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

[The Civs 6]

The foreign policy game of Civ 6 is arbitrary, static, inconsequential, and can very easily result in the lamest victory possible even if you don't seek it.

There has never been a Civ game where I feel more like I am only playing with myself.

And this is going beyond the fact that, by turn 150, the AI empires are pathetic little clusters of cities that are under-developed and with terrible district placement.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I personally liked that they went back to Mali and Mansa Musa, making that area of the world more of a trading focus, instead of another aggressive and domination civ, considering we already have the Zulu for that in Africa.

You said the militaristic focus was already present with the Zulus so it's better to go on a trade focus, but... Looking at the African civs, we had Kongo (trade and culture), Egypt (trade), Nubia (trade and city-building), and Zulus (war). Heck, if you consider Phoenicia as African (since their TSL starting point is in Africa), it's a fourth trade african civ.

Africa is well represented with trade civs. But I have to admit I prefer Mali over Songhai.

Oh man, I 100% agree with you. The agenda system is, to me, a complete downgrade from Civ 5 and verges on failure. The Civ 5 AI "personality flavors" led to much more distinctive and cohesive AI personalities than the incoherent, tantrum-throwing AI we have in this game. It kills my immersion so much. And "satisfying" their agendas is never fun or engaging; it's just tedious and irritating. I don't care that this person wants me to have a navy or that person wants me to settle on the coast; that's not having a personality, that's just a set of banal yes/no criteria to meet or ignore.

The other benefit of the AI flavors was that Civ 5 had an option to randomize the personalities as well, which greatly enhanced replay value to me.

Please Firaxis, go back to AI flavors!

I like the agenda system only because it gives more "nuanced" reasons (leader to leader) to love/hate you as well as a general direction.
On the other hand, if I had to choose, I'd choose the personality AI of Civ V over the agenda system of Civ VI.
In Civ V, civs would almost hate your for the same reasons, but the way they acted while hating you was different: some would attack you at the slighest disagreement, some would never betray you, some would try some cunning plans. Same when they love you: some would stay faithful until the end, other would backstab you, etc. It was much more nuanced. Here, when you don't sent Wilhelmina trade routes, when you take away Great People from Pedro, when you stay at peace for too long for the taste of Alexander or if you settle too close from Lady Six Skyes, all would react globally in the same way. And that's a huge loss in AI diplomacy.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You said the militaristic focus was already present with the Zulus so it's better to go on a trade focus, but... Looking at the African civs, we had Kongo (trade and culture), Egypt (trade), Nubia (trade and city-building), and Zulus (war). Heck, if you consider Phoenicia as African (since their TSL starting point is in Africa), it's a fourth trade african civ.

Africa is well represented with trade civs. But I have to admit I prefer Mali over Songhai.

I'd never considered Nubia and Kongo heavily trading civs. They do get gold bonuses but not necessarily by trading. If anything the next "biggest" trading civ is Ethiopia, but that's for primarily more faith.
I wouldn't necessarily call Egypt a primarily trade focused civ either, but I guess it's more than Nubia and Kongo. Still I was more focusing on Western Africa, not Africa as a whole. And of course between Mali and Songhai, I'd pick the former.

And Phoenicia starts in the Levant in TSL, at Tyre, not North Africa.

 

[Menocchio]

Technically Egypt is not a trading civilisation either; rather Cleopatra is a trading leader. As AH said, Nubia and Kongo definitely have no trade emphasis or even component, unless you take the niche view that wanting another's religion and building lots of districts (improving, somewhat, domestic trade yields) count. Even then, they differ in the object of trade compared to Mali, who wants almost exclusively international routes.

 

[Smity2k1]

Balance, polish, flesh out late game.
AI. AI. AI. AI.

That's all this game needs!

 

[ManoftheHour333]

You said the militaristic focus was already present with the Zulus so it's better to go on a trade focus, but... Looking at the African civs, we had Kongo (trade and culture), Egypt (trade), Nubia (trade and city-building), and Zulus (war). Heck, if you consider Phoenicia as African (since their TSL starting point is in Africa), it's a fourth trade african civ.

Africa is well represented with trade civs. But I have to admit I prefer Mali over Songhai.



