Millenia vs. Civ VI

What's so bad about Civ6's UI? and what's better about Millennia's UI? The only must have UI Mods for Civ6 are the detailed map tacks mod for Districts and the Extended Policy Cards that shows the yields you gain from Cards (ofc there are cool UI Mods out there, but I would hardly call them "a must have otherwise unplayable game"). That's about it, and it's not enough to claim "Civ6 has bad UI". Yes, some things can be improved, but it's not worse than any other Strategy Game, and if you've played any of Paradox's Games you would know how bad UI looks like.
MrRadar covered it fairly well already. But what's especially galling in Civ VI is that III and IV didn't have similar UI shortcomings. There were UI mods for IV. But they were for fine-tuning from what was already a pretty solid start, nothing "must-have".

I would be curious about those detailed map tacks/extended policy card mods though. The latter in particular is one I have wished existed.
 
I think the Millenia demo is already better than civ6 on release. What I like so far
- AI knows how to fight back. No tanks driving into lakes like in civ
- techtree is a lot more interesting
- the game respects your time. No stupid micro like renewing trade routes or diplomatic deals every X turns. The only micro I saw so far is scout movement and population management.
- interesting macro decisions (national spirits, domain powers, ages)
- game does not feel like a digital boardgame.
 
I think the Millenia demo is already better than civ6 on release. What I like so far
- AI knows how to fight back. No tanks driving into lakes like in civ
- techtree is a lot more interesting
- the game respects your time. No stupid micro like renewing trade routes or diplomatic deals every X turns. The only micro I saw so far is scout movement and population management.
- interesting macro decisions (national spirits, domain powers, ages)
- game does not feel like a digital boardgame.

This is pretty close to my first impressions as well

Forming an army in Millenia is quick easy and intuitive. It’s literally just moving units into the same tile and then moving them together and the game system does the rest. Meanwhile Civ6 had some convoluted board game nonsense imvolving a pile of unneccessary micro with Corps and Armies.

Just getting rid of 1 UPT makes the game flow so much better.

It’s like the game designers remembered that they were designing a computer game, not Civ Settlers Of Cataan

This trend holds true through the whole game. Stuff that is endless micro in 6 is make a decision, click, move on in Millenia.

The one big problem I had with Millenia is graphics. I don’t mean the usual Beta lack of polish, I mean sometimes, especially with units, it wasn’t always clear to me what I was looking at.

Make fun of Civ6’s cartoon style all you want, with the exception of hill tiles I have never had any issue distinguishing warriors from archers
 
Anyone who's on CFC is likely to be an especially dedicated veteran of the series. Some of us have been on Civ forums since before CFC existed.

But Civ5 was definitely the entry point for many, many fans. The gaming industry changed completely between the release of Civ4 and 5. Civ4 was released in the very beginning of video games going truly mainstream (I'd argue a bit before as 2005-06 were the turning point), and Civ5 was a few years after that. Civ4 released as a huge hit in a fairly nerdy industry, Civ5 released to the broadest audience. Civ5 has ~10 million sales as a low estimate, Civ4 probably sold ~4 million, maybe 5? So it's definitely common for people to have Civ5 as their first Civ game.
This is a good point. I think it would be accurate to say that Millenia is targeting the "lapsed" Civ 4 and earlier audience. Maybe it is no coincidence that the people with younger accounts on CFC are the ones complaining about Millenia's graphics.
 
Maybe it is no coincidence that the people with younger accounts on CFC are the ones complaining about Millenia's graphics.
Eh, this sounds like elitism to me. I’ve played Civ since Civ 3 and great graphics are important to me. Your opinion is no more valid than mine just because you registered an account here before I did.

If you want to play a game that looks and feels like Civ 4, I have great news: you can still play Civ 4.

I, however, would like to move on and see games continue to look better and try new things.
 
Last edited:
I, however, would like to move on and see games continue to look better and try new things.
The, "avant garde," gamers who instinstively dislike older games because they're old could be said to have an elitism all their own...
 
