Neglected features

[LKx]

Are specialists in civ6? Never noticed

 

[Victoria]

Are specialists in civ6? Never noticed

You can ‘slot’ specialists in district buildings for +2 output of that type. They are really only of value for science and culture and can make a noticeable difference, even perhaps fair. I would not normally bother with the others unless desperate.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You can ‘slot’ specialists in district buildings for +2 output of that type. They are really only of value for science and culture and can make a noticeable difference, even perhaps fair. I would not normally bother with the others unless desperate.

It may be a comment on my sloppy playing style, but I think it was close to a year after Civ VI came out that I actually realized that there were Specialists in the game. Then I experimented with 'What Do They Do?" and realized that the answer was 'Not Much - just another Potential Game mechanism that wasn't followed up." and have pretty much ignored them ever since.

This is a shame, because IF they had real effects, moving Specialists around could go a long way to 'focusing' a city on Production, Religion Culture, etc.

Having Specialists be required to get output/results from a Building or District would require a new way of thinking about the population points, though. Let's face it: in a Pop 1 - 5 city you are usually using up all the population working Tiles: 'extra' population for Specialists isn't usually available until quite a while after Founding the city.

My suggestion on this, made some time ago in another Post far, far away... Was to have each Population Point represent (originally) both a large number of people working the land around the city and a small (but later in the game, larger) percentage of people working inside the city. So, each Population Point would generate a Specialist as well as a 'worked' tile. BUT to keep this 'in balance' Every construction in the city would have one or more Specialist Slots, including the Palace, Monument, Walls - Everything. To get a decent defense of the city, somebody has to man the walls. To get any kind of administration of your Civ, you have to have scribes, ministers, councilors, sycophants, and all the other panoply of hangers-on around the King. This would, generally, give you more than enough 'slots' for Specialists to keep you busy with them - if you wanted to be busy.
I would also suggest that it be possible to set a basic 'priority' for Specialist placement so you didn't have to micromanage them: something like Defense, Production, Culture, Religion, Tourism, Science - which would make the Specialists go into the appropriate Slots giving output in those areas according to the sequence you indicate. (If they can't program the AI to follow a six-step progression, then there is no hope for the game or the design team, and we might as well go back to playing Solitaire).

 

[Tomice]

It's a pity that there is a function in the game that allows specialists to give GPP, but it's broken and modders can't use it.

 

[Onii-chan]

Personally, I think I would almost rather it be required that each building needs one "citizen" slot to function. This would be a great equalizer to me, in that it means you can't just have a pop-1 city build a district and then buy a library/uni/research lab. Basically, to work those 3 buildings, you need 3 pop, plus however many citizens in the fields to feed them. You'd have to rebalance (since there'd obviously be no point to taking a citizen off a mine to be in a workshop), but it would both bring them back to being relevant and be a huge boost to tall cities, since they're the only ones with enough pop to actually work all their districts.

Would definitely require a lot of general rebalancing for that to be applicable but I like the general idea of that at least. Would be a lot more logical too

 

[bonafide11]

Tourism, is not an object, it is an end result. Tourism does not create culture but culture can create tourism. It is the output purely used to measure for a victory.

@Krajzen
I agree tourism is fine as just an output.

Tourism also doesn't even really represent tourism, no more than housing represents actual houses. Tourism represents cultural force or dominance, and I don't think that should just let you mint gold.

I'm maybe okay with tourism doing more at some point, but I'd prefer if that was done as part of a third expansion and the whole thing could be thought through so it was balanced and strategically interesting. Just tacking on "gold from tourism" or "diplomatic favour" from tourism is just the wrong approach.

For now, I really like the elegance of "tourism doesn't do anything; but the things that give you tourism do".

I just feel like tourism should be noticed in the gameplay. Otherwise what's the point of building some of these buildings that do nothing but give tourism unless you're going for a culture victory? I hate having an aspect of the game that provides no benefit except being one victory condition.

