Looks like Civ 6 is done: Kevin called April "final game update"

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I am in all honestly ambivalent towards new civilisations, but I really think some key gameplay changes could make the game perfect:

• World Congress that's a carbon copy of Civilisation 5's, because that one truly was perfect: votes based on city-state suzerainty was sublime and made diplomacy feel dynamic. Being able to decide on resolutions also made diplomacy genuinely something you wanted to be a part of, as opposed to going "ah, it's just a vote on +100% production to a district - it'll go to the city center anyway so I won't even bother."
• Some civilisation or other ability to have essentially what Byzantium had in Civilisation 5: a bonus, non-exclusive belief which can also come from the Pantheon belief pool.
• Any kind of way to influence the government types of other civilisations. If point 1) above is taken, then diplomatic favor could be re-used for such a mechanic: essentially a kind of diplomatic strong-arming or sweet-talking to get a better deal than you normally could. Accompanying this would also be a sharper relation between tourism and government in the late game.
  
• Puppet cities, again as per Civilisation 5.
• Unit gifting, yet again like Civilisation 5. Simply being able to park a unit in another's territory and click a button to give it to them would add wonderful strategic depth.

These are all from Civilisation 5 not because I have a deep nostalgia for it, but because they were good and smart gameplay options which could enhance the otherwise better gameplay of 6. Admittedly, I have no suggestions for making the AI handle this increased complexity: most of these would have the biggest impact in multiplayer.

The only complaint I had for Civ V World Congress was that it was basically "Rich decide". Play Venice, and the World Congress is yours. It was not necessarily fun.
But that what would have been so great with Civ VI though: you don't gain suzerainty through gold! Well, except for Hungary, but it's different. Therefore, the World Congress wouldn't simply be the richest powers decide, but truly a representation of diplomatic power!

Civ V's WC felt so... real, so alive. Regularly, we met in the capital of the most diplomatically prominent civ, decide on some issues. You really had delegates which represented real things (Major Civs had more delegates, but also Minor Civs (city-States)), I really imagined people in the World Congress raising their hands for a proposition. We also chose the issues, what seems important.
Civ VI's WC feels like a nuisance, every X turn we have some immaterial institution popping up, like a salesman or a census man, asking you questions coming from Who Boat Mormons Know, then going off. It feels so disconnected. I don't manage to feel connected with Civ VI's WC while I had no issue with Civ V's WC.
I prefer nonetheless the "competitions" of Civ VI rather than V though. V's competitions were just projects, VI's competitions seems more different, and won't always be won by the same civ because it has the most productive cities.

I miss Civ V's World Congress. I hope that they will take strong inspiration from it for Civ V.

----

As for all the rest, about the balance, about wanting more because there are space designs unused, I say: wait for the April Balance Patch. Who knows, we might have surprises!
And if, as a lot of you suggest, it will be disappointing, then we all will be allowed to complain. But for now, knowing that (supposidly) a big thing is waiting, I think it would be prematurate to complain about the state of the game and how they could let him that unfinished. I know it won't probably be fixed by April, but, again, who knows? Have a little faith, and let the rightful wrath of CivFanatics resume on April the 23rd.

 

[Kwami]

Speaking of multiplayer, I wish grievances actually mattered when playing against human players. In singleplayer you have to kind of play around the grievances and use casus belli's to avoid pitting the world against yourself. In multiplayer grievances don't matter at all and everyone just surprise wars eachother.

Grievances do matter in multiplayer in that having a lot of them against you increases war wariness, decreases loyalty, and overall makes your empire less efficient. That's basically what they do in single-player games, too. It's pretty rare that anyone cares about upsetting the other AI players when the whole point is to kill them all anyway. I guess you might have that short phase where the combined forces of the AI could overwhelm you in an emergency or something, but that doesn't usually happen.

 

[tat501]

If its done...and its a big if...then I can weigh in with my thoughts rating.
Ultimately, I don't think it quite hit Civ V heights. I preferred Civ V to IV, but III to IV also tbh. Civ 6 - an honourable 7/10. I never got used to the cartoony nature of it and graphics though.

