1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[GS] The most liked and disliked features of Civilization VI (Results)

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by oSiyeza, May 21, 2020.

  1. yung.carl.jung

    yung.carl.jung Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,803
    Location:
    The Twilight Zone
    I love the new policy system, it has a very high skill ceiling and one needs to really think ahead, plan and strategize. I do think it is a little too micromanagent heavy, but everything about Civ 6 is that. Having 20+ cities definitely is, as are Eurekahs/Inspos. The one thing that could use more micromanagement and depth (and a buff!) are specialists.
     
    Sostratus likes this.
  2. bbbt

    bbbt Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,162
    The biggest things I hate about it are a little contrary: The unlocks are super frequent, removing a lot of the strategic consideration. There's not a lot of opportunity loss to weight with cards like the 50% off upgrade or the like (switch it in, upgrade, switch it out a few turns later). Then conversely, I hate having to remember to do the free 'swap' only when I discover a new civic. So the gold unlock cost feels like more a 'forgetfullness penalty' than a strategic consideration.

    I think if you say only got 3 free unlocks per era, but they could be used anytime, and then after that you had an unlock 'fee' that would both increase the strategic consideration and make it less annoying.

    I also find the military cards a little boring. I wish they were more strategically/tactically significant than mostly production bonuses.
     
  3. Denkt

    Denkt Reader

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Not in a Civilization City Atleast
    That is simply wrong, the risk for developing your cities are in cost of not expanding, atleast that is how it should be if the need to go tall is balanced by the need to go wide. Don't go wide and your long term potential will be lakluster but not developing your cities mean they are not useless which create a need to go tall as well. This is one reason why people still say thing like Civilization IV is the best game in the series because the need to expand is balanced by the need to develop what you have, something both successors have had trouble to achieve this balance.
     
    yung.carl.jung likes this.
  4. mdl5000

    mdl5000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    266
    Yes. World Congress is THE worst.
     
  5. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,723
    Everything is at the cost of not doing something else, so you cannot use that to compare these different methods of development.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Do you think I am trying to say that Wide should always be the right choice? Absolutely not. I am saying it should have the highest reward. The fact that you said Tall's cost is in *not going Wide for that reward* is just furthering my point. If the only cost to Tall is "it isn't Wide", then Wide is better. But that isn't the only cost, because Tall is different from Small. What is the reward for growing? Better yields *later*. So you are giving up yields now, which is a cost.
     
  6. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,092
    Location:
    Lucerne
    The only surprise for me is that loyalty is seen so positive. It‘s working quite well for settling and „peaceful“ conversion. But it’s so strange when going on a conquering spree, in which Blitzkrieg tactics to take a handful of cities in one or two turns are now always preferable to well chosen extended „battles“, and occupied cities radiate loyalty for your civ... it‘s nice that you are encouraged to leave a garrison in newly conquered cities though.
     
    yung.carl.jung and mitsho like this.
  7. mitsho

    mitsho Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,359
    Location:
    Europe, more or less
    The sin of the policy card system is threefold: a) it breaks immersion (cards? what cards?) b) it requires constant attention for maximum impact (+ bonus production cards = you want to put them in just while you are building them) and c) asks you to chose without information (you need to know how many x-districts with y-adjacencies to actually be able to compare it). Now there's a mod that solves 2 of these issues, which is mainly bad User Interface. But I feel the main perpetrator here is that the cards just don't feel like a government. Many systems in civ6 seem to fail at simulating the feel of their real world counterpart.

    See, also the World Congress. If it gets compared to a slot machine, there's something wrong. The clean up of a whole thread into a single graph is very well done, thanks for all that work to the op. Many of the "bad" systems play into the opaque criticism, and many more into "annoying". The good ones seem to often be the easy way out - you had to name three after all, so sure, let's go for Civilization Selection. But a near unity on "unpacking cities" is a compliment. It's also noteworthy that there is no disagreement, no thing that got half-good and half-bad mentions.
     
  8. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,723
    I would think this could be chalked up to people being asked for their favorite and least favorite. Even if I like the World Congress in 6, it isn't my *favorite* thing. But it will be many people's least favorite. That says there's something wrong with the system, even if it may just be in presentation or something.
     
    mitsho likes this.
  9. oSiyeza

    oSiyeza Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Messages:
    433
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spain
    I really dont understand some of your comments.

