So if the even numbered Civs are the better ones, your expectations for 7

[Zaarin]

Civ5 > Civ6

I disagree with this point. While I think Civ5 did some things better than Civ6, on the whole I think it was one of the weakest games in the franchise, even after two expansions radically transformed it from its garbage state on release.

In the same time, Civ5 to Civ6 transition was by far the least revolutionary in the series (compare enormous jump from civ4 to civ5 on all levels, good and bad). There are multiple core systems almost identical in those games on the fundamental level, and multiple long standing issues that are 10 years old. So much time has passed for us to know which issues simply aren't going to be solved if we remain within those core systems.

However, I also agree with this. Civ6 was a solid game on release, but it was a very safe game. Its boldest (and IMO best) idea was districts; otherwise it mostly built on the foundation of Civ5.

- People love some aspects of this kind of religion system, but it has gotten stale and remained almost identical over last 10 years, some fundamental changes to religion are needed to make it feel more fresh and deep.
- Both game have diplomacy that kinda sucks in some ways, is too arbitrary and illogical and for example doesn't enable coalitions, vassals, world wars etc (intuitive obvious things people desire)

These two things are at the top of my Civ7 wishlist. Religion and diplomacy need an overhaul.

- City states, their quests and abilities

I actually think it's very likely we'll see both City-states and Barbarians replaced with Minor Civilizations in Civ7. However, functionally I think they'll be very similar to City-states as they exist now so in that respect I agree with you.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

In the same time, Civ5 to Civ6 transition was by far the least revolutionary in the series (compare enormous jump from civ4 to civ5 on all levels, good and bad). There are multiple core systems almost identical in those games on the fundamental level, and multiple long standing issues that are 10 years old. So much time has passed for us to know which issues simply aren't going to be solved if we remain within those core systems.

This for me is more important than which game was better, per se. I think it has something to do with how Civ V ran rather abstract and lean whereas the richness of Civ VI remains practically undeniable. After the nearly generic civilizations and strategies of the former, the latter has served up all sorts of features, variables, and combinations that, while hardly coherent, have nonetheless cultivated in me an unfortunate pickiness as a player. Overall, it felt like it took more to pare down Civ IV than to add to Civ V. It must be said that all three I have played (not to dwell on those I merely observed) have had their moments of aesthetic brilliance.

- Both games failed to invent tall vs wide economic balance, with civ5 being to tall biased (due to too punishing happiness system) and civ6 being too wide biased (due to barely existing happiness system). Something is conceptually fundamebtally wrong here.
- On map religious units are tedious and boring to use. Attempts to make them fun but still simple have failed.
- People love some aspects of this kind of religion system, but it has gotten stale and remained almost identical over last 10 years, some fundamental changes to religion are needed to make it feel more fresh and deep.
- Both game have diplomacy that kinda sucks in some ways, is too arbitrary and illogical and for example doesn't enable coalitions, vassals, world wars etc (intuitive obvious things people desire)
- There is not a single reason to have warmongering penalties, they infuriate everybody and add nothing fun or clever to the game.

It would be great to have a game of Civilization where wide and tall strategies both had their day in the sun. As much as I love how Civ V broke up religion from the old historical deterministic model, after a decade, I would agree that even the most elaborate religious menu is once again ripe for change. Diplomacy did not really recover from the transition to Civ V, and I would definitely prefer more bloc/alliance modeling, diplomatic costs, or the ability to withdraw from/war against the international system. At the very least, we have all but said goodbye to the most backstabbing behavior of the AI--"Will you denounce France? If not, I'll have to seriously rethink our long-standing yet suddenly tentative friendship..."

- Both games have a big snowballing and endgame problem, with civs power levels being set in stone by the renaissance era. Although I think Civ6 is somehow even worse in both regards than civ5. Civ5 BNW ideology system was awesome in the way it disturbed the world and introduced some chaos in the late game, why the hell wasn't it reintroduced? It should have been made even more prominent, with industrialization, World wars and cold war shaking the established order to the core.

I did like how the ideology system provided a handy and very plausible shakeup of late-game diplomacy, where it became very possible for old friends to drift apart and new alliances to develop. If anything, a world congress mechanism should be in play to model the stresses on the global system, rather than solely enforcing conformity.

 

[Kwami]

Answer to your first question is no. You are right, you can't remove a district in Civ6 without a mod, which is in fact one of my "can't play without" mods.

