So what do you feel is still broken?

[Weraptor]

A lot of people apparently hated the surprise backstabs of Civ 5 because they had to actually defend their empire and care about the AI.

I would like backstabs to come back but only for warmonger AIs and under condition of both declared friendship and negative relationship (minuses outweigh the pluses on that diplo screen)

 

[Weraptor]

They would of course incur a massive grievance penalty.

 

[criZp]

Quantifying the strategic resources was a good move, putting a limit on how fast you can produce units and how many you can support.

Personally I'd add a little bit more to it. For example if a unit cost 20 iron to produce, then each 5 HP healed should consume 1 iron, too. And the maintenance resource should only be consumed if the unit performs an action.

 

[criZp]

I would like backstabs to come back but only for warmonger AIs and under condition of both declared friendship and negative relationship (minuses outweigh the pluses on that diplo screen)

Yeah, the problem with backstab in civ 5 was that it happened way too often and just got overly annoying.

 

[Virdrago]

I usually play on Emperor, and I've noticed something since the new patch: the AI barely builds walls. I was entering the game's medieval era while playing epic on a huge map, and outside of one city by Eleanor, I had the only cities with walls. My continent had 7 civs on it, not including me. I checked if it was just the one game, as sometimes maps do change the AI a bit, but no. Four different game starts and no-one is building walls into the renaissance era... except the city-states who haven't been consumed yet. Anyone else notice this?

 

[enKage]

Yeah, the problem with backstab in civ 5 was that it happened way too often and just got overly annoying.

But it forced player to be always ready, not to stay with slingers till atomic era.
And it was still less punishing and far easier to counter than civ4 Catherine (could backstab even on highest possible attitude), Boudi, Shaka....

If I play the highest difficulty level, I expect or even demand AI be agressive and constantly backstabbing.
If I cannot win, I move 1 level difficulty lower. This is SO simple.
Not everyone has t have driving license for trucks
Not everyone has to own 3 university degrees
Not everyone has to play deity. Simple
Now deity is for beginners. Sad

 

[criZp]

But I didn't say that the game should let you be best friends with everyone on the highest difficulty. You don't need people backstabbing you left and right in order to have some wars.

 

[MrRadar]

Coming back to technical details, consider these deals, the only difference being that in the second example I also ask for open borders:

AI's open borders give me positive tourism modifier and AI pays me to grant it to me.

 

[AntSou]

Quantifying the strategic resources was a good move, putting a limit on how fast you can produce units and how many you can support.

Personally I'd add a little bit more to it. For example if a unit cost 20 iron to produce, then each 5 HP healed should consume 1 iron, too. And the maintenance resource should only be consumed if the unit performs an action.

I agree strats should be made more meaningful. Requiring strats in order to be able to heal is a good idea.

 

[bengalryan9]

The AI's obsession with City-States still need some adjustments:
View attachment 557251

Dido could focus on settling more cities, she could attack Georgia, she could conquer a CS near her, but noap, she decided to cross the whole continent and declare war on Fez. I appreciate the free envoys and favors, but the AI should be able to tell that they won't keep a city, because of loyalty, and be a bit less focused on conquering CS.

I'll cut Dido a little slack on that one. If it truly is the same continent, she's one person who will NOT lose that city to loyalty pressure.

 

[PhilBowles]

I would like backstabs to come back but only for warmonger AIs and under condition of both declared friendship and negative relationship (minuses outweigh the pluses on that diplo screen)

I want them back just so that I can get the Betrayal Emergency achievement... Either they're intended to be in the game but don't function, or were in it previously (though I don't recall ever experiencing it) and removed.

Just completed my first post-patch game and, naturally, the AI is the major thing that is 'still broken'. Two civs were well ahead of me technologically and in science output, but the AI still seems hard-coded not to actually try for victory until about turn 350 on Deity. Kongo somehow had 73 other techs before finally unlocking Nanotechnology. It didn't seem to be actively going for a science victory, but this is something else that needs adjustment: Ais need to be better at identifying the victory condition they're best-suited to reach, and AIs chasing different conditions should tech appropriately. Right now it seems that every AI tries to go for all victories and follows the same tech path regardless.

AI air unit behaviour needs much more work. As promised, it's now using the bombers it builds reliably - but I still haven't seen it use fighters or anti-air, and it still doesn't coordinate or attack units. Bombers will it seems just bomb cities and districts, and do so regardless of whether the civ has any military units in reach of the target. If anything it's worse than it was pre-patch because the new prioritisation seems to have it build nothing but air units until GDRs come along (and then nothing but GDRs and ranged units), so in a situation like Arabia in my game which had lost its entire army it can do nothing to meaningfully attack.