The, "avant garde," gamers who instinctively dislike older games because they're old could be said to have an elitism all their own...
Alternatively, rising standards are good and the expectation that things improve over time is good. "All old games are inherently bad" and "new games should keep modern expectations and standards in mind" are not the same thing. Millennia intentionally made a choice about their graphics and people are allowed to critique it. Old World did an excellent job of mixing a retro/pared down aesthetic that still worked within modern sensibilities. For a lot of people, Millennia failed to do so.
 
Eh, this sounds like elitism to me. I’ve played Civ since Civ 3 and great graphics are important to me. Your opinion is no more valid than mine just because you registered an account here before I did.

If you want to play a game that looks and feels like Civ 4, I have great news: you can still play Civ 4.

I, however, would like to move on and see games continue to look better and try new things.

Graphics are important to me for two main reasons; immersion and utility. I feel like Civ6 is meh on the first but pretty good on the second. Note I’m talking purely about appearence and not things like the non modded UI being awful.

Millenia is good on the first but needs some work on the second.

I wonder if part of the alleged age divide on impressions of Millenia is due to those generations never experiencing the whole shareware/Demo experience that predated everything being online.

That being said stuff like the “History Channel PS2 combat videos” is pretty bad.
 
What is personally for me the biggest selling point is how differently I can do things. There is no "the usual chores" that you do in almost every game (build X, then build Y, then train Z unit, then build ...) which will give you 99% of the time the best results. You have been given a lot of options, and you choose how you try to make the most out of it.

I'm very happy they released the demo, because while I was mildly curious about the game and the new ideas, I was also fairly skeptical for many of its shortcomings and features, but combining all those together and seeing it is action is what truly convinced me. I'll be honest, when I read in the developer diaries the usual mantra of "how you can do things and it's up to you and you can customize" etc. etc., I thought "yeah yeah yeah whatever, I'll believe it when I see it". As much as I don't want to admit, now I believe it.

I had well over a dozen run in the demo, tried a plethora of things, just to see the boundaries, nuances and the possibilities. Tried super-wide, just taking land after land with settling, conquering and with envoys. Tried super-tall, focusing on my capitals, especially their infrastructure and building up goods-chain. Tried a mixture of these, with a lot of variations (military, diplomacy, peaceful, aggressive), and all of them felt more or less equally rewarding, interesting and viable (although to be honest, with some I probably wouldn't have survived for very long).

Add in the mixture of what others have said already and the dynamic mechanics (hitting different Ages, or when my vassal was taken by barbarians, or when my capital region formed a new nation due to high unrest, to name just a few examples) this will be an excellent game for many of us, despite its flaws (which are quite a few, from what I was able to deduce from the demo). I think the "Don't judge a book by its cover" is a phrase which applies strongly for this game.

(and finally! FINALLY!!! A 4X where growth is not (just) about food food food food! Hurray!!!)
 
Last edited:
Alternatively, rising standards are good and the expectation that things improve over time is good. "All old games are inherently bad" and "new games should keep modern expectations and standards in mind" are not the same thing. Millennia intentionally made a choice about their graphics and people are allowed to critique it. Old World did an excellent job of mixing a retro/pared down aesthetic that still worked within modern sensibilities. For a lot of people, Millennia failed to do so.
Well, I suppose it could be an Obi-wan Kenobi, "from a certain point-of-view," thing. It just bugged me a bit that @pokiehl was accusing someone of elitism, and then said something later in the same post that SEEMED to come across as the same trait, is all.
 
I’m not exactly sure, but are “towns” supposed to be generic districts?
Maybe just satellite towns? Like secondary municipalities, seeing that they direct the expansion of the main city influence area and receive adjacency income from neighbouring improvements. I quite like the system.
 
I’m not exactly sure, but are “towns” supposed to be generic districts?
Not quite. They give you wealth (if there are adjacent improvements) and influence right away. The first is used used by unit maintenance, rushing buildings and culture power, offsetting bad events, and so on. The latter, influence, helps you expand into nearby tiles. This is pretty useful, as you'll need a lot of land, not just for the resources themselves, but for building up your industry and goods-chain. Towns can be also later specialized to give even more specific yields, depending on their surrounding tiles. You can make some nice city-planning there! They also act as defensive fortifications.