Right, districts are almost always permanent. However, tile improvements absolutely can be changed, just like in previous games.

 

[Zegangani]

Right, districts are almost always permanent. However, tile improvements absolutely can be changed, just like in previous games.

Technically Civ6 didn't need to have Improvements, but I'm glad that the Devs didn't remove them. If they did, then the Game would have Infrastructure building similar to Humankind's (which doesn't have a Builder/Worker Unit that builds Infrastructure): uninteresting and not very flavorful. It would be one of the least interesting features of the Game, and the only thing that would make them not useless are the adjancecy Bonuses, that's it. The Builders and their Charges help more than just improve a tile in a City:
- I can use the Production of a City to get a Builder that splits those productions into charges that I can use whenever and wherever I want, like I can put a Builder on a Tile that I can't improve now, because I don't have the Tech yet, but right after I get that required Tech, I can immediately improve that Tile and benefit from it, instead of waiting X Turns till it gets improved by the Production of the City. And if you think a little more on this, you will realize that this also reduces Micromanagement a bit (you can always order a Builder to sleep/skip turn), because if everything was built via the Production Menu of the City, then that make Players constantly check their Cities and what they should build next. Yes, I can use a Queue, but if everything was on Auto-Mode, then that would take away from one of the interesting and engaging parts of the Game:
- The Build charges of Civilians make the Player directly engage with the Map, and I guess I don't need to tell how good Civ6 is at that.
- Builders are also useful for new Cities: Lots of Players when settling a new City, they don't build any Units in that City but only Buildings/Districts, they simply build the Builders in a nearby City with high Production, and send them to the new City. This helps a lot to get that City running, especially since in most cases it will have very low Production at first.
- Similarly to the previous Point, When a Player builds a Settler to build a Colony on a foreign Continent, the Player also sends a Builder with it, so they can improve the Tiles of the Colony immediately after the settlement and get it running faster.

All of that would be gone if we remove Build Charges and Improvements. As I said, it's technically possible to find a solution for most of that, but why changing a System that's already working very good without having any (major) Issues? Improvements and Build Charges completely fit the Theme and Gameplay of Civ6, and if Civ7 works similar to Civ6, then I hope the Devs would keep Improvements and Build Charges as part of it.

 

[Krajzen]

One controversial statement I wanted to add is that I think there is a chance devs will delete eurekas and double tech trees from the game, and instead introduce some (whatever) brand new twists to the tech progress. This may sound surprising because very few people openly complained about double tech tree and eurekas. But I am personally quite convinced, after contemplating on them, that they are resposible for a huge part of civ6 great issues with pacing. The very existence of eurekas (until they are so small to be not very significant, like 10 - 15%) makes any modulation of game's pacing a total headache. You have to build game pacing and balance around the unknown factor of whether any given civ cuts down its total tech tree costs by any % between like idk 10% and staggering 40%, and that is a black box outside of any yield counters and scaling.

Also, eurekas are a snowballing system - they just tend to be built around having more of everything, so the bigger you are the more of them you get, and the faster you progress in tech (withiut even counting beakers).

Also, following all present and soon eureka requirements is quite mentally taxing micromanagement for a human player, so it turns into very awkward mechanic where humans are rewarded largely for sheer patience to follow all this all time.

Regarding double tech trees, they require a human to take two times more decisions, but they do NOT bring two times more depth, because each of those tech trees separately is much shallower than one huge, holistic, interconnected tech tree - even if two trees have more content on paper. So they bring more micromanagement but LESS depth than having to make less but more profound decisions how to move in a more complex tech tree.

 

[shaglio]

Regarding double tech trees, they require a human to take two times more decisions, but they do NOT bring two times more depth, because each of those tech trees separately is much shallower than one huge, holistic, interconnected tech tree - even if two trees have more content on paper. So they bring more micromanagement but LESS depth than having to make less but more profound decisions how to move in a more complex tech tree.

I've felt this way since very early in my Civ 6 playtime, but I always thought I was the only one. Nobody else seemed to be complaining about it until now.

I don't mind the Tech tree too much and I don't have a set tech research pattern that I use from game to game. I tend to research techs in a different order depending on what's happening in the particular game. Which is exactly how the game should be designed.