As for non-AI issues, the interface still needs work. One thing I'd dearly like is for leaders to stop popping up in the middle of turns, usually with nothing to say but to inform you you've met or violated their agenda. Just replace this with bubble notifications that you can click in your turn to open the dialogue screen (or simply dismiss without opening), so turns don't randomly stop halfway through for things you have to click past (and are rarely of much consequence). Also, add a 'number of available spies/limit' counter to the main screen similar to the trade route counter.

 

[leandrombraz]

I'll cut Dido a little slack on that one. If it truly is the same continent, she's one person who will NOT lose that city to loyalty pressure.

Her ability is " Coastal cities founded by Phoenicia and in the same continent as their Capital always have full Loyalty", so conquered cities can still rebel. It rebelled 3 turns after she conquered it, she didn't even bother to send a governor there.

 

[King of Prussia]

If you are going to have strategic resources be even more important, then you have to change how they are currently being dealt out or be attained. If you keep the current distribution as it is currently, you are only increasing the gap between the haves and have-nots. You wouldn't even want to trade away resources knowing that they are helpless without them.

I have said it in the past. if they went away from needing x resource to building a unit, and instead make the resources provide some faction wide boost the game could be better off. What those bonuses are can vary. They could change throughout the game. You could still have buildings needing resources with different options depending on what you have. You wouldn't have civs or yourself being stuck with a vastly outdated army because you weren't lucky enough to start near a key resource.

Now this would be a pretty large overhaul and will likely never happen for Civ 6. So i am content with trying to improve what we have now. Buildings or having other ways to convert one resource into another would work. Improving the map maker to better distribute them. Making the improved resource add more per turn. Changing or removing how resource upkeep works would help.

I want them back just so that I can get the Betrayal Emergency achievement... Either they're intended to be in the game but don't function, or were in it previously (though I don't recall ever experiencing it) and removed.



As for non-AI issues, the interface still needs work. One thing I'd dearly like is for leaders to stop popping up in the middle of turns, usually with nothing to say but to inform you you've met or violated their agenda. Just replace this with bubble notifications that you can click in your turn to open the dialogue screen (or simply dismiss without opening), so turns don't randomly stop halfway through for things you have to click past (and are rarely of much consequence). Also, add a 'number of available spies/limit' counter to the main screen similar to the trade route counter.

They were in the game at one point. My first R&F game had one. I can't remember what all happened, but 3 or so emergencies triggered around the same time, one of which was my long time ally mapuche betraying me and joining against me. Shortly after i got one vs them so i joined that along with some of my former enemies. It was a crazy diplo game. I am pretty sure it isn't the only one i had experienced, but they are pretty rare. They are even rarer now that you have to wait for the world congress to do something. One of the big downsides to the WC is that emergencies that use to trigger shortly after something happened now can happen way later.


I also agree with those popups regarding their agendas. Give me a way to turn them off.

 

[PhilBowles]

They were in the game at one point. My first R&F game had one. I can't remember what all happened, but 3 or so emergencies triggered around the same time, one of which was my long time ally mapuche betraying me and joining against me. Shortly after i got one vs them so i joined that along with some of my former enemies. It was a crazy diplo game. I am pretty sure it isn't the only one i had experienced, but they are pretty rare. They are even rarer now that you have to wait for the world congress to do something. One of the big downsides to the WC is that emergencies that use to trigger shortly after something happened now can happen way later.


I also agree with those popups regarding their agendas. Give me a way to turn them off.

Thinking back on it, I think it used to be the case that if you were in a military alliance you would automatically go to war if your military ally was at war, even with an ally. That was probably what triggered it. If so, it can't happen now because they changed alliances so that you don't go to war with anyone you're allied with.

Quantifying the strategic resources was a good move, putting a limit on how fast you can produce units and how many you can support.

Personally I'd add a little bit more to it. For example if a unit cost 20 iron to produce, then each 5 HP healed should consume 1 iron, too. And the maintenance resource should only be consumed if the unit performs an action.

Overall, I prefer the Civ V system where you can support a number of units equal to the strategic resources you have, and resource tiles can produce anything from 1 to 4 of a strategic resource.

The Civ VI system produces too many resources too quickly, and isn't a meaningful constraint on supporting units: even if you run a deficit you can run on a deficit for quite a while, and trade for any excess to keep going. It only becomes meaningful with late-game resources that you need for power, and are often harder to come by.

