If the fact that your opponent genuinely cannot win games in any realistic timeframe is not seen as a grave problem, then we're honestly on completely different wavelengths. We're not playing the same game. If you (not talking about you explicitly, but people in general) want Civ 6 to be a Sim-City clone where you do not have actual opponents, that is totally fine and understandable. That's your preference and I respect it. However, that is not a predecessor to Civ 4, or even Civ 5, it's just a completely different game. If Civ goes into that general direction, too bad for me, but great for the people who want that. Games in general are often centered around one party winning and another losing. If you take away the players chance to meaningfully lose, it's hardly a game anymore. It's a simulation. Again, simulations aren't bad, and if most people want Civ to be a simulation, then that's what it'll be. But that doesn't weaken my critique of Civ as a game. It's hardly a game now, because games imply to some degree competition, challenge, winning and losing. I doubt I am the only player that dislike the fact that the AI simply cannot win a peaceful game, or keep up with the player at all past the medieval age, even on Deity. But even if I was the only one, my criticism still wouldn't be less relevant. Also, the subjectiveness of my criticism (meaningful challenge is good, my opinion) doesn't weaken my argument either. You also just completely ignored my point about applying changes only to Deity, which feels disingenious. The changes I want are entirely irrespective of what other people want, and can be included without changing the experience for 99% of the player base, as I have said repedeatly. They also do not need much work, as proved by the countless Civ 5 mods that actually did help difficulty/balance massively. You just seem to gloss over it and repeat your single argument: "You are not the center of the universe! These are just your opinions!". Yeah, I know. They're mine and those changes mean a lot to me. Instead of accepting everything "for the sake of the player base" I voice my own preferences. I think that these could help make a better game for anyone, not just for me, but that's really besides the point. With one thing you are right, however: I do want Firaxis to cater to my wishes, or to the wishes of their "hardcore" base, whatever you want to call it. I am completely open about that. In fact, I will probably not buy anything by Firaxis anymore if they don't start catering to our needs. I put hundreds of hours into Civ 5 only because @Acken fixed the game. I will not do the same with Civ 6, or 7. Big games like Firaxis can probably survive without the loyal fans, and make money only off of casuals. That is just the reality of the market. I'm not sure how many of their casual fans will preorder their products, buy all the DLC, put thousands of hours into the game, advertise via word of mouth, or make content (indirectly) promoting their games. I think it's close to zero. A loyal, dedicated fan-following really matters in the grand scheme of things I hope.