 

[Sagax]

I just feel like tourism should be noticed in the gameplay. Otherwise what's the point of building some of these buildings that do nothing but give tourism unless you're going for a culture victory? I hate having an aspect of the game that provides no benefit except being one victory condition.

Like what buildings? Even seaside resorts provide gold, more than most of the gold-generating improvements in this game. The only tourism generators I can think of that have no additional benefits are national parks.

As mentioned, you should really think of tourism as the end result, the benefit itself that you get from buildings that also provide other yields. Otherwise, you could end up making the exact same argument about space projects and battle priests.

 

[UWHabs]

Would definitely require a lot of general rebalancing for that to be applicable but I like the general idea of that at least. Would be a lot more logical too

It also seems like it's kind of up their alley, since it's very board-gamey (I mean, it's basically how you play Purto Rico or a bunch of other similar games, making sure you have enough citizens in both the plantations and in the buildings).

 

[Hactar]

No, generally the Support Units have some value -
Except the Siege Tower, which I have not only never built, I've never seen the AI build either. Most useless single unit in the game.

Now that walls are buffed (Medieval and Renaissance walls are pretty hard to take down, even with a ram) I find siege towers to be just as useful as a ram. If you do your warring early then the ram might still be better though.

 

[Amrunril]

Like what buildings? Even seaside resorts provide gold, more than most of the gold-generating improvements in this game. The only tourism generators I can think of that have no additional benefits are national parks.

As mentioned, you should really think of tourism as the end result, the benefit itself that you get from buildings that also provide other yields. Otherwise, you could end up making the exact same argument about space projects and battle priests.

There might not be any many tourism sources that give literally no other yields, but there are plenty of tourism sources that are only rarely worthwhile based on their other yields (seaside resorts would fall into this category). There are also a lot of civs that have tourism bonuses as a major part of their abilities, and these abilities become entirely useless when not pursing a culture victory.

As for the space projects and religious combat units, these do actually have benefits outside of pursuing victory. Spreading your religion can give impressive yield bonuses with the right founder belief, and the early space projects have at least nominal in game benefits. These benefits may be too small, but that's a balance issue. The design intent is clearly for them to have utility outside of victory progress.

Tourism, in contrast, lacks even a nominal benefit until the instant it wins you the game, which seems especially odd, since such functionality was present and worked very effectively in Civ V. Civ VI's tourism, outside of cultural victory, may even be worse than useless. While the behind the scenes mechanics are difficult to discern, my understanding is that, by attracting other civs' tourists to your empire, you're actually drawing away from their domestic tourist pools and thus making it easier for someone else to win a cultural victory.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Now that walls are buffed (Medieval and Renaissance walls are pretty hard to take down, even with a ram) I find siege towers to be just as useful as a ram. If you do your warring early then the ram might still be better though.

This might be why I end up ignoring them. I generally try to 'take out' the nearest Civ or two early in the game with Archers, Rams and whatever Melee Units I can drum up, then consolidate and build and start over again (if I'm playing Domination, anyway) with Bombards or better. That has meant in the past that Siege Towers fell into the period when I didn't need them. Now that GS has both buffed the target cities and gives Grievances against even the earliest war, I'm already starting to modify my 'preferred' style, so may have to look at Siege Towers for a change.

 

[Sagax]

There are also a lot of civs that have tourism bonuses as a major part of their abilities, and these abilities become entirely useless when not pursing a culture victory.

If not too much work, I would like you to provide examples of such bonuses. The only glaring example I can think of is Film Studio - and that's one UB among all other non-tourism benefits that America gets. Minerva of the North, perhaps - although it does play into Sweden's UA and the potential to chain-win Nobel Prizes. You might want to mention France's Grand Tour, to which I can object right now. While +100% tourism from wonders becomes pointless, the wonder production bonus still suits other VCs just fine.