 

[TeddyMain]

City states are not civs

Venice was a civ in Civ 5, alongside Rome. They could definitely have two civs to represent the Italian peninsula: one representing Rome, while another could represent Renaissance or Industrial Italy.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Venice was a civ in Civ 5, alongside Rome. They could definitely have two civs to represent the Italian peninsula: one representing Rome, while another could represent Renaissance or Industrial Italy.

We have Byzantium+Greece (occuping the same territory), Byzantium+Rome (literally being the same country for a time), Byzantium+Ottomans (they LITERALLY have the same capital), but still for a long time it was impossible for people to have Rome+Italy at the same time. Somehow.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

We have Byzantium+Greece (occuping the same territory), Byzantium+Rome (literally being the same country for a time), Byzantium+Ottomans (they LITERALLY have the same capital), but still for a long time it was impossible for people to have Rome+Italy at the same time. Somehow.

And we have Macedon+Byzantium, Macedon+Persia, and Macedon+Greece.

Although honestly, I would forgo Italy or even Bulgaria just to have more African, Asian, or North American civs. Between Byzantium, Macedon, Gaul, and Scotland, I am quite disappointed in how VI continued to push euro-centric biases.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And we have Macedon+Byzantium, Macedon+Persia, and Macedon+Greece.

Although honestly, I would forgo Italy or even Bulgaria just to have more African, Asian, or North American civs. Between Byzantium, Macedon, Gaul, and Scotland, I am quite disappointed in how VI continued to push euro-centric biases.

I mean Byzantium was eventually going to happen, it happened the past 3 games, and well I'm biased because I don't hate Alexander like everyone else seems to.

I agree that maybe having both Gaul and Scotland was a little unnecessary and could have forgone one of them, probably Scotland, for another North American civ or North African civ.
Of course then again why forgo Scotland when we could have not gotten Canada?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

From May to July-at least-they need to focus 100% on balancing & bug-fixing. Though I'd love to see existing features further fleshed out.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I mean Byzantium was eventually going to happen, it happened the past 3 games, and well I'm biased because I don't hate Alexander like everyone else seems to.

I agree that maybe having both Gaul and Scotland was a little unnecessary and could have forgone one of them, probably Scotland, for another North American civ or North African civ.
Of course then again why forgo Scotland when we could have not gotten Canada?

I would have made Alexander a dual leader for Greece and Persia.

I would have made Basil an alternate leader for Rome and retweaked Rome to have the hippodrome and trade routes as a common unique.

I would have cut Scotland or made it an alternate leader for a "Britain" civ with Vicky. Although then Eleanor would not have made as much sense. Probably would have just cut Scotland.

And I probably would have skipped Gaul although I'm oddly satisfied with how it was implemented. It's the only one of the four that I think stands okay as a separate civ.

That would have left three other slots in the roster: One for North America, one for North Africa, and one for Asia. Cut out Canada/Cree for a second North American civ and the roster would be a lot more balanced.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would have made Alexander a dual leader for Greece and Persia.

Not sure if that's the right way to break the streak of Achaemenid leaders.

I would have made Basil an alternate leader for Rome and retweaked Rome to have the hippodrome and trade routes as a common unique.

As much as I agree that a Byzantine leader could have been an alternate leader for Rome, I think Basil II is far too removed for that to happen. I think around the time of Justinian's reign or earlier, would be the cutoff.

That would have left three other slots in the roster: One for North America, one for North Africa, and one for Asia. Cut out Canada/Cree for a second North American civ and the roster would be a lot more balanced.

Not sure why you would cut out the Cree? That wouldn't solve the problem of having only one native civ for the U.S./Canada, which is currently the Cree.

 

[acluewithout]

I can’t believe the game has been out since 2016, we’ve essentially had three expansions, multiple dlc, and yet the back third of the game is still missing.

