So what do you feel is still broken?

[Pfeffersack]

Amenities. Not broken in a direct sense, but they suffer for my taste from the same issue as Gold. It is too easy to fulfil your needs here, which devalues nice features like Luxuries or Entertainment districts. In previous parts of the civ series (especially Civ 5), luxuries or entertainment buildings were a huge deal; you could just never had enough and constantly struggled for more. In Civ6 I find myself viewing luxuries mainly as trade objects which go to the AI to fill my coffers with Gold. And I almost never feel pressured to invest in Entertainment districts, when they become available - usually I puzzle in a couple in the late game, when the Waterparks are available, too. It is a fun minigame to place them to reach as many cities as possible with the Tier 2 and 3 buildings...but it is by no means really necessary to make that effort and "local" ones to get the base amenity from the district itself and the one from the T1 building are almost never worth (pre-GS, I considered at least "local waterparks" to make better of use water tiles, but after all the improvement to them even that has lost its appeal for me)

A possible fix could be changing the formula of needed amenities for population a bit: Currently, you need one amenity for a city, when it reaches a population of three. And then one more for each two pop more. The amenity system would get a lot of teeth, if a city would eat up one amenity in the moment it is founded and then one more for each two pop more. Would be also a nice counter to mindless city spamming.

 

[AlanC9]

I doubt that, it is likely that they use global unit strength (the melee, I think, CS of all of your units combined) to make their calculations. and melee units always do better in those than every other type of unit. especially melee ships. cavalry in general has lower CS than melee because they are more mobile, and ranged units obviously have low melee CS in general. so the AI, in calculating whether to attack or not, undervalues your ranged and cavalry units.

OK, yeah, this fits the observed behavior, since my force mix was fairly heavily weighted towards ranged units after the war with Japan.

 

[Galvatron]

3. Grievances, Casus Belli, Agendas and Promises are all useless in multiplayer, so certainly not all the systems. I'm probably forgetting some.

That's not true at all. Grievances play their full role in multiplayer. They still affect loyalty and war weariness. The only difference is that players are smarter than AI ands better able to use then against you.

Same with CBs and promises. The only thing that doesn't work there is agendas, and that's also not true since agendas are supposed to stimulate player goals. So having players in the game nullifies the need for agendas. Because they have free will.

Amenities. Not broken in a direct sense, but they suffer for my taste from the same issue as Gold. It is too easy to fulfil your needs here, which devalues nice features like Luxuries or Entertainment districts. In previous parts of the civ series (especially Civ 5), luxuries or entertainment buildings were a huge deal; you could just never had enough and constantly struggled for more. In Civ6 I find myself viewing luxuries mainly as trade objects which go to the AI to fill my coffers with Gold. And I almost never feel pressured to invest in Entertainment districts, when they become available - usually I puzzle in a couple in the late game, when the Waterparks are available, too. It is a fun minigame to place them to reach as many cities as possible with the Tier 2 and 3 buildings...but it is by no means really necessary to make that effort and "local" ones to get the base amenity from the district itself and the one from the T1 building are almost never worth (pre-GS, I considered at least "local waterparks" to make better of use water tiles, but after all the improvement to them even that has lost its appeal for me)

A possible fix could be changing the formula of needed amenities for population a bit: Currently, you need one amenity for a city, when it reaches a population of three. And then one more for each two pop more. The amenity system would get a lot of teeth, if a city would eat up one amenity in the moment it is founded and then one more for each two pop more. Would be also a nice counter to mindless city spamming.

I'm not sure why they made entertainment and culture separate districts. It's like the meme where haute culture like ballet is supposed to be boring to rubes.

Two ideas I had if they HAD to keep those in is they could make entertainment districts give a bonus based on the amenities you have, so having more amenities gives you something more if you have entertainment hubs. The other one is that it could just double the effects of high happiness in your cities with a district.

 

[ezzlar]

Once xbows and walls are up in combination of a few hills and encampments, attacking becomes very hard. I can understand that the AI has problems. I usually only attack after a tech push or until I get to Frigates. You just slog down in eternal arrows and catapults that die to nothing.