So, they are pretty useful overall :D But you can live without them for a while, unless you go "tall" and focus on that capital region.

From a thematic point of view (if that was your question, and not their benefits), I think of them as ... well... towns :D Municipalities, extensions of "core", inner cities, which can be observed throughout history, and even today.

Update: MrRadar was faster :D
especially with units, it wasn’t always clear to me what I was looking at.

Make fun of Civ6’s cartoon style all you want, with the exception of hill tiles I have never had any issue distinguishing warriors from archers
I use "banner" view for units (you can toggle it in settings), which helps me in that regard a lot, and I don't have to see 15 men and think that "oh yeah, huge army". But it probably won't be useful for everyone, as the individual icons on the banners are rather small.
 
Last edited:
The, "avant garde," gamers who instinstively dislike older games because they're old could be said to have an elitism all their own...

Well, I suppose it could be an Obi-wan Kenobi, "from a certain point-of-view," thing. It just bugged me a bit that @pokiehl was accusing someone of elitism, and then said something later in the same post that SEEMED to come across as the same trait, is all.
It's really unclear what you're getting at here. Nothing in my post indicated I dislike older games at all (even if I did, how is that "avant-garde?"), so this is off-base. My top 5 favorite games of all time are all from the 90s.

You also have misunderstood what I actually said sounded elitist. I didn't say disliking newer games was elitist. What I suggested sounded elitist was implying that folks with a newer account registration date care less about gameplay than those with older dates.
 
What I suggested sounded elitist was implying that folks with a newer account registration date care less about gameplay than those with older dates.
I suppose given there were several other posts by other people talking about graphics and newer features, and then you're quote on a participle of someone else's, it's a mistake that one could. But, I concede, it was a mistake.
 
Maybe it is no coincidence that the people with younger accounts on CFC are the ones complaining about Millenia's graphics.
I'm in my 30s, which is by no means the oldest on here (far from it), but my first Civilisation game was the first one, back in the 90s. Anecdotally :)

I mean, to be honest, the entire framing of the thread "X vs. Y", is something I've never got on with. It separates people into camps and makes it about winning vs. a more nuanced comparison. A lot of the people who are finding more in kind with Millenium have been turned off by later iterations of Civ, and from a casual perspective of the thread, vice versa.

This is normal. It's understandable. But going from that into assuming things about other players? Entire demographics? Eh. Why bother? What do you gain from it?
 
Not quite. They give you wealth (if there are adjacent improvements) and influence right away. The first is used used by unit maintenance, rushing buildings and culture power, offsetting bad events, and so on. The latter, influence, helps you expand into nearby tiles. This is pretty useful, as you'll need a lot of land, not just for the resources themselves, but for building up your industry and goods-chain. Towns can be also later specialized to give even more specific yields, depending on their surrounding tiles. You can make some nice city-planning there! They also act as defensive fortifications.

So, they are pretty useful overall :D But you can live without them for a while, unless you go "tall" and focus on that capital region.

From a thematic point of view (if that was your question, and not their benefits), I think of them as ... well... towns :D Municipalities, extensions of "core", inner cities, which can be observed throughout history, and even today.

Update: MrRadar was faster :D

I use "banner" view for units (you can toggle it in settings), which helps me in that regard a lot, and I don't have to see 15 men and think that "oh yeah, huge army". But it probably won't be useful for everyone, as the individual icons on the banners are rather small.

Thank you for the suggestion!
 
I'm in my 30s, which is by no means the oldest on here (far from it), but my first Civilisation game was the first one, back in the 90s. Anecdotally :)

I mean, to be honest, the entire framing of the thread "X vs. Y", is something I've never got on with. It separates people into camps and makes it about winning vs. a more nuanced comparison. A lot of the people who are finding more in kind with Millenium have been turned off by later iterations of Civ, and from a casual perspective of the thread, vice versa.

This is normal. It's understandable. But going from that into assuming things about other players? Entire demographics? Eh. Why bother? What do you gain from it?
And I am closing in on 40 myself, have played Civ since the mid 90s and been part of the Civ community since 2000. Agreeing with this wise poster.
 
