Then you don't get tons of science. Good thing you now have to do something different this game, rather than what you've done in all previous games. Then you don't get that Eureka, and now you have to evaluate the worth of researching Archery differently from usual. Again, good. And that will create "wall" strategies where you block entry and keep bombarding the cheap, weak units. What's the problem? You mean like in real life, where destroying infrastructure was how you won wars? Now there is intricacy in late game warfare. I don't think there was, I think it was originally an ease of programming and art. But have you considered that maybe Civ6 could be a different game?! Is this a problem? The inability to rush in V in any form helped the "quickly expand to 4 cities" strategy, because you didn't have to defend and there was no point in attacking. Now you can rush their improvements, if not the city (but it seems like cities are weaker to start, too) If you really want that jungle city, you don't get to reinforce it as easily. Its a tradeoff, a decision. If you want to build a road, you must use a trade route, which is now unavailable for gold. A tradeoff, a decision. If you want to reinforce it without a road, you can spend builder charges to chop down the jungle. A tradeoff, a decision. Whats the problem here? You're making choices that affect things. You want all cities to be reinforceable, always? Boring. Good. That means the aspects have some nuance, which means more puzzle pieces. And if you have a bunch of questions, how can you be SURE its a bad game already?!