But the Culture tree is a mind-numbingly boring slog for me. I have begun just clicking on the government I want to unlock and forgetting about it until I need to make the next choice. Maybe it's that the individual steps along the way have no interest for me since I despise the Policy Card system. Or maybe it's a visual issue: all those red, yellow, green, and purple policy card symbols look exactly the same and I have to tediously hover over each one to remember what they are. If they had distinct symbols on the cards, I would be able to quickly determine which one I wanted to research at a mere glance. But as it is now, the Culture tree is mostly a sea of identically shaped icons and lacks any appeal for me from an optical standpoint.

I would love for Civ 7 to merge the two trees back into one like it was in previous editions.

 

[Zaarin]

One controversial statement I wanted to add is that I think there is a chance devs will delete eurekas and double tech trees from the game, and instead introduce some (whatever) brand new twists to the tech progress. This may sound surprising because very few people openly complained about double tech tree and eurekas. But I am personally quite convinced, after contemplating on them, that they are resposible for a huge part of civ6 great issues with pacing. The very existence of eurekas (until they are so small to be not very significant, like 10 - 15%) makes any modulation of game's pacing a total headache. You have to build game pacing and balance around the unknown factor of whether any given civ cuts down its total tech tree costs by any % between like idk 10% and staggering 40%, and that is a black box outside of any yield counters and scaling.

Also, eurekas are a snowballing system - they just tend to be built around having more of everything, so the bigger you are the more of them you get, and the faster you progress in tech (withiut even counting beakers).

Also, following all present and soon eureka requirements is quite mentally taxing micromanagement for a human player, so it turns into very awkward mechanic where humans are rewarded largely for sheer patience to follow all this all time.

Regarding double tech trees, they require a human to take two times more decisions, but they do NOT bring two times more depth, because each of those tech trees separately is much shallower than one huge, holistic, interconnected tech tree - even if two trees have more content on paper. So they bring more micromanagement but LESS depth than having to make less but more profound decisions how to move in a more complex tech tree.

The Eureka/Inspiration mechanic was a cool idea, but it was not good for the game in the long run. I agree that we will either see it gone or else considerably altered in Civ7.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Builder Charges / Worker Actions: Both Civ3 and Civ4 (and actually Civ2, if we go way back) allowed a tile to be improved more than once. Mine early, irrigate later. Or replace farms with workshops. As the needs of your empire changed over the decades/centuries, your use of the land changed. I know that one can repurpose tiles in BERT, so I'm going to guess that was also an option in Civ5. Never played enough Civ5 to have that memorized.

Does Civ6 even allow a player to change a district into something else? Once I have placed a district -- or completed it -- I always thought that the tile was fixed for the rest of the game.

Unlike @aieeegrunt , I would prefer the option to change how tiles are used over the course of my empire's development.

Answer to your first question is no. You are right, you can't remove a district in Civ6 without a mod, which is in fact one of my "can't play without" mods.

There is no reason that you can’t have removeable districts other than a bad design decision

This is all clearly a matter of personal opinion, not verifiable fact.

My own view is that 2, 3, and 5 were best, 1 and 6 good, and I hated 4.

What about 4 made you hate it

I disagree with this point. While I think Civ5 did some things better than Civ6, on the whole I think it was one of the weakest games in the franchise, even after two expansions radically transformed it from its garbage state on release.


However, I also agree with this. Civ6 was a solid game on release, but it was a very safe game. Its boldest (and IMO best) idea was districts; otherwise it mostly built on the foundation of Civ5.


These two things are at the top of my Civ7 wishlist. Religion and diplomacy need an overhaul.

Diplomacy is the subsystem in Civ 6 that needs the most work for sure, it’s pretty unsatisfying. At minimum we need the vassal system from 4 back, allies need to be prohibited from attacking your city states, and the entire WC needs to be deleted

I actually think it's very likely we'll see both City-states and Barbarians replaced with Minor Civilizations in Civ7. However, functionally I think they'll be very similar to City-states as they exist now so in that respect I agree with you.

City states are probably the civ6 addition I like the most.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

The very existence of eurekas (until they are so small to be not very significant, like 10 - 15%) makes any modulation of game's pacing a total headache. You have to build game pacing and balance around the unknown factor of whether any given civ cuts down its total tech tree costs by any % between like idk 10% and staggering 40%, and that is a black box outside of any yield counters and scaling.

Also, eurekas are a snowballing system - they just tend to be built around having more of everything, so the bigger you are the more of them you get, and the faster you progress in tech (withiut even counting beakers).