Sorry for the big wall of text ahead, there are too many things to talk about here. If you don't want to read all of that, just skip to the text between the "------" lines. I also wanted to mention here beforehand, that I don't mean for People to stop caring about Millennia or that the Game is bad. All this is just me trying to figure out the pros and cons of the Game, and why it's a better Game than a Civ Game, and to have a civilized discussion with you about that.

OP in this thread sums it up quite well and I agree with pretty much everything that's being said there.
That's a subjective View, not an objective one. And it only highlights some specific things with the Game that OP (not everyone) has issues with, but most other Games suffer from as well, even to a greater extent in some cases. And to me, it seems the biggest Issue of OP is AI anyway, and that has nothing to do with the quality of Mechanics. You could have the best Mechanics ever, but if the AI doesn't know how to use them, does that make the Mechanics bad now? ofc not, it just means that the AI isn't programmed to use them.
To mention one thing off the top of my head, how can it be a well designed mechanics, when you can lock the civs you want into unbreakable peace for the meaningful lenght of the game, quite easily, just paying attention to their agenda, and then they can do absolutely nothing about that even if you immediately stop tending to their agenda and play outright against it, but that's now ok, and the renewal is a given, if offered on the turn of expiry, and you can do everything to the rest of the world with no reaction from your declared friends. For quite some time after game's release, maybe even a year or more, you could also nuke your declared friends and allies with total impunity, until they finally fixed that bug very silently, I have never seen the fix mentioned in patchnotes.
All deserved criticism, which I share with you (and also trying to solve with a mod). But it's still better than whatever Millennia has, or at least showcases in the Demo. But you're making it sound like 1) it totally breaks the game bc it's an exploit bc it's always the case and in any situation, which it isn't. 2) that it's only an issue in Civ6, and that no other Civ or similar game suffers from it, which also isn't quite true. Just wait for Millennia to release and you'll notice how similar it will be there too, if not worse: no identity, which what the Agendas in Civ6 at least give to their Leader, even if it's annoying.
For quite some time after game's release, maybe even a year or more, you could also nuke your declared friends and allies with total impunity, until they finally fixed that bug very silently, I have never seen the fix mentioned in patchnotes.
That's clearly a Bug, or at least a non-intended Behavior. No Game is perfect, but to me that sounds like saying "LOTR The Return of The King is a bad Movie, because the CGI of Legolas when he's fighting looks to off to me. And there is no Tom Bombardil". Yes, that doesn't look good, and too bad there wasn't more lore, but does that now make the whole Movie bad? ofc not. And similarly, Civ6 is a very good game still, despite all the issues it has. Besides, AI rarely uses Nukes anyway, only the Player. You can just not use it.
Have you really played the demo enough? How the UI is unintuitive? Isn't it that it is a new thing and you just allowed too little time to get used to it? Now that I learned where everything is, it feels very friendly. No unnecessary mouse clicks, everything seems to be quite at hand.
People all over the place are criticizing the UI, even the Ones who actually find the Game good or even better than Civ, not just me. The UI looks like that of a Game in Alpha Stages, with the purpose of being functional, with not much UX Design in mind yet:
Spoiler UI Issues :