If anything, Domination-oriented civs are much bigger offenders in this regard, but they get a pass because successful warmongering helps with every VC in the game.

there are plenty of tourism sources that are only rarely worthwhile based on their other yields

the early space projects have at least nominal in game benefits. These benefits may be too small, but that's a balance issue. The design intent is clearly for them to have utility outside of victory progress.

So weak alternative benefits from tourism sources are pointless, but weak alternative benefits from space projects are "balance issue and design intent"?... Both are pursued primarily for their respective VCs, and one barely cares about the add-on benefits. I don't even bother with building Spaceports if I don't plan on going for SV. Satellite is the only potential exception because of the map reveal.

In fact, most of the tourism sources in Civ 6 actually do have more meaningful benefits, especially in the early-mid game. It's not just resorts with their gold - they are more like late-game finishers for CV. It's also great works, relics, every culture-generating improvement before Flight, Kampung, walls, and most of the wonders.

 

[clapyourhands]

I'd be fine with a cultural or economic policy card that granted a sizable amount of GPT based on foreign tourism to your civ, representing a government that has decided to make tourism a major part of their economy. It would give cultural civs the option to turn soft power to hard power (ie: military if necessary). It would be specific enough that it's not a card you'd need to take every game, but still definitely an option for civs that have racked up a lot of cultural influence.

 

[Amrunril]

If not too much work, I would like you to provide examples of such bonuses. The only glaring example I can think of is Film Studio - and that's one UB among all other non-tourism benefits that America gets. Minerva of the North, perhaps - although it does play into Sweden's UA and the potential to chain-win Nobel Prizes. You might want to mention France's Grand Tour, to which I can object right now. While +100% tourism from wonders becomes pointless, the wonder production bonus still suits other VCs just fine.

If anything, Domination-oriented civs are much bigger offenders in this regard, but they get a pass because successful warmongering helps with every VC in the game.



So weak alternative benefits from tourism sources are pointless, but weak alternative benefits from space projects are "balance issue and design intent"?... Both are pursued primarily for their respective VCs, and one barely cares about the add-on benefits. I don't even bother with building Spaceports if I don't plan on going for SV. Satellite is the only potential exception because of the map reveal.

In fact, most of the tourism sources in Civ 6 actually do have more meaningful benefits, especially in the early-mid game. It's not just resorts with their gold - they are more like late-game finishers for CV. It's also great works, relics, every culture-generating improvement before Flight, Kampung, walls, and most of the wonders.

I was primarily thinking of the US and France and may have overestimated the number of others. I do think France is absolutely a valid example, though. The tourism bonus from wonders is half of the unique ability, and is worse than useless for any player not pursuing culture victory. As you point out, this is different from bonuses to domination, for instance, as such bonuses have the potential to be leveraged towards any VC.

More broadly, though, my perspective is that, regardless of the side benefits of any tourism source, the game would be better if tourism itself had non victory effects. While the current system of tourism solely as a victory counter is functional, it seems like a colossal waste of potential given how compelling Civ V's more integrated version was.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In my constant complaining about the disconnect between tourism and any gameplay value, notably loyalty, I thought of another feature that is probably neglected even more that I often even forget exists: appeal. I never pay attention to a tile's appeal, and other than for national parks, which I don't usually build, I'm not sure what it does or if there's a purpose for it. Does anyone actually pay attention to appeal, or does everyone else ignore it too?

Besides tourism and appeal, what other features seem neglected and forgotten about in the game that need to be more involved with the actual gameplay?

I agree that Appeal should be a bigger factor in deciding Base Amenities, Housing & Culture-& this should be part of the settler lens. Appeal should also decide cash value of tiles as well as be a factor in what direction natural tile expansion occurs. I would also like to see industrial zones, mines & wells have more of an impact on tile appeal-especially adjacent tiles.