    Religious: You dont think religious combat can be improved? You say that you agree In unit spam being a terrible idea. But still you disagree in changing it?
    Diplomacy: I said needs more flexibility, more options and more dynamism. You said AI just needs to be more dynamic but still you think are disagreeing with me? Also I did not say it wasn’t tied to other systems, I said it needed to be more interdependent. Also I don’t think the Emergency system has anything to do with World Wars, as it probably aims to represent how the international community condemns an aggression from a country and (not so different from real life) it is quite pointless, as most of the time most civs ignore the emergency or go straight into a suicide liberation mission. Also I don’t think regular alliances allow for anything close to a large scale World War (and I dont think the AI would even allow it). If you mean that you can do it in multiplayer, of course you can, you can do anything you want in multiplayer. But that totally misses the point. Let me explain how you could actually represent a world war in civ 6: Having a WC resolution, that if passed declares a long term large scale conflict, where every country should choose a side (or neutral) and can only end in another WC session. Also normal grievances would be suspended during the world war. This is only a suggestion. But you can see the kind of impact this mechanic can do late game, and that actually would represent a world War, which the current game doesnt.
    Tall vs Wide: More land would not help tall cities one bit? How is that? How more land would not be beneficial to a city? Do you think that larger cities with more land, allowing more yields, more districts, more flexibility in district placement, claiming more territory; all this in addition with city (and district) output scaling with population (percentage-based increase as you also propose) would be not beneficial for large cities?

    So u say you disagree with everything I propose, and then either agree with all my points or totally missed what I was saying? Weird, we need better communication :)
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
  10. oSiyeza

    oSiyeza Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Messages:
    433
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spain
    To be honest I think policy cards got a mixed reception, more than being disliked.

    Most criticism I have seen, are related with feeling a bit too much like a board game; also most of the policies being just kind of bad compared to others, or so situational that they never get used, so most players always end using the same ones. Also some people actually think a basic slider system like the classic tax system of Civilization I, would allow for a simpler yet more deep and meaningful way to manage certain aspects of the government (and I agree).

    And you know what, I don’t dislike the policy cards, but I also have to say that all those criticisms have a point. It is subjective, but after trying a mod that just replaces the UI from card like to a drop menu, I have to admit, inmediatly felt better and more inmersive to me.

    I actually read all the comments to make the list. And let me tell you, I dont think it was a least favourite thing. Critizism was actually very harsh on the WC, and the consensus was probably: "Its totally pointless and annoying and if not redone, the game would be better without it". Which is propably a bit too emphatic, as I actually think it is hated so much cause people was claiming for a good WC system, and was very dissapointed by what FXS implemented.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
  11. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,723
    And I, yours, I think. Let's try again.


    I think it is a lost cause. Nothing is going to make Religious Combat interesting short of removing it and replacing it with a different mechanic entirely. It is simply too similar to normal combat, and we already have that.

    I said I disagreed with your suggestions for improvement, not on your principles. You said specifically you wanted to tie the system to World Wars, which I think is not necessary. I find the example you gave here:
    totally hamfisted. I would prefer something more organic, and from the way everyone talks about how annoying board game-y Civ6 is, it seems like others do too. But I agree with the principle that something to shake up lategame diplomacy would be good, I just don't like your suggestion for how to do it.

    Perhaps this is a language thing, but an imperative statement like "Tie to espionage and WC." implies that the commanded action has purpose, and thus changes something significantly. You did not say "tie more", you just said "tie". As if it wasn't already.


    Sounds like a problem with the AI, not with the ability of Emergencies + Alliances to simulate World Wars. Also, you might be too fixated on World Wars. Why do you want them so badly?

    Why would it be more yields or more flexibility in district placement? If I found more cities in the same space, I get more yields and more flexibility in district placement. I get population sooner, reach district thresholds sooner, can choose to place multiple of the same district type, can place them simultaneously or in whichever order(s) I choose, etc.

    Without the percentage-based yields (tied to single cities), then there is no reason to want fewer cities. Certainly if there were a reason to focus on making a single city better, then larger cities could have merit.


    Perhaps my wording was too harsh, but yes I agree with the problem areas you identified and your principles for solving them, but your suggestions did not match those principles. Religious units having an influence on regular combat just turns them into Support units that are bought with Faith, it doesn't help make Religious units or combat interesting. Being forced into a World War is not more flexibility in Diplomacy, and being allowed to sit out does not result in more dynamism. You want Tall cities to be good, but your suggestion for larger city range does not change the inherent reasons for wanting a higher # of cities. I disagree that those are good ideas for solving the problems, not what the problems are.
     