That’s my gripe in a nutshell.

By any measure, Civ VI has the most content and has received the most support of any Civ game. And, while I get this is just my subjective view, pretty much everything that is in the game seems really good to me. Yes, Religion is really good. Yes, the World Congress is great, and is frankly better than Civ V’s version (although admittedly they’re very different things). Yes, Comets, Vampires, Zombies and all that are a hoot, an optional hoot, and so are the Mad Max meets Fortnite and Pirates! multiplayer games are awesome.

There’s pretty much nothing in the game as it is that I wish wasn’t there. There are things here or there I’d tweak. But yeah, it’s all fantastic.

Here’s the thing though. Civ VI has had a really solid, fun, engaging early game since the start. All the various expansions have doubled down on that, and have probably made the mid game pretty solid as well. But for all this development and support, the end game is still a barren wasteland of unrealised opportunities.

Civ 5 had a great end game, but while Civ VI has happily reused lots of ideas and mechanics from previous game, very little of Civ 5’s end game has made it into Civ 6. Key gaps are:

• Ideological Pressure. We have Loyalty at turn 0 since RnF. We have Happiness and Amenities, and Tourism, and Ideological Governments (that you can switch between). We have a World Congress, and Policy Cards and all sorts of things. But we’re somehow missing Civ V style ideological pressure, and all the conflict and positioning and challenges that created for the late game? How do we have all the pieces needed for Civ V style Ideological Pressure, and a track record of that being great fun in a Civ game, and yet it’s been left out of Civ VI? It’s a huge missing piece from the end game.

• Ideological Tenets. RnF basically brought back Civ V style Social Policies via Governors. Awesome. But why is there no equivalent to Civ V style Ideological Tenets? The way the game works now, Governors just cease being relevant after about the Medieval Era. FXS clearly realise they could do more with Governors given Secret Societies. Along with something like Ideological Pressure, to me it’s obvious the game needs something like Government or Ideological themed Governors that unlock later in the game, expanding how you can use Governor titles and the ways you can specialise Cities. I just don’t get this gap.

• Other Late Game Content. Where are the Civ V “Reformation Beliefs”, that give you new ways to upgrade your Religion in the late game? Where are the ideological themed Wonders, Buildings and Units? Where is the option to send Spies as Ambassadors (particularly now we can’t even send Spies to Allies)? Where are the Future Units? We have Giant Mecha GDR, but that’s it? Where’s my Stealth Bomber? How is there still only 4 Dedications per Era - surely there’s enough stuff in the game to justify a fifth Dedication per Era (eg Focused on Diplomacy).

This is my ongoing frustration with Civ 6. It’s the best version of Civ up to about the Medieval Era, maybe early Renaissance. And then content-wise the game just falls off a cliff. And I seriously don’t get why.

I think something that’s telling are the game modes people seem to leave “always on”. Secret Societies (ie expanded uses for Governor Titles), Corporations, Barbarians. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but I think that indicates people are still wanting a bit more depth to the mechanics particularly around stuff that was in previous games (specifically Civ V) and or is a bit more late game focused. And FXS know this late game stuff is likely to be well received given how well Brave New World sold for Civ V.

If FXS stop development after NFP, which of course is a real possibility, then I really don’t understand the logic at all. I just don’t get putting so much effort into this game, getting the early to mid game to be so good, and then just “abandoning” the end game. I mean, not even putting stuff into the end game that Civ V had - ideological pressure, an equivalent of ideological tenets, and a few other bings like reformation beliefs and stealth bombers, just seems completely perverse.

Anyway. It’ll be what it’ll be. Either FXS do another pass or more DLC or they don’t. If they do, then I don’t see why they couldn’t do Civ V style Ideological pressure and similar things given they’ve managed to do Corporations and more dynamic Barbarians. Fingers crossed. Until then, I’ll keep playing with the toys I have, and just restarting my games about 20 turns after I unlock Frigates...