I like the agenda system only because it gives more "nuanced" reasons (leader to leader) to love/hate you as well as a general direction.
On the other hand, if I had to choose, I'd choose the personality AI of Civ V over the agenda system of Civ VI.
In Civ V, civs would almost hate your for the same reasons, but the way they acted while hating you was different: some would attack you at the slighest disagreement, some would never betray you, some would try some cunning plans. Same when they love you: some would stay faithful until the end, other would backstab you, etc. It was much more nuanced. Here, when you don't sent Wilhelmina trade routes, when you take away Great People from Pedro, when you stay at peace for too long for the taste of Alexander or if you settle too close from Lady Six Skyes, all would react globally in the same way. And that's a huge loss in AI diplomacy.

Oh I agree-I'm not saying all agendas are basin Civ VI- it's fine for leaders always have some kind of agenda to lead their playstyle. Two is waaaay too much though and just gets annoying. Civ V had "agendas" for leaders in that certain leaders would be more aggressive while others would focus on wonders+art. This wasn't perfect as you'd get hyper-religious Babylon ruining their science bonuses but I digress.

My issue is partly like you were saying in that the agenda system has so much emphasis into what the civs do. Adding flavor to leaders is fine but given that each leader has 2 agendas per game, it's ends up being really hard and sometimes contradictory as to how to "satisfy" them. And as a result, the player is given less freedom and the game becomes super narrow. That's one of my biggest complaints with Civ VI-it's just so narrow and if they continue on this path the game will become like a Paradox game eventually...part of the fun of Civ is having crazy scenarios and leaders do things they wouldn't/didn't do in real life. So limiting what each match will become from such an early stage (And then having a less dynamic late game due to mechanics we discussed earlier) is what's holding the gam back form being as good as Civ V (In some respects) imo

And Phoenicia starts in the Levant in TSL, at Tyre, not North Africa. [/QUOTE]

Oh dear are we starting the whole Phoenicia/Carthage debate again?

The foreign policy game of Civ 6 is arbitrary, static, inconsequential, and can very easily result in the lamest victory possible even if you don't seek it.

There has never been a Civ game where I feel more like I am only playing with myself.

I AGREE. I've only played since Civ IV but Civ VI just has just this vibe of "sim city" that truly hampers it's gameplay. Now if they actually streamline processes and fix AI bugs this might be less apparent but as a result, Civ VI just seems to have been made for people who only want to play with themselves a'la EU4 rather than a more free, "would-work-well-in-multiplayer" sort of way.

In Civ IV and V I would have straight up PARTIES with people to play Civ. And it wasn't just history nerds-it was people who you wouldn't ever think to want to play civ. It was a good strategy game that a lot of people could enjoy...VI, despite 5 years of development, hasn't regained that kind of spirit. And as result, you end up just feeling like you're playing by yourself. Don't get me wrong-there are merits to it and I still think it's damn fun-but it's disappointing in that aspect.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I'd never considered Nubia and Kongo heavily trading civs. They do get gold bonuses but not necessarily by trading. If anything the next "biggest" trading civ is Ethiopia, but that's for primarily more faith.
I wouldn't necessarily call Egypt a primarily trade focused civ either, but I guess it's more than Nubia and Kongo. Still I was more focusing on Western Africa, not Africa as a whole. And of course between Mali and Songhai, I'd pick the former.

Technically Egypt is not a trading civilisation either; rather Cleopatra is a trading leader. As AH said, Nubia and Kongo definitely have no trade emphasis or even component, unless you take the niche view that wanting another's religion and building lots of districts (improving, somewhat, domestic trade yields) count. Even then, they differ in the object of trade compared to Mali, who wants almost exclusively international routes.

Well, for me having +50% Great Merchants points generation invite you to build more commercial hubs, which makes you a trade civ, in the case of Kongo, and clearly indicates that, in the historical lore FXS took inspiration from, the trading component of Kongo was taken into account. As for Nubia, sure, they have only gold bonuses, but and I made the oversimplification that gold bonuses = trade civ. My fault. But still, if we create an umbrella term (trade for this instance because I have for the moment no imagination) taking into account trade routes, gold generation and Great Merchants, I'd say all (except zulus) are trade civs, or civ turned towards one of those things. But this would also say that the Netherlands would be a trading civ, which contradict myself, so, all in all, lots of word for not so much

And Phoenicia starts in the Levant in TSL, at Tyre, not North Africa.

I had the vague memory of starting in Maghreb. I'm obviously wrong, so, again, don't take my random bumbling seriously.

 

[Joezumah]

I AGREE. I've only played since Civ IV but Civ VI just has just this vibe of "sim city" that truly hampers it's gameplay. Now if they actually streamline processes and fix AI bugs this might be less apparent but as a result, Civ VI just seems to have been made for people who only want to play with themselves a'la EU4 rather than a more free, "would-work-well-in-multiplayer" sort of way.