  12. oSiyeza

    oSiyeza Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Messages:
    433
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spain

    Yes, It may totally be a languaje thing, cause your words for some reason sound a bit confrontational. Anyway.

    On one side, I get the feeling you simply did not like my suggestions, which is fair enough, you are also interested in discuss why you dont like them which is also fair, but I simply dont understand your reasons.

    Religion being a bad system is not a reason to not change it. It’s the opposite of that. The "it is so bad that I don’t want to improve it" is what baffles me here. I get it, you dislike the current system so much you are happy ignoring it entirely. But nothing is so bad that cannot be improved. It would be actually not that hard to make religious combat better. And since we have religious combat, and since nobody likes it, wanting to improve it is quite reasonable. Opposing to improve a system cause you hate it is actually not a valid logical position; and it is unfair to the rest of the players that actually agree with you not liking the current system, but also want a better game.

    Also, “Why do you want them so badly?”. Why do you think I want them more badly than any other of my suggestions? Furthermore, what do you think is wrong about it? Late game and late game wars are a problem in the game, and WC is too. Why should I not want to improve these systems by representing in a game of civilization the most relevant events in the history of mankind? And where did I say anything about being forced into a World War? As I specifically said, I see it like a special event that should pass a WC session and where Civs could remain neutral if they chose to? In other words, unlike any other war, something you cannot be forced into.

    Is ok if you disagree with any of the suggestions anyone has, and is ok to say so. But if you want to discuss about why you disagree with something, you should use reasonable or at least valid reasons.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2020
  13. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,723
    I can understand interpreting my tone as confrontational. I don't think you are unreasonable in doing so, which is why I am continuing to respond. I apologize if what I wrote was offensive to you.

    That's why we're still having this discussion, which I appreciate.

    I am trying to be realistic in what our discussion can accomplish. The devs could read it and make changes to the game, but otherwise our discussion is just for fun. I'd be happy to explain what I actually think needs to be done to make Religion worthwhile, but I think that is way beyond what the developers would be willing to do. Civ6 has picked a design for Religion, and they are not going to completely redo it now. I don't think anything short of completely scrapping the whole thing would solve the problems it has, which is why I was not bothering to enter that discussion.

    I agree that philosophically "it is a lost cause" is a useless statement. I was arguing from the practical perspective. I don't want them to waste time trying to fix it when they could fix other parts of the game more easily. Does that make more sense?

    You just keep mentioning World Wars in particular, and I was wondering why that particular theme has grabbed hold of you. I have no objections to World Wars as part of the game. I don't know that I'd say it is some of the most relevant events in history, though. There are other themes that the game is failing to realize as well, such as colonization/imperialism, balance of power politics (which the Emergency system is trying to do, but I think the Denouncement blocs from Civ5 could help with), and hegemonic alliances akin to the Cold War (an Ideology system or a rework of the Religious Founder mechanics could work for this). Denouncement blocs and an Ideology system could be translated from Civ5 if they wanted, which makes it low-hanging fruit.

    Sorry, I didn't say you said you would be forced. In your suggestion, since you can just decline to side with a bloc, I think this will not have the desired effect on diplomatic dynamism. The extreme alternative to allowing you to easily opt out is to be forced into it, so I was mentioning both options to point out that I think neither is very good here.

    The dynamism needs to be more organic, controllable a bit at a time, so you can avoid it if you put in effort, but the AI will trend toward the dynamism. Something as cut-and-dry as a Resolution you could ignore will either feel forced or inconsequential, and I doubt it will be inbetween.

    I think my reasons are valid, and that is why I am continuing to talk about it. I also have faith that you are capable of understanding them if I continue to explain, because you seem passionate and competent. But I think dismissing me as unreasonable so quickly does not bode well for this conversation. I am going to assume you are doing that because I gave you the impression that I was dismissive of you, rather than characterizing you as judgmental and close-minded.
     
  14. oSiyeza

    oSiyeza Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Messages:
    433
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spain
    I think saying "it is a lost cause", even from a pragmatic side, is very problematic. Here you have a system that is bringing the game down for most players. And you agree with this. You may be right when saying that you cannot turn a terrible system into an awesome one without redoing it. But certainly you can mitigate what is annoying about it, and built on its ideas to turn a terrible system in a better one with not so much effort. For example, as you yourself said, reducing the importance of religious combat, and changing the charge system to reduce unit spamming would already be an easy improvement.

