm the weirdo who loved AoE3's card system, too...

 

[Bast]

I like the board game feeling also. I think AI relationships suck though.

 

[acluewithout]

I'd love to see a more realistic, less centralized, less nationalized approach to religion next time around (and no religious victory, please).

I’m a big fan of the Religion system, but would agree with that entirely. Less nationalised. No RV (because it just constrains the mechanics).

[The current World Congress] is, sadly, the best version, and that's a testament to how horrible all the WC implementations have been. I don't hate it, but it has problems. I think it would be fine if 1) it didn't trigger until someone has met everyone and then everyone meets, like Civ5; 2) it ditched the idiotic luxury ban; and 3) it added the option to defy WC at a diplomatic cost.

I’d mostly agree with that. As I’ve said before, I think some of the resolutions would work better if they were grouped - eg don’t ban furs, ban animal luxuries (furs, whales etc). I’d also like a trigger for the World Congress. I’d prefer the trigger was building a certain Wonder eg the Apostolic Palace, but meeting everyone is fine too.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I’m a big fan of the Religion system, but would agree with that entirely. Less nationalised. No RV (because it just constrains the mechanics).

Come to think of it, if only City-States can found religion that would be interesting. Don't know how it would work with founder belief though.

 

[criZp]

I wish the devs would actually play their own game for more than half an hour every few months on the streams. Then they would maybe get an idea of all the things that can be improved and made more fun.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

I hope Civ VI becomes the home for all the board game designs, I guess through the season passes it can live forever.

Then Civ VII can be... not board game.

 

[Atlas Shrug]

I still prefer the design of Civ V and agree that while the agendas are good the net result when combined with the animation is they make the AI seem less real / more manic and irrational.

I love the music to Civ VI, I love the board game feel and the various systems and just want them to be more interlinked so it feels like there are consequences for decisions. I also wish decision making was able to speed up later (e.g. it makes no sense for a governor to need 5 turns to move cities after flight is discovered and late game transport is still off).

I want the various systems to evolve so it feels like civilisations are not their leaders but are a people - who's religion, language, culture, economy (and capital) evolve. That can mean tension within the same civ and perhaps schism and separation or mergers elsewhere. Especially when you consider the colonial context. Appreciate ethnicity and colonialism are sensitive and tough to get a handle on though. I liked the diplomatic marriage option that Austria had in Civ V.

So I wish civs didn't have the same leader for 5000 years or that their clothes and backgrounds weren't the same (I want Pericles out of a toga drinking in a yacht off Corfu).

 

[Zaarin]

their clothes and backgrounds weren't the same

They tried that in Civ3. The results were bad. Very bad.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I started playing the old Avalon-Hill board games back in the early 1960s, worked for Simulations Publications for a while in New York and for the GRD people making the Europa series of board games, had at one time a collection of over 200 board games, and lectured at board game conventions for over 10 years. I'm a little familiar with board games.
Therefore, I do not understand what possible purpose is served by taking a computer game, an entirely different medium from a paper/cardboard board game, and try to limit it to board game mechanics. It is self-defeating, because you are consciously ignoring all the different things you could be doing with the computer by limiting it to doing board game things like choosing from a card set of Civics or following a flow chart of technologies.

To me, this is simply Luddite Behavior in game design.

Now, I will be the first to admit that there are mechanics from board games that are near-universal: Combat Factors, Zones of Control/Influence, Movement Factors modified by terrain types - these have all been 'standard practice' since Avalon Hill's Tactics II, Gettysburg, Afrika Korps, and Waterloo boardgames of 60 years ago. But to restrict the computer game mechanics to board game mechanics because that's all you know how to do, or all that you think the gamers can handle, is a gross dis-service to the game, the gamers, and the potential for raising the bar in 4X historical computer gaming.

We and Firaxis should be able to do better. Much better.