 

[Pfeffersack]

Once xbows and walls are up in combination of a few hills and encampments, attacking becomes very hard. I can understand that the AI has problems. I usually only attack after a tech push or until I get to Frigates. You just slog down in eternal arrows and catapults that die to nothing.

I think a part of this problem are map sizes and densly packed cities as well. Compared to earlier parts of the series the maps have become smaller and sadly currently fan-made larger ones tend to crash.

But smaller maps sizes limit expansion in some way - you either (or both) end up with

1. less players (bad, because IMO less nations involved don't work together with Civ 6 alliance system - if everyone can have 5 buddies and there are only 7 opponents at all, then it is no wonder that almost no big wars happen...now comapre that with a scenario of 16 or 20 players involed - suddenly those handful of alliances seems to be more in line)
2. less cities per nation (bad, because size means power)
3. and/or more cities in a small area (bad for warfare, because each city and a potential encampment hinder progress by fire and tile blocking)

I always feel myself tempted to increase minimum city distance by 1 to 4 and I'm currently experimenting in my games with adding more AI players and choosing old worlds to reduce mountains as blocking factors.

 

[acluewithout]

Trajan likes expansive empires. So he criticizes me at the start of the game because my civ is too small. Ok. But then I declare war on him and take half his cities. Now, he likes me and praises me for my big empire. I guess it can be rationalized that he respects me for having a bigger empire. But it's still weird that he would be happy with losing cities to me.

But he’s not happy you took his Cities. You’ll have negative relationship modifiers because you have his Cities. It’s just that you also have positive modifiers from his agenda.

His agenda is also not really about “liking” Civs with big empires anyway. His agenda is about conquering small empires, which is achieved mechanically by giving negative modifiers v small empires (which makes aggression more likely) and positive modifiers v large empires (makes aggression less likely).

If you prefer, think of Trajan as a bully, that picks on the weak but is friends with the strong.

Another example, Hardrada likes Civs with strong navies. Why would he like competition? The idea here is that he will more likely have poor relations with Civs with weak navies and declare war on those who are the most fragile to naval assaults.

Exactly. Harold doesn’t really “like” Civs with big navies. Instead, he picks on Civs with weak coastal defences, which is achieved mechanically by having negative modifiers v small navies, positive modifiers v big navies. (Although, this gets a bit sketchy with landlocked Civs, where Harold hates them because no navy (of course) but don’t have any coastal cities to conquer.)

Basically, the big problems with Agendas are they are often poorly explained in game, and you really have to dig to see the modifiers etc.

 

[jozef57]

have you ever considered that only a slight minority of players have even purchased the season pass? same for the expansions, not everyone even has them. lots of people bought Civ 6 vanilla and then quit. Even when people did buy the season pass, did they play as Maya? did they finish their game or just quit before they won?

that is the obvious reason why so few people have this achievement, not your theory that the game has gotten harder. the game is still just as easy as it was when GS released, and honestly in terms of actual challenge the game hasn't changed since vanilla. Sure, conquering AIs is more difficult, and aggressive AIs are a little more threatening, but the fact that the AI doesn't win games in a realistic time hasn't changed.

i do not think the game is easy it is only anoying. i played civ since version 2 and this dev team anaged to leave the game just being anoying and nothing more. this is now a game for a few hardcore masochists, wait of money and time

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Amenities. Not broken in a direct sense, but they suffer for my taste from the same issue as Gold. It is too easy to fulfil your needs here, which devalues nice features like Luxuries or Entertainment districts. In previous parts of the civ series (especially Civ 5), luxuries or entertainment buildings were a huge deal; you could just never had enough and constantly struggled for more. In Civ6 I find myself viewing luxuries mainly as trade objects which go to the AI to fill my coffers with Gold. And I almost never feel pressured to invest in Entertainment districts, when they become available - usually I puzzle in a couple in the late game, when the Waterparks are available, too. It is a fun minigame to place them to reach as many cities as possible with the Tier 2 and 3 buildings...but it is by no means really necessary to make that effort and "local" ones to get the base amenity from the district itself and the one from the T1 building are almost never worth (pre-GS, I considered at least "local waterparks" to make better of use water tiles, but after all the improvement to them even that has lost its appeal for me)

A possible fix could be changing the formula of needed amenities for population a bit: Currently, you need one amenity for a city, when it reaches a population of three. And then one more for each two pop more. The amenity system would get a lot of teeth, if a city would eat up one amenity in the moment it is founded and then one more for each two pop more. Would be also a nice counter to mindless city spamming.