A feature I feel is still neglected is Bonus Resources &-to a lesser extent-luxury resources. I would like to see these resource types have more impact on the game than just their tile benefits and-in the case of luxuries-their Amenity Benefits. I'd like there to be obvious benefits in having multiple copies of a resource and-in the case of food resources-a benefit to having diverse resources (like it was in Civ4). I would also like to see luxury (& possibly even bonus) resource distribution be much more dictated by location. Dyes & Spices, for example, need to be diversified -& then made largely unique to certain land masses in each game (to greater drive intercontinental trade & colonisation in the game). Same with precious stones & metals. We need buildings, social policies & possibly even more pantheon & religious beliefs that extract greater benefit out of specific resource types.

Another neglected area is the near absence of Labour & Legal focused Social Policies. Though the Civ4 Civics system was somewhat limited, having civics directly related to legal systems, labour systems & religious tolerance was a huge plus. I feel that aspects of this system could be imported over to Civ6, with some relatively minor alterations-along with an overhaul in policies like Serfdom.

Last of all, I do feel like the Great Works-& their associated Great People-are sadly under-developed. I felt they were much more relevant in Civ5 BNW. Trading of Great Works & artifacts was a much bigger part of the game, as theming bonuses were spread across many more buildings. In general, I think there needs to be ways to generate Great People from much earlier in the game, but most particularly those from the Arts. As a result, we also need more Great People per Era, more places to put various Great Works, & possibly an Optional Ability for Arts based Great People in lieu of producing a Great Work. Great Artists might be used to lower the threshold for Normal, Golden & Heroic Ages in the upcoming era; Great Writers might Grant Inspirations for Civics, or possibly create a temporary, bonus wildcard slot in your current government. Great Musicians should be able to create musical groups, similar to Rock Groups.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh, forgot to mention. I definitely feel like the Ages system is a little under-cooked at present. I'd like to see the Age Threshold be more dynamic-based on player actions and in-game events (winning/losing wars, being denounced/forming friendships, natural disasters & other quasi-random events, multiple government changes within a single Era.....that kind of thing). I'd like Dark Ages to be more impacting, with "dark" variants of the Normal/Golden Age Dedications.....or even a whole set of new Dedications, solely for Dark Ages. Golden Ages should also have Policy Cards that you can slot into your government, for added benefits. Last of all, more Dedications per era would be nice-especially ones tied to specific types of governments.

Oh, & who'd like to see more done with Barbarians than just be some random threat? What if Barbarian Camps could eventually evolve into Independent-albeit hostile-Cities? What if you could have limited diplomatic contacts with Barbarians-like offering them cash to leave you alone for X turns, or offering more cash for them to effectively levy their troops for X turns? Also, what if Barbarians could Capture Cities......and what if Cities captured by City-States became Independent Cities? I reckon this would make the game even more dynamic.

 

[isau]

Not sure it's quite the same thing, but I think Gathering Storm missed a major opportunity to introduce Waste Management.

I was hoping for a Landfill district that you needed to build somewhere in your empire that had a massive negative effect on neighboring tiles. The incentive, of course, would be to build it somewhere remote. If you build it near a neighbor they'd naturally be angry at you. But also you'd have ways to injure them without declaring actual war...

Also, waste should flow into water and risk making rivers and ocean tiles hazardous to cities.

They always had these features in games like Sim City and it was mostly easy to ignore. In Civ 6 it would have worked pretty well. Really sad they didn't include this in an update that focused on disasters.

 

[Midgardsormr]

What if Barbarian Camps could eventually evolve into Independent-albeit hostile-Cities?

Didn't Civ IV do that? Or was it III? I always liked landing on a remote continent and finding a giant barbarian civilization, with operating cities and roads. And the risk that if the barbarians captured my own city they'd use it to build more troops.

 

[Starwars]

Barbarian cities could start up in IV (there were no camps in that one). You could then capture them for yourself if they had more than 1 population.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Didn't Civ IV do that? Or was it III? I always liked landing on a remote continent and finding a giant barbarian civilization, with operating cities and roads. And the risk that if the barbarians captured my own city they'd use it to build more troops.

Yep, Civ4 had it!