- The fist UI Panel you have to interact with, the Customization Setup Menu (with not much customization): even Civ3 has a better Starting Menu, and had higher standards.
- If you want to interact with your City this will force you out of the Map, and not even to an appealing Panel, like Civ3's City View.
- City Panel:
- Why doesn't the City Panel Overview at the Top show the important Yields (like production and wealth and food) the City is generating? The Panel is big and has room enough to do that. Why do I have to move away from the map and go inside the City Manager Panel to know those basic information? isn't that also unnecessary mouse clicking that's worth criticizing Civ6 for but ignore in Millennia?
- Why have a Big Panel, with Big Tile Hex Icons to manage Workers, but have tiny Resource Icons and (+) (-) Buttons to click on? That's an invitation to mis-clicks. Too much wasted Room. That's like shooting yourself in the Leg.
- You have 3 Resource Screens. 1 is for Resources Crafted, which is ok. But why have 2 for the regular Yields? Why separate the Yields you generate from Workers from the ones generate by the City as a whole? You get duplicate Income Yields to look at for no Reason. What does the 4 Production I get from a Worker and the total of 6 Production that the City is giving me tell me that I always need to know at a glance? That's unimportant differentiation that if I wanted to know, I would just hover over the Hammers Icon to get all the sources and modifiers. It's only useful for Devs for debugging. But the UI seems to be final and designed to always show that. Why? I don't know.
- Food. Little info about how food works for people who might not know that: The City needs X Food to grow, and has Capacity of max Food that it can consume. If you go beyond that, the leftover Food is wasted and not used. Issue is, the UI doesn't tell you anything about it if you go over the Max Cap. You have to figure that on your own, otherwise you'll be loosing Food for no reason, especially since you can use it in Millennia to turn it into other yields/resources.
- The Build Items in the City Panel have a number in the middle of the Icon indicating how much turns it will take to produce. But the Turn Number is so tiny. Which on its own isn't an issue, if you have small Buttons and a small space to work with, but you have so much space and empty room there, WHY NOT USE IT?! Why have such big Icons if the relevant Info is tiny?
- If a City is working on producing something, there is no indication of how much Y Production was spent on it out of X Cost. And the Turns till finishing it is also so tiny in such big empty space. WHY??? At least here they could have done a bit more work.
- Resource Numbers (not talking about map/crafted resources, but domains, and yields like chaos and improvement points) scattered all over the place (some on the right side, some at the top, some at the top right, some at the bottom left corner). Why not just have them in 1 Place? There is a reason why most Games keep all their important Resources at the Top Panel where people can easily see them at a Glance. But Millennia seems to throw away many Industry-proved good practices out of the window.
- An Important Button to place Improvements sitting lonely in a Corner. It makes me sad looking at it lone there lol
- I can't see at a glance the Yields of Terrains, how I can I then know if a City (of another Player) is worth conquering or not? Another missed Opportunity to grab the attention of Pron-Yield lovers, bc the Resource Crafting can produce very high yields on the map. If a City has improved Tiles that are generating juicy yields, then showcasing that on the map helps the Player to decide "to conquer or not to conquer". I'm not the kind of Player who memorizes tile yields, I need Yields on the Map.
- No Unit Flags. Instead you have an ugly Health Bar underneath the Unit (the model is always hard to see at a glance if it wasn't for the annoyingly shiny green Bar). It just looks weird in a Game that isn't Age of Empires or Total War. On the other hand, I like the Idea of indicating the Combat Strength of a Unit on the Tile it's on. But again, it would look so much better if it was indicated on an actual Unit Flag.
- An Ugly Combat Video that pops-up every time you engage in Combat, with no purpose bc you can't do anything with it anyway.
- Correct me if I'm wrong here, but AFAICT, there is no Lens that shows Border growth. for a Game with big emphasis on Terrain and resource, I think this isn't acceptable.
- Minor Nations: You have no Idea how strong a City is until you hover over it. there are no Units that you can count/observe.
- ...etc.