In my games, even when my cities don't have enough amenities, they never actually revolt. I would like to see cities actually be able to revolt more often if you conquer lots of cities and neglect amenities.

On a side note, I think if it would be better if free cities could become new city-states or even a new civ entirely (picked from the list of civs not currently in the game) instead of automatically flipping to a neighboring major civ. I just think that if cities either through loyalty pressure or through a lack of amenities, could actually rebel and become free cities, city states or a new civ, it would make the game more interesting. We see this in history all the time, that cities broke free and become independent and became new nations/empires. Plus, it would shake up the game and shake up the map. There needs to be more rise and fall of empires in the game. They tried to do this with the loyalty mechanic but it's still too safe. All it really does in my games is shift border cities around a bit. In fact, the AI tends to be pretty bad at this, so usually, the human just gets some free cities for nothing because the AI foolishly settles a city it can't keep or neglects its border cities that are too close to my cities.

This could be done with some modifiers:
- Stronger loyalty penalty for a lack of amenities
- More negative amenities for distance to capital
- Free cities would get a new "loyalty pressure to become a new civ" that could cause them to flip to a new civ.

Obviously if the existing loyalty pressures from neighboring civs were stronger, then the free city would still flip to a neighboring civ. But if the "loyalty to become new civ" was stronger, then the free city would become a new civ. So if a city revolts that is sandwiched between two big civs, it would probably join one of them. But if a city revolted that is not close to other civs, it would most likely become a new civ.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

this is now a game for a few hardcore masochists

I agree

i do not think the game is easy it is only anoying

coming from Civ 2 I understand it can be easy, but me coming from Civ 5 I managed to beat Civ 6 Deity within like two or three games. if that isn't easy then I don't know.

 

[bitula]

coming from Civ 2 I understand it can be easy, but me coming from Civ 5 I managed to beat Civ 6 Deity within like two or three games. if that isn't easy then I don't know.

My first or second game after buying vanilla Civ6 was a win on Deity without even knowing the rules. Every subsequent Diety game was a 100% win, so I stopped playing.
Now with all expansions and NFP despite knowing all the rules I use to lose quite frequently. Well maybe this is an illusion, but seems to me the AI has went through huge improvements. With NFP + apocalypse I just lost one.

 

[RealHuhn]

So today, I've paid 230 gold to win an early emergency and then sold the reward, the diplomatic favor, for 120 gold per turn. One new builder every third turn. Good game. Next one!
Seriously, selling diplo favor is ridiculous on Deity. I hate it. Please fix.

Edit: I haven't followed this thread. Would be interesting to see a short summary. What has been mentioned the most for example.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

So today, I've paid 230 gold to win an early emergency and then sold the reward, the diplomatic favor, for 120 gold per turn. One new builder every third turn. Good game. Next one!
Seriously, selling diplo favor is ridiculous on Deity. I hate it. Please fix.

Edit: I haven't followed this thread. Would be interesting to see a short summary. What has been mentioned the most for example.

i'm not even sure why you can sell diplomatic favor in first place, it would make much more sense to sell votes to Another civilization during World Congress.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

Unit pathing is STILL stupid. Units will try to cross land, rather than go 1 extra tile in water and go around (meaning getting there turns faster)
sigh.

 

[AlanC9]

I'm not sure if this is technically broken, but it's ridiculous. I've had allies attack city-states I'm the suzerain of. There's literally no recourse.