    The problem with your position to me, is that we are all here around a game we love, and which is in active development with FXS saying they want feedback from us to make it better. I was pointing a thing that the game does badly and proposed an easy way to improve it. I fundamentally disagree when someone in the community agrees with a problem and its importance, but does not want it addressed cause thinks it will require too much work. And It is even more problematic when the position is: why bother?

    Regarding World Wars, you still did not get what my point was. Diplomacy is a big problem in the game, cause simply there are not enough things to do with it. The game needs more diplomatic options such as influence a civ to declare war on others, the ability to make a conquered city a puppet, more flexibility with borders, for example being allowed to open sea / air / land borders or borders for civil units. Tell your ally to attack a specific city, or propose a WC resolution to stop trading with someone among other stuff….

    Having a situation where a military conflict can escalate to a large scale one if requirements are met (for example a war between two alliances involving at least 4 civs and one of them proposing a WC resolution to declare a World War), would be another way to make diplomacy more relevant and more dynamic, because it would imply more decision making. Do I want to deescalate a situation to avoid a global war, or do I want to see my neighbors attack each other while I remain neutral and trade both sides, or do I pursue a conflict to conquer my enemies or even the world?

    Also why not give espionage a more active role, allowing actions such as sabotaging airports/seaports blocking canals, poison water supplies to reduce city population, depose governors, sabotage power plants…

    You said you don’t like that the game may put you in a place where you have to make a choice after a WC resolution. Because if you lose the voting you are forced to its outcome, and the outcome being making a decision, this decission may feel either inconsequential or forced. The problem with this position is that it is simply self-contradictory. If you care about taking a side in a war, by definition is not inconsequential or forced. If you can choose to not take a side, by definition is not forced. You could make a point on a World War being inconsequential, but it would be a very hard point to make. On the other hand, avoiding a World War intentionally would also not be forced by definition, and only could be inconsequential if you think a World War is inconsequential. So the only inconsequential or forced output would be wanting a World War and not getting it. Which let’s be honest, requires you to want a World War, so it cannot be a point against the inclusion of World Wars in the game.

    I guess in the end, your way to improve the game would be remove religion and remove the WC. Since you seem to be opposed to what these systems do in a fundamental level. So you may be annoyed by anything that builds on them and think it is a waste. This is not an invalid point, but I dont share it, and I think is also not the position most fans of the game would have.

    Anyway, probably is a good point to end the discussion about these specific ideas. As I made my proposal and you expressed your opinion, and there may not be much else to say about this.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2020
  15. yung.carl.jung

    yung.carl.jung Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,803
    Location:
    The Twilight Zone
    I get it. So what you want is an inherently corrupt system with a slow, inhumane, kafkaesque bureaucracy, a good degree of nepotism, lobbying and old money influence, an ineffective electroral system and elections in which everyone makes big promises they're not likely to keep? sign me the hell on for that :D

    but in all honesty.. while this sounds like some degree of fun, I will argue that realism is literally the single least important factor in design such game mechanics. spearmen or pikemen don't fare well against tanks. doesn't mean they shouldn't have a bonus against them for gameplay reasons. there are infinite examples of this in the civ universe. we shouldn't hold Civ to real-life standards, rather we should ask what results in the best gameplay.
     
    mitsho likes this.
  16. mitsho

    mitsho Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,359
    Location:
    Europe, more or less
    No, I'm not a radical in that regard. However, civ seems to be developing away from realism, e.g. the Comet Shower or the Bermuda Triangle teleporting your ships around the globe. They are losing their connection to basic mechanisms more and more and while gameplay > realism always, that doesn't mean that you cannot strife for realism within gameplay. And I feel they have given up a bit in that regard.
     
    NCC-1701 and yung.carl.jung like this.
  17. Denkt

    Denkt Reader

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Not in a Civilization City Atleast
    The Point is that in Civilization IV you need to know when to expand and when to build up what you have, if you fail at either your risk losing the game. In civilization VI this is not the case because all a city need is like a campus which can be chopped out with 3 forest, making it accessible to nearly all cities in the game no matter the timeframe and then the buildings can be purchased. In civilization IV in order to a city to be useful, you need to build buildings, grow population and also build tile improvement including growing cottages, overall civilization IV have a far more robust economy that require several parts instead of like one part which is the case in civilization VI.