In Civ IV and V I would have straight up PARTIES with people to play Civ. And it wasn't just history nerds-it was people who you wouldn't ever think to want to play civ. It was a good strategy game that a lot of people could enjoy...VI, despite 5 years of development, hasn't regained that kind of spirit. And as result, you end up just feeling like you're playing by yourself. Don't get me wrong-there are merits to it and I still think it's damn fun-but it's disappointing in that aspect.

So true. There exists no “tension” in the game. I remember in CivIV having to worry about keeping my other neighbors happy when I would start a war because I would get crushed if there was a second war on another front. Civ6 is fun, but you just click until you win or not, there is no tension at all

 

[PhoenicianGold]

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.


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.

I mean I still think that separating Byzantium from Rome is ridiculous when we have Ptolemaic Egypt lumped into the full Egyptian legacy, as well as how India and China are portrayed. They had enough in common that we could have had them blobbed into a single civ and had drastically different gameplays like we have with Eleanor.

And I don't really care which of Canada or the Cree would be cut to make room for two North American civs. Probably would prefer keeping the Cree if I had to choose though.

I have to chime in and say that the Macedon civ was brilliant and I hope they bring it back. Alexander just would not have worked as alt leader for Greece. Likewise with keeping Bzyantium totally separate from Rome. These conventions allow the developers to give us more variety in gameplay styles.

I'm all for specificity in civ design...but when the effort is mostly squandered on...more of Britain, France, Greece, Egypt, Rome, Mesopotamia...I don't find as much satisfaction than had the devs diverted those resources toward Africa or Asia. Splitting Greece into Macedon or England into Scotland is probably the least effective way to cater to players who want more cultural/historical diversity in the game.

 

[Kwami]

And I don't really care which of Canada or the Cree would be cut to make room for two North American civs. Probably would prefer keeping the Cree if I had to choose though.

Just to be clear, though, Cree *is* a native North American civilization. Why would you even consider cutting them to "make room for two North American civs". You already have one. You only need one more.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Just to be clear, though, Cree *is* a native North American civilization. Why would you even consider cutting them to "make room for two North American civs". You already have one. You only need one more.

I just think having two Canadian civs at all is excessive. And while I prefer the Cree over Canada, I could also accept a world where, say, the Cree were cut and replaced with the Navajo/Tlingit and the Cherokee/Sioux/Inuit.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I just think having two Canadian civs at all is excessive. And while I prefer the Cree over Canada, I could also accept a world where, say, the Cree were cut and replaced with the Navajo/Tlingit and the Cherokee/Sioux/Inuit.

I don't see how that's any different than Civ 5 having "three" civs from the U.S.? Both the Iroquois and Shoshone were primarily located in modern day U.S.

I think having a Native America group from Canada, and having one more from the U.S. is fine. And wouldn't the Inuit be "Canadian" too?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I don't see how that's any different than Civ 5 having "three" civs from the U.S.? Both the Iroquois and Shoshone were primarily located in modern day U.S.

I think having a Native America group from Canada, and having one more from the U.S. is fine. And wouldn't the Inuit be "Canadian" too?

I consider the Inuit to be slant Danish representation. (in all seriousness, Greenland is quite large and decidedly not Canadian).

Again, the distinction is subtle and without much conviction behind it. And I think by far the more elegant solution is to just remove Canada haha.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Please Firaxis, go back to AI flavors!

I agree with this - in Civ IV you had your financial civs, your spiritual ones etc and it influenced what paths they took through the tech tree, what buildings they built etc etc.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I would like to see Inuit too, but who should be the leader of Inuit? I can't search any great name

 

[aieeegrunt]

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.

The only thing that is remotely a break on Positive Feedback Loop Expanding Blob is Dramatic Ages, but it’s way too binary and easy to avoid.

A huge part of that is the fact that after the initial disloyal phase, there is literally no difference between a city I founded and a city I captured

 

[PiratesGold]

I would like to see Inuit too, but who should be the leader of Inuit? I can't search any great name

Natan Obed, current President of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, might be a good choice.

 

[Zaarin]

Natan Obed, current President of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, might be a good choice.

The fact that he's alive means that he would have to agree to and be compensated for the use of his likeness. That's not happening.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Natan Obed, current President of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, might be a good choice.

No leader who is alive will be in civ game. The most recent leader in all of civ game is haile selassie from civ 5.

 

[Kwami]

No leader who is alive will be in civ game. The most recent leader in all of civ game is haile selassie from civ 5.

Mao Zedong was more recent than Haile Selassie.