What's the deal with AIs not upgrading their militaries? Just finished a game -- Immortal, small continent map FWIW -- and took a look at where everyone else was. Tomyris had the most total military strength . Trouble is, it was all armies of horse archers and crossbowmen. Can't be that she never had any niter because I sold it to her on several occasions. Was her army so big that she could never afford an upgrade? That's the most egregious example, but everyone's behind somewhere. Gilgamesh still has knights running around even though he's finished the tech tree and has uranium.

 

[Pfeffersack]

Unit pathing is STILL stupid. Units will try to cross land, rather than go 1 extra tile in water and go around (meaning getting there turns faster)
sigh.

It can be even worse - sometimes the way over land is favored, when staying on water would not even mean traveling an extra tile...

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...tination-get-send-over-land-turn-lost.659374/

 

[AlanC9]

1. less players (bad, because IMO less nations involved don't work together with Civ 6 alliance system - if everyone can have 5 buddies and there are only 7 opponents at all, then it is no wonder that almost no big wars happen...now comapre that with a scenario of 16 or 20 players involed - suddenly those handful of alliances seems to be more in line)

I don't check you on this. I never see an alliance of five nations happen. It's rare to see three in any sort of stable relationship.

2. less cities per nation (bad, because size means power)

But power is relative. The opponent also has two fewer cities.

 

[Pfeffersack]

I don't check you on this. I never see an alliance of five nations happen. It's rare to see three in any sort of stable relationship.

Not (necessarily) 5 civs having all of their alliances with each other. Just the number of possible two-party alliances between any player compared to all two-party relations existing. The more civs, the smaller the fraction of possible alliance relations will become (relatively seen). You are right that the AIs don't use alliances to the full extend (though they seem to be a bit more willing since NFP) - which is a reason why things aren't even worse -, but even without any possible alliance in place there are effects on relations (additional friendships because of better overall relations). The human player benefits most, because not being bound to an own agenda influenceing who is friend or foe - so the 5 possible alliances can be placed in strategic manner among the AIs to take out as many Trouble as possible. Finally, on top there is the rule that allies or friends never declare war on each other, even when the reason is a WC resolution or the situation that A,B and C are allied with each other, A attacks B and C not caring (because of being allied with both sides), instead of defending B.

But power is relative. The opponent also has two fewer cities.

Yes...and no. Yes, all civs have less cities as a tendency. But it is harder to build and support an army sufficently for taking cities for a small nation. Access to certain strategic ressources can become a problem, but alone production is an issue for offensive warfare. Replacing losses in time is problematic. And without extra units, it is easy for the defending side to hold with its cities and encampments. You might argue that the human player can overcome this and yes, that is true. But in between the AIs this leads to stalemate and in result no AI will become strong enough to be contender for the human player.

 

[jozef57]

looking at the new update vid i must honestly say that most of the things that anoyed me are adressed in the new update that is a very good thing , thank you dev team i was clearly to early saying this game now only anoyes me. i played every version since 2. this could be great version. but i do notice around me people stopping becourse they are too frustrated, all the people calling for more difficoulty should unterstand that casual players have problems now. i play every day almost i can deal with it, but the people i know who play ocasionally are leaving

 

[Pfeffersack]

looking at the new update vid i must honestly say that most of the things that anoyed me are adressed in the new update that is a very good thing , thank you dev team i was clearly to early saying this game now only anoyes me. i played every version since 2. this could be great version. but i do notice around me people stopping becourse they are too frustrated, all the people calling for more difficoulty should unterstand that casual players have problems now. i play every day almost i can deal with it, but the people i know who play ocasionally are leaving

Just out of curiosity, can you explain which things you are refering to? Unless it is the case that most fixes and changes havn't been announced yet (and those would target thenat least some of the concerns raised in this thread), the update which shipped with the Maya/GC DLC feels more "weigthy" to me.

 

[monikernemo]

Can we talk about how brokenly bad Kongo is? Gains bonus yields from relics and sculptures and artifacts, but it's impossible to farm relics unless you leverage Kandy or Yerevan or build St Mont Michel. Leveraging faith CS doesnt make sense since Kongo doesn't get raw bonus since they can't build holy sites. And no faith income also means no rock bands and nature parks, which makes culture victory slow. The ability to not build holy site is a huge bane and no synergy with gaining apostle.