Either revert to the Civ V system or add building dependence for early-game resources that makes them meaningfully limited, because as it stands in practical terms it plays out like Civ IV: if you have improved horses, iron and niter you have access to pretty much all the swords, guns and cavalry you want until you tech past them.

 

[Ferocitus]

It is far too easy to win at the highest levels.
For example, with an "average" start and playing against 9 other civs, players should win, on average, only 1 in 10 games with "above average" play.
Those chances should be better for a science victory if your civ is a science-based civ, but worse for a religious or other type of victory.

 

[comatosedragon]

I tried complying after last thursdays patch and noticed a +5 relation modifier. Refusal has no consequence.

Not true. The consequence (although a lame meta-game one) is that they will continue to bombard you with messages.
Pay for peace!

I agree, it's an annoying 4th wall breaking mechanic that serves no purpose except to "force diplomacy".

 

[Hans Castorp]

My pet peeve is still allied troops camping out in your terrain, usually sitting for a dozen turns or more on whatever tile you really want to improve next. Long been a problem - now it seems like allied soothsayers are drawn to volcanoes like bees to honey, and will happily just sit there not doing anything for stretches of the game. Couldn't builders be able to enter these tiles like religious units/ military engineers, etc.?

 

[Galvatron]

I’m not sure iron should even be a strategic resource. It makes up five percent of the earth's crust and is one of the most common elements on earth, right after idiots and episodes of the Simpson's.

I think every miner you have that's not on a resource should produce iron ore. Maybe make current iron deposits 'rich' iron which gives bone us iron.

The other strategics are way too rare. There needs to be more even if it means increasing the cost of some units to compensate. Also going back to tall vs wide you should be able to increase yields by building up infrastructure. It should be expensive enough that just having more oil is better, but cheap enough that it's an option.

I'll cut Dido a little slack on that one. If it truly is the same continent, she's one person who will NOT lose that city to loyalty pressure.

You mean there will be no white flag above her door? She won't put her hands up and surrender?

Besides she promised she's not trying to make your life harder. Where's the sense in that?

 

[Nassim]

I usually play on Emperor, and I've noticed something since the new patch: the AI barely builds walls. I was entering the game's medieval era while playing epic on a huge map, and outside of one city by Eleanor, I had the only cities with walls. My continent had 7 civs on it, not including me. I checked if it was just the one game, as sometimes maps do change the AI a bit, but no. Four different game starts and no-one is building walls into the renaissance era... except the city-states who haven't been consumed yet. Anyone else notice this?

I only had 2 games post patch but I already met 5 civilizations where most (or all) cities had walls except the capital city. That felt very odd.
In the 2nd one, I assumed conquering my neighboring Mayas would be a pain because of their bonus for combat next to their capital city, but Lady Six Sky managed to lose all her army trying to invade Zanzibar...

If I play the highest difficulty level, I expect or even demand AI be agressive and constantly backstabbing.
If I cannot win, I move 1 level difficulty lower. This is SO simple.
Not everyone has t have driving license for trucks
Not everyone has to own 3 university degrees
Not everyone has to play deity. Simple
Now deity is for beginners. Sad

I don't know if that's trolling, study case of Dunning-Kruger effect or just emphasizing to make your point, but there's no way a beginner can make it through deity, just go through some threads from beginners in the forum and that will make it crystal clear.
I have about 450 hours in the game, and for me it's : Emperor if I want to experiment, Immortal most of the time, Deity if I want a tough challenge and am ok with likely losing.

In any case, I don't want the AI to backstab non stop, if you want the AI to be agressive just don't make friends.
I mean I'd be ok if Cyrus, Genghis, Gorgo or Alexander did so, but it wouldn't make sense for Tomyris, Gilgamesh, Poundmaker, Teddy or Robert to go against their own agenda and not respect their alliances.
Highest difficulty should mean the AI plays at the best of their assets (so, say, stop focusing on holy sites when aiming for a science victory, and learn how to prioritize the right techs to do so), not just be dumb war machines ; I'm playing a 4X, not a war simulator, this is not Age of Empires.

I would like backstabs to come back but only for warmonger AIs and under condition of both declared friendship and negative relationship (minuses outweigh the pluses on that diplo screen)

That, however, is a great idea.

 

[DEMITRI DEMIRAKOS]

- Please let units stack between different civs if they have open borders. At least civilian units.
Do you want to settle on that spot? Nope. Your friendly CS has a unit there for 50 turns.
Do you want to improve that tile? Nope. Your ally to whom you gave open borders has a unit there for 50 turns.

When placing your unit over a foreign unit, a choice should be presented to either go to war, or request that unit to move. I don’t think stacking should be a solution for any terrain based problem.