 

[CivLuvah]

This is my ongoing frustration with Civ 6. It’s the best version of Civ up to about the Medieval Era, maybe early Renaissance. And then content-wise the game just falls off a cliff. And I seriously don’t get why.

I admit I have to agree. The Industrial and Modern eras in Civ4 were always exciting experiences. Civ6 not so much.

 

[Xandinho]

I admit I have to agree. The Industrial and Modern eras in Civ4 were always exciting experiences. Civ6 not so much.

I think it's because the most important decisions are made in the first half of the game. If you make a good start, it becomes a snowball until you win the game in the industrial age, from there you just have to pass the turns until end the game.

Making AI excessively more aggressive in the second half of the game would be a way to resolve this. The impression I have is that AI does not produce armies and does not make enough wars even in the highest difficulties. Making civs to conquer each other until remain four or five gigantic empires can make the late game more decisive.

 

[acluewithout]

snip

I think there are a bunch of reasons Civ VI’s end game is somewhat poor. But I think the biggest reason is the lack of mechanics and content in the end game, particularly the lack of end game mechanics that Civ 5 had.

Civ VI is very clearly based on and an evolution of Civ V. Hexes and 1UPT are an obvious example of that, but the way Religion is set up, Great People, City Stayesm Culture and Science as separate resources, and a tonne of other mechanics, are all iterations on Civ V mechanics. Even Districts are something FXS experimented with in Civ V. Sure, Civ VI also draws on other Civ games - the ability to swap between governments comes from Civ IV an earlier - but the core of Civ VI is largely Civ V just improved, tweaked rethought etc.

There’s so much Civ V in Civ VI... until you get to the end game, and then very little from Civ V has been brought across. If you squint, it does look like the end game was designed to have a lot of Civ V mechanics introduced, eg loyalty and tourism already being in the game, the civics tree being funnelled through ideologies, but after three expansions FXS have still not really developed the end game. What’s particularly frustrating is that GS actually extended the tech tree which seems to make more room for end game mechanics and content... but then just haven’t really followed through on that promise.

It really is perplexing. I’d have thought FXS would move towards some sort of Brave New World style end game content for Civ VI. That seems like something the game was built to have, would massively improve the game, and be very popular with the fan base. Instead, Comets, Vampires, and Zombies. I mean, I do like the Comets, Vampires and Zombies, and we did at least got Corporations (which seems to have been well received). But, yeah, where are the Ideologies? Where is the Future Tech? Where is the stealth bombers?

Perplexing. Frustrating. If NFP is the end, then it seems a really strange place to end the game.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

That would have left three other slots in the roster: One for North America, one for North Africa, and one for Asia. Cut out Canada/Cree for a second North American civ and the roster would be a lot more balanced.

I would have really disliked all your changes, sorry!

very little of Civ 5’s end game has made it into Civ 6

Probably because Civ V was the worst title of the series I do agree that something is missing, I think in both Civ IV and Civ V by the end of the game the Civs had broken up into power blocs which made the late game more interesting.

 

[SMcM]

The way they sliced up civ 6 and sold the complete game over such a long period is disgusting

It is only slightly worse than Civ 5 in this regard, I'd argue, and clearly far less bad than a Paradox game for instance.

 

[Abaxial]

It's all very well saying, "Oh I want to see the Talajanghas in the game" - but what would they do apart from checking off another bit of the world map? Filling up every spot on the globe doesn't make Civ 6 a better game. It would make more sense to say that the game needs a civ that has this-or-that special ability rather than it needs a civ based in the Himalayas. Let's have a moratorium on long lists of tribes not in the game, shall we? And discuss like acluewithout what mechanics would improve the game. Fixing the game would be a better use of Firaxis's time than adding yet more leaders.

 

[Zegangani]

It's all very well saying, "Oh I want to see the Talajanghas in the game" - but what would they do apart from checking off another bit of the world map? Filling up every spot on the globe doesn't make Civ 6 a better game. It would make more sense to say that the game needs a civ that has this-or-that special ability rather than it needs a civ based in the Himalayas. Let's have a moratorium on long lists of tribes not in the game, shall we? And discuss like acluewithout what mechanics would improve the game. Fixing the game would be a better use of Firaxis's time than adding yet more leaders.