I have found the Extended Eras mod to be very helpful in this regard. Somehow, by ratcheting up costs, in particular ahead penalties, science and culture become less about predominance and more about specialization. As such, the AI can be relatively competitive, if only because it is quite a burden to beat the AI to each part of both trees, and there is more of an opportunity cost to innovation.

I agree that Eurekas/Inspirations probably most directly feed into snowballing, whereas, I would rather have them inform elements of cultural and religious identity, if they remain present.

But the Culture tree is a mind-numbingly boring slog for me. I have begun just clicking on the government I want to unlock and forgetting about it until I need to make the next choice.

To some extent, Extended Eras also helps with the culture side, but there are many more technologies than there are civics. This, I suppose, leads to an exponential reduction in culture-research paths (as one discovers playing Catherine de Medici (Magnificence)). It seems that this imbalance stunts cultural evolution, all the more as the AI is loath to move past Political Philosophy...


On a separate note, I would certainly appreciate the reintroduction of the neighborly tech discount from Civ V.

 

[Miserable Old Git]

@aieeegrunt

I disliked the UI, and the game seemed too undynamic.

 

[bene_legionary]

The more I think about double tech trees, the more I think they're not as good as they were set out to be. A culture tree sounds amazing on paper, but measuring cultural output and sticking it to an tech system makes even less sense than a tech tree to me (not saying we don't need a tech tree, we do). A tech tree represents definite scientific progress, but the civics tree represents... doctrinal progress?

I think Civ 5's social policies makes more sense; not every culture had theocracies, militarism, or recorded history etc. (it was certainly more nuanced, look at Incan recorded history), but although in Civ 6 you can choose to ignore those civics in the tree, it's not the same as Civ 5 where you can't choose it because you are limited in what you have. In Civ 6 you can always choose to research those civics later. There is a better and more impactful decision to be made when the opportunity cost means that you won't have that option again, while in Civ 6 the options are always on the table, it's just a few turns of filling meters until you have the bonus.

It's weirder for civics like "scorched earth" and "nuclear programme", which doesn't mean much to me from a cultural standpoint (I'd like someone to explain it to me, do people make poems and songs about scorched earth and nuclear programmes?). I thought about a combined tree which has different sections that sometimes connects to other sections and splits off, but it sounds complicated to work out. If I had a choice I'd go for Civ 5's social policy system with some changes (2 aspects to every tree, e.g. science based on civ's research or science based on neighbouring civs' research, could also vary between wide and tall), but I don't expect it will be in Civ 7.

Searching Civic on Google says that "Civic education is the study of the theoretical, political and practical aspects of citizenship, as well as its rights and duties".

 

[Krajzen]

The more I think about double tech trees, the more I think they're not as good as they were set out to be. A culture tree sounds amazing on paper, but measuring cultural output and sticking it to an tech system makes even less sense than a tech tree to me (not saying we don't need a tech tree, we do). A tech tree represents definite scientific progress, but the civics tree represents... doctrinal progress?

I think Civ 5's social policies makes more sense; not every culture had theocracies, militarism, or recorded history etc. (it was certainly more nuanced, look at Incan recorded history), but although in Civ 6 you can choose to ignore those civics in the tree, it's not the same as Civ 5 where you can't choose it because you are limited in what you have. In Civ 6 you can always choose to research those civics later. There is a better and more impactful decision to be made when the opportunity cost means that you won't have that option again, while in Civ 6 the options are always on the table, it's just a few turns of filling meters until you have the bonus.

It's weirder for civics like "scorched earth" and "nuclear programme", which doesn't mean much to me from a cultural standpoint (I'd like someone to explain it to me, do people make poems and songs about scorched earth and nuclear programmes?). I thought about a combined tree which has different sections that sometimes connects to other sections and splits off, but it sounds complicated to work out. If I had a choice I'd go for Civ 5's social policy system with some changes (2 aspects to every tree, e.g. science based on civ's research or science based on neighbouring civs' research, could also vary between wide and tall), but I don't expect it will be in Civ 7.

Searching Civic on Google says that "Civic education is the study of the theoretical, political and practical aspects of citizenship, as well as its rights and duties".

The more I think about separate culture tree the weirder it becomes, even besides its aforementioned negative impacts on gameplay which have a first priority. Like the idea that culture is tightly tied to the progress of science and technology is far more bigbrain and profound concept than making them separate, it's as if we went back several decades in our understanding of how history works.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The more I think about double tech trees, the more I think they're not as good as they were set out to be. A culture tree sounds amazing on paper, but measuring cultural output and sticking it to an tech system makes even less sense than a tech tree to me (not saying we don't need a tech tree, we do). A tech tree represents definite scientific progress, but the civics tree represents... doctrinal progress?