    I think the whole tall vs wide come from civilization V which more tell about the flaws of the game compared to the more natural economy civilization IV have in which it was more about things about the nature of the economy like cottage economy vs specialist economy which is very different in nature from something like tall vs wide.
     
    Ron West, Abegweit and yung.carl.jung like this.
  18. yung.carl.jung

    yung.carl.jung Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,803
    Location:
    The Twilight Zone
    this has little to do with realism and much more to do with fantasy vs. history in my personal opinion. I loathe the apocalypse mode, I loathe the soothsayer, not because I have a problem with spirituality. I wouldn't mind, say, Shamans or something like that in Civ 6, I just hate this horrible new-agey mel gibson meme movie bull****. teleporting Bermuda triangles and priests that summon biblical plagues is not what this game was freaking missing, like at all. neither is 6 new game modes. all I ever cared about was having an AI that can win the game, really.
     
  19. MAHRana

    MAHRana Prince

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    314
    Liked: beautiful game experience
    Disliked: modding experience (dll)
     
  20. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,723
    I don't really think those would be improvements. Those are both basically "make Religion less important so you don't have to interact with the bad system as much", at which point you can just *choose* to not interact with it, and then Firaxis wouldn't have to waste time on it.

    Of course I WANT it addressed, but I don't think it WILL be addressed, at least not properly. Might as well put my effort into things that matter. How is that not pragmatic? How can that be called unreasonable? We can disagree about whether it will be addressed or not, but my actions based off of that belief are logical here.

    I'm not sure that I agree there are not enough things to do with Diplomacy, but I hadn't really thought about that. However, keep in mind that any changes to Diplomacy are likely to fall flat because you need AI for that. Of course you need AI for most changes, but the Diplomacy system is the only one other than Combat where you very blatantly see how good/bad the AI is.

    I suppose you could target a city on their behalf, since that is already how their Operations AI works. I always felt that getting an AI to declare war on a third party without you also declaring war was exploitative and am glad they replaced it with Joint Wars. The rest of your examples here I have no interest in, so I guess I still don't see your point.

    This is less hamfisted than your original suggestion, so perhaps you intuitively understood my argument but thought I was arguing something else because you already agreed with this part of my argument. I would consider a mechanic like this an improvement to the game.

    The latter 2 are already in the game. I agree that there are more options they could add with Espionage though.

    I don't mind being forced into such things, I was saying that others will be frustrated by it.

    If you can choose to just "nope" out, then it is inconsequential. Let the world burn while I continue to win the game. The only reasons I would want to participate in a World War are 1) someone else is going to win and I need to stop them or 2) I am going to win through conquering everyone. In either case I would've fought even without the World War mechanic, and the Emergency system would've resulted in a large war either way.

    I like the current WC, and I would enjoy mechanics added to it and linkages with other systems. But apparently everyone else on the boards hates it, because they feel forced into things ("why are the proposals random" and "the AI votes the same way every time"), yet also that it is inconsequential ("most of the proposals don't matter"). Firaxis needs to make changes for everyone, not just you and me. I personally would enjoy being forced into a World War through the World Congress. I think most people would want more control than that.

    As far as removing religion, clearly that would not improve the game. The game has other systems that tie into religion. But any improvements to it would not address the fundamental problems with it, so I don't care for them to spend time on it, since they aren't going to completely redo it.

    You can mod yourself less common and more impactful Religious Units just fine using Modifiers. You also can mod yourself refreshing charges by returning to a Holy Site (needs lua, so a little harder). Feel free to make the game you want to play.


    I don't see how this contradicted my point at all. In fact I think you said the same thing I did. In Civ6 there is no benefit in growing at all, so Tall vs Wide isn't even a discussion point. You bring up Civ4's corruption and cottage systems as an example of being forced to grow along with expansion, supplanting Tall *vs* Wide. I'm not sure this was better, though that is because I found the system annoyingly one-dimensional: get Gold, convert it to different things with a simple slider.

    I think you're misunderstanding what I'm arguing here. I'm saying expansion *as a strategy* should be better than growth *as a strategy*, growth should be better than not-growth (as a strategy), and that on a tactical level you need to decide if now is a time to expand or to grow (or even to pause and set up for one of those things). This is all exactly the same thing as what you said.
     

Share This Page