IIRC The Devs have said in an Interview that when they are designing Civs, they don't choose a Civ and then think of how it could be designed for the Civ Game, what Abilities and Playstyle it would have, rather, they start to think of a New and Unique Playstyle with its respective Abilities and then they look at History to see if a Civ fits that Shema.
So Gameplay comes always first, because, as you said, "filling up every spot on the globe" just for the sake to have every part of it represented by a Civ "doesn't make Civ 6 a better game".
Ofc regular Civs, like England, Germany, USA, China...etc, will always find their way into the Game, regardless of their Playstyle.

Tbh, I was always the Opinion that Mechanisms are what could make Civs different from each other, and not their Unique Playstyle and Abilities. Yes, playing as Vietnam that has stricted Specialty Districts Placement Rules and Defense Bonusses plays a lot different than Mali with their High Gold income and Production Malus, but everything else plays the same way. It gives them something Unique, for sure, but in the End it's something that gets boring very soon if you have played with a Civ a lot of Times. And maybe that's why People alway want new Civs. IMHO, it would be much better to make the Unique Playstyle of each Civ interact with the Game's Mechanisms, affecting them and getting affected by them. For example: an Egypt that excells in Science in a game would have their Production and Food Yield Bonusses boosted, while ignoring building Commercial Hubs would decrease their Gold income from international Trade Routes. And if they choose a wide Play, then Magnus and Liang Governors would have some Promotions decreased but would work Empire wide.

I know, it would be a lot of work to do this for every Civ, but that wouldn't just make each Civ have a more Unique Playstyle, but it would also make each Game played differently, with the same Civ, feel much different. It would be like having dynamic Civ/Leader Traits. With many Mechanisms in the Game that could affect that, the Game would never suffer from replayability Issues.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

IIRC The Devs have said in an Interview that when they are designing Civs, they don't choose a Civ and then think of how it could be designed for the Civ Game, what Abilities and Playstyle it would have, rather, they start to think of a New and Unique Playstyle with its respective Abilities and then they look at History to see if a Civ fits that Shema.

While I agree with this dynamic and design philosophy, I'll doubt it a little. One counter-example: Canada.
I don't think that "farms on tundra" is a mechanic that they thought about that they felt they needed it in the game.
Diplomatic favors from tourism? A French ability, sure, but a canadian one?

For me, Canada is the perfect example, IMO and how I see it, as a civ that they wanted integrated in the game that they found mechanics to add to it.
One the other hand, Scotland would seem to be a better example of it. "More science and production from happiness" is indeed a fun and interesting mechanic, and not one we would have thought of first with Scotland.

I personally think that, in reality, around half the mechanics are truly find first, but half of it is from civ they know and want to include and then find mechanics to them.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

IIRC The Devs have said in an Interview that when they are designing Civs, they don't choose a Civ and then think of how it could be designed for the Civ Game, what Abilities and Playstyle it would have, rather, they start to think of a New and Unique Playstyle with its respective Abilities and then they look at History to see if a Civ fits that Shema.
So Gameplay comes always first, because, as you said, "filling up every spot on the globe" just for the sake to have every part of it represented by a Civ "doesn't make Civ 6 a better game".
Ofc regular Civs, like England, Germany, USA, China...etc, will always find their way into the Game, regardless of their Playstyle.

True. At the same time I can't help but see how some playstyles they just tack on to a civ because they want to bring them back in the game, considering 5 out of the 8 civs from the NFP were returning from previous games.
For instance a civ revolving around spreading your religion and then using that to conquer cities, doesn't necessarily scream Byzantium upon first glance. However I guess if you look at Basil II, it does fit his reign.

Diplomatic favors from tourism? A French ability, sure, but a canadian one?

Not even in Quebec?