I think Civ 5's social policies makes more sense; not every culture had theocracies, militarism, or recorded history etc. (it was certainly more nuanced, look at Incan recorded history), but although in Civ 6 you can choose to ignore those civics in the tree, it's not the same as Civ 5 where you can't choose it because you are limited in what you have. In Civ 6 you can always choose to research those civics later. There is a better and more impactful decision to be made when the opportunity cost means that you won't have that option again, while in Civ 6 the options are always on the table, it's just a few turns of filling meters until you have the bonus.

It's weirder for civics like "scorched earth" and "nuclear programme", which doesn't mean much to me from a cultural standpoint (I'd like someone to explain it to me, do people make poems and songs about scorched earth and nuclear programmes?). I thought about a combined tree which has different sections that sometimes connects to other sections and splits off, but it sounds complicated to work out. If I had a choice I'd go for Civ 5's social policy system with some changes (2 aspects to every tree, e.g. science based on civ's research or science based on neighbouring civs' research, could also vary between wide and tall), but I don't expect it will be in Civ 7.

Searching Civic on Google says that "Civic education is the study of the theoretical, political and practical aspects of citizenship, as well as its rights and duties".

I think having two separate trees,but having them intertwined would be the best solution.
Of course my idea of a cultural tree is more like a cultural web where "Code of Laws" is in the middle and then from there you can pick a branch to go down, or multiple, but not necessarily reaching all in a game. These would still unlock governments, some policies, units, and infrastructure.
At the same time in order to make it down an Educational branch, you at least need to unlock Writing on the tech tree, which will then open up Drama and Poetry on the culture web.

 

[pokiehl]

I don’t like the double trees in Civ 6. It makes both trees feel anemic.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

It's weirder for civics like "scorched earth" and "nuclear programme", which doesn't mean much to me from a cultural standpoint (I'd like someone to explain it to me, do people make poems and songs about scorched earth and nuclear programmes?).

This skepticism conversely leads me to an appreciation of the poignance of representing culture as civics. Per the Civilopedia as sourced from the wiki,

By the time of the American Civil War – the first industrial war – war wasn’t just about defeating the enemy’s armies, but about destroying its means and morale to carry on the war. Of course from the days of ancient Egypt through Napoleon’s empire civilians had always got caught in the cross-fire, and sometimes were the targets, of the butchery. But it was the Industrial era wars that made wholesale destruction – “scorched earth” – a legitimate military strategy. When the American William Tecumseh Sherman marched across Georgia to the sea (it being a lot easier to burn undefended plantations and towns than actually fight battles), a new era in warfare began.

The strategy section on the wiki is more evocative, but the two points above that draw my attention are "wholesale destruction" and "a legitimate military strategy." They follow up with references to the Nazi German invasion of the Soviet Union, as well as the Korean and Vietnam Wars. If it were not enough to claim that industrial-scale destruction has had an effect on human culture, then perhaps "Scorched Earth" earns its designation as a civic because of its legitimation as a sovereign right of war. I would be interested to see a number, but imagine all the people who have had first-hand experience as survivors of scorched earth policies, or their direct descendants. In an odd way, this civic gives them some representation.

Of course my idea of a cultural tree is more like a cultural web where "Code of Laws" is in the middle and then from there you can pick a branch to go down, or multiple, but not necessarily reaching all in a game. These would still unlock governments, some policies, units, and infrastructure.
At the same time in order to make it down an Educational branch, you at least need to unlock Writing on the tech tree, which will then open up Drama and Poetry on the culture web.

I like the idea of a web rather than a tree, but would argue oral tradition needs its fair shot as an alternative to writing.

 

[bene_legionary]

I like the idea of a web rather than a tree

Tech trees in games are more like long tech branches. A 'web' is more like a tree; agriculture or firemaking might be the trunk, and it grows into new branches of technologies. Again it would be difficult to show how separate branches connect to each other especially if your connected tech is on the other side of the diagram, but I also like the idea.

 

[Zaarin]

The more I think about separate culture tree the weirder it becomes, even besides its aforementioned negative impacts on gameplay which have a first priority. Like the idea that culture is tightly tied to the progress of science and technology is far more bigbrain and profound concept than making them separate, it's as if we went back several decades in our understanding of how history works.