That's a lot of UI Issues if you ask me. Especially for a Demo with not many Mechanics to offer anyway. And what I don't get about most of those things, is that they can be very easily fixed and improved. They don't require too much time or hiring a new UX Designer/Programmer. Again, I get that the Game is still in development, and this is just a Demo. I just voiced what I observed.
Neglected Diplomacy
I think 60 turns are enough to showcase how good diplomacy is (bc it doesn't change much later in the game, for most games, anyway). I don't see any Diplomatic Relationship Modifiers anywhere (which is the staple in any strategy game with diplomacy), apart from the generic 4-5 levels from hostile to friend/ally (which are more fitting for City-State Diplomacy if you ask me). The Diplomacy Panel is so boring and barebones. At least they should have added some Flavor text based on the Civ (like some info on Egypt, Japan...etc. as a culture), and maybe also for the Personalty Type (like, Reserved: this is what it means, and how it affects the Player's behavior and choices). They also missed the Opportunity to integrate The Crafted Resources as a Trade Item. This would have made both, crafted Resources and international trade more important. If it only comes at a later age, then it's not just immersion breaking bult self-sabotaging for the game. If the Devs plan something bigger here for later, that's ok. But that still doesn't change the fact that Diplomacy is boring in Millennia.
Already it is better than all Civ installments, as it is not binary: either peace or war, there's an intermediary stance, where you can attack each other in neutral lands, but not in national territory. [...] How do you think diplomacy is in Civ VI? If it's neglected somewhere, it is there.
Just bc it has ONE thing to offer (which I'm not a Fan of myself tbh. for things like Privateers maybe, but for all Units and times? No I don't want a Friend to just attack my Units out of nowhere) that isn't possible in Civ6 (Civ4 had that IIRC), doesn't mean that now it's better than Civ6's Diplomacy. The latter's Diplomacy isn't the best, and not perfect, but you get a Leader to interact with, a Leader that now and then makes remarks/comments, you have a Relationship Bar with all sorts of modifiers, grievances/warmongering, 3rd party modifiers, joint wars, competing for City-States Suzerainty...etc. And you can interact with all of that in the early Game. Again, I'm not expecting all of that at release in Millennia, but it should have something to offer here in the Demo. Even ARA's Diplomacy, also a new game, shows that you can trade Techs and Resources, make Alliances, and also has a Relationship Bar.
Oh my. Have you ever needed to know how long your new trade route will run, how many turns existing ones have remaining?
That was never an Issue for me, and for most people as well I think. I think the only, or at least most, people who have an Issue with this are the micromanagers who want to micro everything (nothing wrong with that, mind you). The Number on Trade Routes shows you the tiles to travel, yes, but why should I care to look at when a trade route ends? if it does that it will automatically tell you that by a ready-to-send-trader. What's important to me is when I select a Trader I want to see all the Cities to send it to and how many yields I get from them, and once I send it to a City, I don't care about it anymore until it ends the route. Anything beyond that is unnecessary micro for me. And the UI satisfies me with that. The Issue I have with them, is that only Mods allow for easy sorting based on Yields. But that's more of a QoL improvement than fixing an an issue.
Do you trade luxuries and other resources with AI? Try to do it without any mods.
I'm seeing a Symptome of Mods here rather than bad game UI. Just bc now we have Quick Deals doesn't mean that any Game that doesn't offer that is now bad. Quick Deals is a Cheat. You're supposed to interact with the Leaders, and bargain with them, where giving demanding less gold from them or offering more than necessary has a positive effect on Diplomatic Relationship. Quick Deals skips that and gives you the lowest/highest prices immediately (no diplo gains). And AFAICT, no Game that doesn't have an Open Market offers that. Why is it now the fault of Civ6? Just bc this is made as a Mod now (and hopefully also implemented in future games in more interesting ways, mainly as a Market tool, bc just like you, I like that ease of use) doesn't mean that all previous games that didn't have it are dumb and bad for not having thought of that prior. In other words, it's not bad UI. It's just an over-convinience mod, which is fine, I use it too, but I don't look at vanilla Civ6 trade and say "that's bad UI" now that I'm using Quick Deals.

---------------------------------------------
An important thing to note here, and this is an answer to @Quintillus as well, is that the Devs (even Sid Meier himself), never intended for people to micro things, they actually try to prevent that. Yes, they offered enough things to micro about, but they offered that for people who like that, but they don't necessarily cater to them. If people want to micromanage, then there is a cost to that. Maybe offer some help for them with Optional UI. You can Micromanage, but you don't need to have high adjacency districts all over the place, squeeze out all you can from policies...etc. I've been ignoring doing that myself for a while and I still had great games that I enjoyed playing. I don't need information cluttered all over the place for things I don't care about but that just confuse me, and give me the feeling that I'm missing on things. That's exactly what I'm getting with Detailed Map tacks for example: every time I'm managing my cities I feel like I have to max all district adjacencies. But I don't want that, I want to place districts anywhere I want, and make beautiful looking cities without feeling guilty. I know how to build high yielding District Adjacencies, but I still don't want to do that. Without those Numbers, I can still build tall and good cities, but I also don't feel bad about it. So, I really appreciate it in Civ6 that I don't have to get confused by numbers that I don't care about that much. I think it was a design choice on purpose to not provide too much info. And the more I mod the Game, the more I appreciate the design choices that were made in Civ6, bc I get to think like the devs, thinking about how X may affect Y, and how different types of Players may perceive that...etc.
Don't get me wrong, I use many UI Mods myself. Not out of necessity, or bc the Game is much harder to play without them, but bc they are easily available and make things easier at a glance. There is a difference in making something better than what it was, and improving something that was bad/broken. And that's what those Mods are for me, (I will put it this way) Bonuses, and not Penalty off-setters. And ofc I'm gonna use any Bonuses I can get may hands on.