I think having two separate trees,but having them intertwined would be the best solution.

I like the idea of a web rather than a tree, but would argue oral tradition needs its fair shot as an alternative to writing.

I was going to say, a web rather than a tree is probably the best alternative here.

 

[kaspergm]

This for me is more important than which game was better, per se. I think it has something to do with how Civ V ran rather abstract and lean whereas the richness of Civ VI remains practically undeniable. After the nearly generic civilizations and strategies of the former, the latter has served up all sorts of features, variables, and combinations that, while hardly coherent, have nonetheless cultivated in me an unfortunate pickiness as a player.

Personally, I don't think this description does Civ5 proper justice - or I feel it paints an overly positive picture of Civ6. Yes, Civ6 offers you a number of different strategies, but a huge problem with Civ6 is that you often lock yourself into that strategy before you even start the game, namely at the time you pick which civilization you will play. Choose Russia? You'll all but need to play religious early and then merge into cultural. Choose Ethiopia? Well, same, basically. Choose Babylon or Korea? You know you'll have to focus on science. Choose Germany? Always go military and production. Etc. etc. Sure, there are some civs - a few? - that offer a more open approach to the game, but most of the unique features and districts very strongly shoehorn you in a specific direction. On the other hand, in Civ5, I felt like most civilizations could be taken in very different directions depending on which policy trees I chose to develop (and yes, I did use some extensive mods to make something that was not Tradition - Rationalism actually viable).

As for the discussion of double tech trees, overall I liked this, but I do feel there are other ways to make culture more than just a pointless yield, maybe even better ways. I wouldn't mind them putting some work into that area, although I wouldn't mind the culture tree staying in some form either. I was always curious about some sort of two-dimensional tech tree with sub-techs below main line techs, but I know people didn't like the way BE implemented this (I never tried it myself), so maybe that's a dead fish.

I'm much less enthusiastic about the Eureka system, which seems way too static and quickly grew stale. Something more dynamic would be much better - i.e. if you do a lot of science stuff, you may get a eureka towards next sciencey tech, if you do a lot of warring, you may get a eureka towards a military tech, etc. Also we need a lot more trickle-over science from open borders, trade, alliances, etc. Basically being first to research something should take a heave toll and be unusual rather than the norm. The way that one civ can just plow through the tech tree all alone in Civ6 is very bad, both from realism and gameplay/balance.

 

[UWHabs]

I was going to say, a web rather than a tree is probably the best alternative here.

The big problem with a web is that since civ is meant to basically trace history, you kind of want there to be general forward progress.

But for the culture tree, if they really bulked it out, you could probably get something that could make sense. Especially if you found a better way to split out the generic categories of civics more, then you could see a civ want to progress deep along, say, an environmental cultural path, at the expense of another path. Or perhaps if you're playing a truly chop and burn game, maybe you would skip the environmental path, but you really want your culture developing around something else.

But in any event, I think the problem with splitting the trees is more that they split them, but then in reality the total of techs+civics is roughly the same, or not much more, than the techs alone from previous games. If they split the trees but kept each one the same size as the previous tech trees, I think that would have been better.

And then perhaps also the fact that if you go hard on culture you can be in the atomic era culturally but only in the industrial for tech, or vice versa, I think hurts things. If they forced you to stay closer to balanced, I wonder how that would play better, if it meant that going crazy culture didn't give you a benefit if your science is trailing behind.

 

[Zaarin]

The big problem with a web is that since civ is meant to basically trace history, you kind of want there to be general forward progress.

I understand the point you're making, but Civ isn't a history simulator and generally imitates history very poorly. Since Civ's greatest appeal is as an alternate history, I think a tech web that offers alternative paths forward would be a popular feature. The current iteration of the tech tree is deterministic and rather Eurocentric; a web could alleviate that.

And then perhaps also the fact that if you go hard on culture you can be in the atomic era culturally but only in the industrial for tech, or vice versa, I think hurts things. If they forced you to stay closer to balanced, I wonder how that would play better, if it meant that going crazy culture didn't give you a benefit if your science is trailing behind.

Part of me likes that tech and culture can be to a certain degree imbalanced, representing societies that are sophisticated in one way and less so in another, but the actual implementation, like so many things in Civ6, is lacking. A good real life example of this kind of mismatch is the indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest, who technologically were Mesolithic but culturally were Classical-to-Early-Medieval. But in Civ6 it's too easy to be extremely off balance if you focus on one tree and ignore the other.