All that said, I'm not trying to defend Civ6 here, and I have been a harsh Criticizer of it in the past myself and still am (Man How I hate Loyalty lol). The UI surely needs some work, and is by no means perfect. But I really think that a lot of people make it injustice. Bc for all the Information that the Game has to offer, the UI makes a very decent job at showing all the relevant information. You have so many things, like Governors, Climate Change, Great People, City-States, City Banners...etc. that showcase al the necessary information, but I rarely see people talk good about that. I rarely see people praise the Game for anything until a so called "Rival" proves to be a dead-horse so people start realizing how good and better Civ was in the first place and how good its mechanics/features were actually. Why? bc we take everything for granted, and only talk about things that annoy us. Which is normal I guess, bc after all we want to see our beloved game improved. But IMO this also highlights how great a Game is. If There are so many things that you like and don't get annoyed by, but few things that annoy you, then that speaks a lot about the Game, and I noticed that a lot since Games like Humankind or Old World came out, or now Millennia. Not that those Games are outright bad, but they just highlighted to me how good and well designed Civ6 actually is, and which makes me even more hopeful that Civ7 will going to be just as awesome. But, let's wait and see.
---------------------------------------------

Try to drag the map when you have a unit selected. Sooner or later there will be a glich or smth and move order will be issued and if you don't notice at the time, 30 turns later the unit will require your attention from the other side of the world.
That's more of a Coding Bug than a UI Issue if you ask me.
None of the things that make Civ VI tedious - most notably, 1 UPT movement/traffic jams and calculating adjacency bonuses and ranges on tile improvements - are present, so the pace is more like the older Civ games, with nice new twists.
Yes. There is not much of that. Is that because of the smart new ways to interact with those things or because those things don't exist in Millennia? I can also say that, fortunately, there is no 1UPT or District Adjacency Issues in Football Manager, but that's a Game never intended/designed with those things. No Traffic Jam and annoying tactical Combat in Millennia? That's bc Millennia throws away much of that out of the window anyway. You don't need much Units on the Map bc they are just stacked for an RNG automated Combat Anyway. There isn't any Tactics involved. I also see people here praise the Combat in Millennia, but I don't see any Combat. Just some Units moving around, and quick result of a behind the view RNG Combat. You can't praise something that isn't even there. But I get that some People don't like Military at all, and why they would like not having to deal with it. As a Peaceful Player myself, which I assume most of these Players are as well, I still enjoy the 1UPT Combat in Civ6. It's a nice change to getting taken out from the constant focus on empire/city management now and then, and I rarely had Issues/Annoyances of micromanaging Military Units (in fact, I enjoy the logistics of it). If a Person enjoys Domination Games more, then yeah, I get why they would be annoyed by 1UPT, but those People aren't catered with Millennia either, bc there is no joy with Military in that Game anyway.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to talk down on Millennia and the People who like it, far from that. I want to see the Game to succeed and turn out to be good myself too. I just don't see 1) why it's better than civ6 or Civ5, 2) why suddenly Civ5 and Civ6 are bad. Bc IMO, 1) it may be a good game, we have to wait and see, but it's in no way better than Civ. The Demo is just 60 Turns, not enough to judge wether it's better than Civ or even a good game on its own. Heck, I don't see why the Demo would even indicate how it's better than Humankind. 2) if that was the case then we wouldn't be here talking about it in the first place. I don't mean this sarcastically whatsoever, but that's the truth, Civ5/6 are good Games, with flaws, sure, many even, but miles better than any released 4X Historical Game we have seen so far.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom