The problems of Civ VI that will not be fixed in the next espansion

[Haig]

About colonialism, I think Civ 6 there's actually some improvements for it, example being policy cards like Colonial Offices that boost cities that are not in your starting continent, civs with imperialistic bonuses like Spain and England etc.

When I create a city far away, I plop in a governor, buy a monument and try to have some good polocy card handy (like +2 loyalty for unit inside city)

I'd say Civ 5 is a lot worse when it comes to colonizing, it's always optimal to build 4 cities, choose tradition tree. Nothing encourages spreading out.

Also I disagree about having nothing to do after first eras, especially again compared to Civ 5 where Brave New World expansion made the AI so peaceloving that the first wars between AI could literally happen during industrial era.

I think Gathering Storm will shake things up nicely with the disasters, strategic resources and wars for resource, powering plants, congress etc..

edit: oh and funny that you know that "these will not be fixed in the next expansion", have you played it already?

 

[Gorbles]

Even assuming that in a game about history is totally normal to reach the industrial Era in 1000 AD literally EVERY time (and this is not ok for me), I just know that even if I totally ignore Science (like I did in my last game, because I wanted to win with Culture) I'm always way ahead in the science tree than in the production of everything. I didn't exactly understand what you mean saying that Ages in R&F works against this, why do you say this?
And maybe this is the biggest coincidence ever, but in all my games I pass the last Eras just pressing "skip turn" and even the AI doesn't do anything "new". Wars between the AI usually ends up in nothing (and the rare times the AI takes a single city usually they lose it in 3 turns because of Loyalty) and if I don't want to conquer the World I'm left with almost nothing to do.

Let's not drag historical accuracy into this. You can play as Washington, an immortal leader who is born fully-featured in 5,000 B.C. and razes Thebes on a daily basis. I get that the historical draw, and indeed role-playing aspect, is a good fit for some players, and the game absolutely encourages that. But let's not confuse that for accuracy. If you choose to speed up your play, it's not going to be remotely historical. Just like, y'know, choosing Cleopatra is and then getting Gunpowder.

I'm not sure how you can end up ahead on Science without investing in Science in some way, but I'm not you, I can't comment there. I don't know if the game is more forgiving than CiV? I don't think so, as useful as that is as an opinion, haha.

Ages tend to slow folks down. In order to not get a Dark Age, you have to fulfill a certain amount of points of things - this works directly against the strategy that the slingshot (strategy) works on. You can't rush ahead too far, because you start dragging the Ages with you. Will be very interesting to see what Natural Disasters do to this dynamic - it'll probably need some tweaking for balance.

 

[bumpyglint]

There's actually more playing 6 than 5 at the moment (see steam charts). 6 passed 5 this week, likely because of the gold plus steam sale (5 has a much bigger installed base but 6 might be catching up slowly) and maybe expansion hype.

They talked about how cities on the coast now get a 'dock' (and I think China has some unique changes related to it). They haven't said what it does yet, so it may give a trade bonus or something else.

I didn't see that exactly this week Civ VI passed the V, but the point still remain the same! It happened way later than with the previous game in the series.
Anyway I hope this "dock" will be enough to buff Coastal city, we'll see!

About colonialism, I think Civ 6 there's actually some improvements for it, example being policy cards like Colonial Offices that boost cities that are not in your starting continent, civs with imperialistic bonuses like Spain and England etc.

When I create a city far away, I plop in a governor, buy a monument and try to have some good polocy card handy (like +2 loyalty for unit inside city)

I'd say Civ 5 is a lot worse when it comes to colonizing, it's always optimal to build 4 cities, choose tradition tree. Nothing encourages spreading out.

Also I disagree about having nothing to do after first eras, especially again compared to Civ 5 where Brave New World expansion made the AI so peaceloving that the first wars between AI could literally happen during industrial era.

I think Gathering Storm will shake things up nicely with the disasters, strategic resources and wars for resource, powering plants, congress etc..

edit: oh and funny that you know that "these will not be fixed in the next expansion", have you played it already?

The point is that if you conquer a city, even from a way less advanced Civ, even from a really poor Civ, 99 % you will lose it because of Loyalty. If that city is not totally alone, you will lose it, while instead European nations had tons of little colonies all around the world surrounded by others cultures, even in highly inhabitated areas. The solution is simply to conquer even the cities around it, but that's something not exactly fair for me (and the AI obviously is not able to do it). I know you can still found new cities in island that nobody touched, but that's not exactly what I meant (and anyway the AI is not even able to do what you are saying, they keep founding stupid city that usually flip side in 10 turns).
I've not played Gathering Storm, but if they didn't even mention these problems and they will still pretend they do not exist (as usually Firaxis does in this case) I can say that there are HIGH probabilities that they will not be fixed. I could say to you "why did you write that you think gathering storm will shake things up nicely with disaster etc..."? You said I can't know how the expansion will be because I didn't played it and then you make assumptions about it anyway.

Let's not drag historical accuracy into this. You can play as Washington, an immortal leader who is born fully-featured in 5,000 B.C. and razes Thebes on a daily basis. I get that the historical draw, and indeed role-playing aspect, is a good fit for some players, and the game absolutely encourages that. But let's not confuse that for accuracy. If you choose to speed up your play, it's not going to be remotely historical. Just like, y'know, choosing Cleopatra is and then getting Gunpowder.

I'm not sure how you can end up ahead on Science without investing in Science in some way, but I'm not you, I can't comment there. I don't know if the game is more forgiving than CiV? I don't think so, as useful as that is as an opinion, haha.

Ages tend to slow folks down. In order to not get a Dark Age, you have to fulfill a certain amount of points of things - this works directly against the strategy that the slingshot (strategy) works on. You can't rush ahead too far, because you start dragging the Ages with you. Will be very interesting to see what Natural Disasters do to this dynamic - it'll probably need some tweaking for balance.

I totally don't care about historical accuracy in the sense that you assumed, in a game about the society is ok to have Gandhi nuking Caesar, but if you put airplane on the Classical Era obviously I could not find that appropriated. The point that I'm saying is that obviously if I don't focus on Science I will be behind the others Civs in Science, but almost everybody will reach Industrial Age in 1000 AD anyway (and I will reach it few years later, even if I didn't even focus on it). And I'm 99 % sure that this is not intended by the designers, this is simply a consequence of REALLY BAD balance with Science. Maybe the AI on low difficulties will progress on a normal way and probably even a bad player will, but I think that even a child after 2 games can be way more faster than intended with Science (I will not even mention when somebody play Civs like Korea...)
They tried to slow down things setting Eureka's bonus to 40% instead of 50 % but it's still not enough.

The last sentence gives me the idea that probably that's why we got so differents ideas: in my opinion getting a Golden Age, expecially after the first 2 Eras, is so simple that I don't even try to "slow down". Maybe that's a sort of strategy people use on low level, but I think that for people that play Immortal/Deity and so on the things that I'm saying are obvious in every game.

As I told before, maybe for low level players even the Science progress on a normal speed rate, but I find really easy to reach the moon centuries before the 1969 and I think the majority of average-high level players can do the same.

 

[Gorbles]

The only way in which you're hitting the Industrial Era that early (or even around that time, I'm not demanding specifics here, don't worry) is if other Civilisations got there first, and are pulling you up that way.

I agree with your comments about chaining Golden Ages (and not getting Dark Ages). Maybe that's what some of the mechanics in The Gathering Storm are meant to address. It'll be interesting to see how much more frustrating it makes those early Ages though.

 

[_hero_]

Your 1st point should at least partially be improved with the new seastead feature late game if they work as I expect (ocean cities) and that will also have an impact on your 4th point. Disasters also potentially could have an effect on your 1st point depending on how severe they are (can volcanic eruptions wipe a city out completely for instance? )

On the 3rd point the AI has always gotten ridiculous bonuses on higher difficulties, not just civ 6 and the AI was really bad in civ 5, too iirc.

Culture victory I agree with you though presumably culture victory is getting some changes with the new era being added.

Finally 6 was ahead of 5 in active players on steam recently so I guess more people are making the Switch.

 

[Takfloyd]

I agree with all your points, OP, but I'd also like to say that all your complaints are nearly the exact same complaints I also had with Civ V compared to Civ IV, just to a lesser degree. So I wouldn't act like V is the gold standard Civ games should strive to live up to. I assume V was your first Civ game since that's your basis for comparison.

 

[bumpyglint]

The only way in which you're hitting the Industrial Era that early (or even around that time, I'm not demanding specifics here, don't worry) is if other Civilisations got there first, and are pulling you up that way.

I agree with your comments about chaining Golden Ages (and not getting Dark Ages). Maybe that's what some of the mechanics in The Gathering Storm are meant to address. It'll be interesting to see how much more frustrating it makes those early Ages though.

I don't understand why if others Civs reach an era I should get any Science bonus from this, is there a feature that help you in this way? In case, I didn't know it

Anyway usually I cancell the saves from a match after I play, but I got this last one luckly because I finished the game today.

I won in the 1765 a Cultural victory (just because I forced myself into it, not because it was the optimal way to win). Difficult is immortal (the one before Deity, I think it's called Immortal).

I almost totally ignored Science for all the game, I got something like 3 campus in more than 10 cities (not even in the capital, and I built the last campus something like 30 turns before the end of the game.)

As you will see from the following picture, in 1756 my people already use Computers and Airplane. This should not be possible even for the most advanced Civs in the world, but it happened to the one less focused in Science (and obviously the AI has even more techs than me).

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

When in the real life the 99 % of the World wasn't even in the industrial age, I have computers. Obviously I didn't search all the techs until that point, but anyway I got all the techs until the industrial era (when I should have not even reached it now considering that I was focusing Culture)

And obviously I (almost) finished the Culture Tree, because if you focus on Culture is normal to discover the Social Media in 1756 AD

Spoiler :

Your 1st point should at least partially be improved with the new seastead feature late game if they work as I expect (ocean cities) and that will also have an impact on your 4th point. Disasters also potentially could have an effect on your 1st point depending on how severe they are (can volcanic eruptions wipe a city out completely for instance? )

On the 3rd point the AI has always gotten ridiculous bonuses on higher difficulties, not just civ 6 and the AI was really bad in civ 5, too iirc.

Culture victory I agree with you though presumably culture victory is getting some changes with the new era being added.

Finally 6 was ahead of 5 in active players on steam recently so I guess more people are making the Switch.

Adding new late game concept around the Ocean doesn't help my point, first of all because ironically commerce in the sea was more important than ever in the past ages (not nowadays and probably not in the future), and as a second point I would add that 99 % of time what happens in late game doesn't even matter, you've already won (or lost). Probably Firaxis will add a new age with some techs and units but it will not change the core part of this game, so late game will not matter anyway (and anyway I repeat, coastal city should improve commerce in the early-mid game, not have new feature in the information era).

And saying "Civ V had bad features like the AI so if they create a new game with the same bad features is ok" doesn't exactly match with my ideas. I hoped Civ VI would have been an improved version of the V, not the same or worse thing but more expensive.

For the number of players as I already said I didn't see it happened in these days, but it's not normal anyway.

I agree with all your points, OP, but I'd also like to say that all your complaints are nearly the exact same complaints I also had with Civ V compared to Civ IV, just to a lesser degree. So I wouldn't act like V is the gold standard Civ games should strive to live up to. I assume V was your first Civ game since that's your basis for comparison.

I started with Civ IV but I was little and I could not appreciate it enough. The point is that when they announced Civ VI I was hoping that they had learned something from the mistakes with the V, hoping that they would have not launched a game with the same mistakes amplifyed. I was wrong.

 

[Jewelrunna]

I've been complaining about the production scaling in Civ VI for ages now, and you explained it better than I ever have by comparing it with how culture and science scale. Brilliantly put.

I also think the district production scaling is hugely wack. In order for a city to feel viable/useful at all, you have to be able to build districts in it; but how the heck are you going to build districts in cities that have the initial starting production? It's absurd. Especially for Civs like England that get bonuses from colonization, but can't retain their colonial cities because they can't build a Royal Navy Dockyard.

Honestly, I think a lot of these mechanical problems could be solved by patches that just rescale a lot of the values in the game. However, if we're being up front, Firaxis is hilariously inept when it comes to balancing/rebalancing their games. Remember when their "solution" to balancing England after R&F made them a bottom tier (after removing the free trade routes) was to make them even worse?

 

[leandrombraz]

I agree with 1), it´s by far the biggest flaw in Civ VI. Civ V you would have Warmonger Civs steamrolling, Civs getting eliminated by actual combat, and Ai that could actually win. Civ VI the AI can't do that.

As for 2), though I think Civ VI still have a bad pacing, you progress way too fast through the tech/civic tree and completely out of pace with age, I honestly don't have an issue with production, aside from some stuff that are more expensive than they are worth. It doesn't take 20 turns for me to build stuff (standard speed), aside from first district in new cities and anything in a city with really bad production that I probably had a good reason to settle. In a decent but not great city, it usually takes around 10 turns, while in my capital and other production cities I mighty have been blessed with it can go as low as 1 turn if I really nail my production but 3-4 turns is more common. On top of that there's chopping and Magnus, which speedy up things considerably. 20 turns definitely isn't my experience aside from cities with bad production and early game, when I still settling. By the time I win (usually around turn 260 though I been setting new records lately), I built most stuff I unlocked, not all in every city but everything was built somewhere, I don't feel like I have to ignore stuff because I can't build it.
For me the problem is more on how easy it's to progress fast through the tree, definitely way faster than the AI once you get things going. By late game, you can make 800-1000 science while the AI still at 100-150 and they get a nice bonus. R&F made some changes to slow down progress but in practice it didn't make much of a difference.

3) for me is a problem with the difficulty, I prefer Emperor and recommend it. Immortal/Deity doesn't get harder, it gets more annoying, force you into specific strategies and reduce your options. The bonuses give the AI a better early game but that's about it, once you catch up and you will catch up, the AI can't compete. At least on Emperor I never felt forced into specific strategies, main reason why I recommend it, you gonna have a weak opponent that can't win for most of the match either way, so why suffer an annoying early game that force you into strategies you don't want to take? There's no such thing as hard in Civ VI unless Firaxis improve significantly the AI. I lost games in Civ V while trying, lets say, unusual strategies, the AI can punish you if fail to keep up, which I managed to do. That's is impossible in Civ VI, there's no way to lose to the AI, in any difficulty, unless you do something spectacularly wrong like playing tall .

4) coastal cities are way better than before, mostly because of Liang and Auckland if you get it but they still could use more love and attention, so I agree.

5) I disagree that it's impossible to have colonies. One city colonies? Sure, that can be hard but if you plan and settle 2 or 3 cities, it isn't hard to do it. I like how it demand some planning to do it, to be honest.

6) Tourism definitely would be better if it had more use other than Cultural Victory, though I will disagree that it's all or nothing because to focus on tourism, you focus on culture, so if you decide to change strategy for some reason, you have a Civ with strong culture, that will get you tier 3 governments and some powerful policies earlier. You also have to invest in science for cultural because you want to research computers and double your output, so even though you won't invest as much as you would for scientific victory, you still should have a pretty decent science. I don't see how having a Civ with strong culture and science is all or nothing. I get your point about tourism and agree but going for cultural won't make your Civ inflexible as you describe.

7) yeap

 

[Gorbles]

@bumpyglint

Ah right, I was approaching this from the wrong way around. My original guess was right, you are leading (massively) in tech and culture. That's simply you doing better than the other AI factions in the game. Though I wouldn't say building three Campus' is "barely focusing on Science". Try building none

There's a whole other topic here about Production scaling, but that is a separate topic, in my opinion, and a key underlying part of the game much like "Science is King" in CiV.

 

[Dirichlet]

Let me preface this with my personal experience. I have played every Civ game at the time of release. Civ 4 is my favorite, Civ 5 is my least favorite. In both cases, this is strong preference.

Having technology earlier than in the real world has a strong tradition in Civ, I remember sometimes having tanks at 0 AD in Civ 1. Also, with tech trading you usually got better technology earlier in the higher difficulties levels. This is not a real excuse, but I think there are two other things to consider:

a) No Civ game has real decline and collapse of powerful empires like the real world. I think it is hard to claim that the real world scientific progress is necessarily even close to as fast as it could have been.
b) Every Civ game has pacing problems, where you are not able to have early Empires that are as large as some historical empires (e.g. Rome), as those would very quickly progress you out of the appropiate era. This has a downstream effect.
c) You want to have each of the main eras last for a similar amount of time in the game. This is another thing that needs to be balanced, and affects overall technological progress.

So this is not an real issue for me; it is not the job of Civ to produce a perfect simulation of actual human history.

Here is a list of my main flaws with Civ 6, that I do not think will be fixed.

• The entire Civ 5 legacy (as said, Civ 5 is my least favorite part):
  • One unit per tile, which is ok by itself, but cripples the AI
  • Busy-work without much strategic implications, this includes museum theming (clear optimal choice) and details like sending archaelogists around the map, which feels not abstract enough to fit the high-level of the rest of the game
• Production issues and scaling:
  
  • Chopping is too good. Bonus tiles are too weak.
    
  • Unit cost scaling is not balanced. It is too optimal to build an early army and then upgrade it all the time, due to the skyrocketing unit production costs, with which the industrial output never really catches up.
    
  • Too many city buildings that are not worth their production cost in any circumstances.
    
  • As a note, I think this is still partially the consequence of 1 UPT, as high production = many units = trouble. So production is kept low and this affects everything.

Some other things are just a matter of it being a game. Sure, access to the sea was a huge thing in the past. But if you bring this completely to Civ games, it cripples inland empires and would make some map types unfun. Making the sea stronger for trade would be very realistic, but bad for strategic gameplay. And the sea is already quite important, as naval units are incredibly strong and can easily win you wars.

Regarding how static the game: I always felt (again) that Civ 5 was the worst offender here. But this is one of the fundamental issues with Civ as a series. You tend to win or lose a game early on. Most of the time it is pretty much decided long before getting to the Industrial Age. The snowball effect is still fully in force.

So yes, Civ 6 has issues. But it was way better than Civ 5 from day 1. At least the 4 city being the optimum is a thing of the past.

 

[mitsho]

I agree and sumarise:

- Production does not feel right as it is optimal to not build up your empire, but rely on projects and chopping.
- Colonial Empires are not possible due to Loyalty and District Cost Scaling. The importance of the sea is in dispute.
- (Micromanaging needs and Busy-Work due to bad UI)
- The AI not using certain features (archery units, airplanes).
- The timeline of the game doesn‘t feel to fit onto history (too fast, too many options early on, stasis in late game)

Looking at this list, I feel there would be a market for a next expansion just adding leaders and redoing balance (adding a little bit here and there and maybe reforming religion).

 

[criZp]

Making the sea stronger for trade would be very realistic, but bad for strategic gameplay. And the sea is already quite important, as naval units are incredibly strong and can easily win you wars.

Why would sea trade be "bad for strategic play"? And who are naval units supposed to win wars if few cities are located on the coast?

 

[Dirichlet]

Why would sea trade be "bad for strategic play"? And who are naval units supposed to win wars if few cities are located on the coast?

Sea trade is not bad for strategic play. However, making it realistically strong would be too much of a good thing. Harbors are already pretty good. There has never been any real power in the power without access to the Ocean/Sea.

Re naval units: starting from Frigates, they have a range of 2. If the enemy stays away from the coast entirely, you have an opportunity to attack him from unexpected directions. In Civ 6 the defender in a land war is heavily favored, due to 1 UPT, unless there is a vast power discrepancy or the opponent is braindead (like the AI). Also, shipbuilding policies are stronger than for ground-based units. There is a reason why the Venetian Arsenal is considered to be so overpowered.

 

[Archon_Wing]

2 things:

1.) lol @ defending AI. Civ 6 is rather easy compared to past games. I'm not saying I win every game, but I've never come close to a deity win in any other game when the AI here gets the most bonuses. Well, maybe not Civ 5, since that one plays on difficulty 2.....

Of course, some of you will be like errmgawd 1UPT while ignoring the AI's fails often have nothing to do with tactical failure. I mean come on,. it's not like Civ 4's AI would suffer 10:1 losses, in fact you could easily get a much higher Kill/death ratio against the Civ 4 AI. See, when you see things like paying a AI 5gpt to go to war in Civ V, or seeing the Civ 6 AI offering a fortune for a piece of writing, you can't blame that on 1upt.

The real truth of the matter is Civ 4's mechanics are far more solid and less exploitable than it of its successors. If you ask the AI to war for you in Civ 4, they always demanded a lot and would aggressively demand you join. Yes, Civ 4 wasn't exploit free, but Civ 6 here has exploits the size of a small moon, and that's why good players can make a mockery by getting almost BC wins without even trying. That is what people are complaining about. Stop assuming they want like some machine learning 30 hour turn time crap before they can be satisfied.

The AI would have an easier time if it could acutally follow the rules and could play a proper game without the players running a circle around it.

"But hay guyz, Civ 6 is still under development" This is true, but I have one word for you: Magnus. Adding stuff like that just caused the AI to fall even more behind even though they improved it

2.) Of course you tech faster in civ than real life. Real people don't have an unbroken line of succession, nor can they ask advisors to take out the tech tree to beeline stirrups so they'll conquer the world in 300 years.

What is true though is that the entire tree past medieval needs some serious tuning, since you're always like 3 techs from obsoleting something. Notice the lifespan of Renaissance walls (or Tsukihe lel) and Steel

 

[AriochIV]

It's a given that the tech timeline in any game of Civilization will not exactly follow history, but in pretty much every game of Civ VI I play, the tech leaders are always WAY ahead of history (with flight in the Renaissance, etc.). It would be nice if the baseline rate of tech advancement was tuned more closely to a historical timeline.

It's almost as if they didn't take Eureka boosts into account when balancing science rates.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Civ V nostalgia is the new Civ IV nostalgia

 

[bumpyglint]

5) I disagree that it's impossible to have colonies. One city colonies? Sure, that can be hard but if you plan and settle 2 or 3 cities, it isn't hard to do it. I like how it demand some planning to do it, to be honest.

6) Tourism definitely would be better if it had more use other than Cultural Victory, though I will disagree that it's all or nothing because to focus on tourism, you focus on culture, so if you decide to change strategy for some reason, you have a Civ with strong culture, that will get you tier 3 governments and some powerful policies earlier. You also have to invest in science for cultural because you want to research computers and double your output, so even though you won't invest as much as you would for scientific victory, you still should have a pretty decent science. I don't see how having a Civ with strong culture and science is all or nothing. I get your point about tourism and agree but going for cultural won't make your Civ inflexible as you describe.

5) I still find it too hard for how it was in the reality.

6) Great Works also give culture, that's true, but wonders/great people/unique abilities etc focused on tourism don't.

We agree on the rest!

@bumpyglint

Ah right, I was approaching this from the wrong way around. My original guess was right, you are leading (massively) in tech and culture. That's simply you doing better than the other AI factions in the game. Though I wouldn't say building three Campus' is "barely focusing on Science". Try building none

There's a whole other topic here about Production scaling, but that is a separate topic, in my opinion, and a key underlying part of the game much like "Science is King" in CiV.

Yeah but I think I had the first campus after something like 150 turns and many cities, that's why I don't call it a focus

And the problem about lacking of production is that at the moment it doesn't make the game funny. Science is King maybe was unbalanced but was already more funny (you went through eras being able to feel them, not skipping an era every 20 turns not even noticing a difference because you don't have production to build anything new).

2.) Of course you tech faster in civ than real life. Real people don't have an unbroken line of succession, nor can they ask advisors to take out the tech tree to beeline stirrups so they'll conquer the world in 300 years.

What is true though is that the entire tree past medieval needs some serious tuning, since you're always like 3 techs from obsoleting something. Notice the lifespan of Renaissance walls (or Tsukihe lel) and Steel

If I want computer in 1700 it can be ok, but it means I need to be WAY behind on any other part of the Science Tree. The problem is when I discover Computer in 1700 and I'm totally ok with the all the other parts of the Science Tree.

Anyway if production would not be such a problem even obsoleting thing would not be a problem (look Civ V).

It's a given that the tech timeline in any game of Civilization will not exactly follow history, but in pretty much every game of Civ VI I play, the tech leaders are always WAY ahead of history (with flight in the Renaissance, etc.). It would be nice if the baseline rate of tech advancement was tuned more closely to a historical timeline.

It's almost as if they didn't take Eureka boosts into account when balancing science rates.

I played with the mod x2 Science and Culture cost to all the trees and more or less I was in the right Eras for my year, so probably you are right (actually I went on Mars something around 1960, so still not enough even with the x2 cost lol). This sounds so incredible to me from a AAA game society....

Civ V nostalgia is the new Civ IV nostalgia

Stop saying this to me I totally don't care about Civ V, I haven't been played it since years now. I just want a good game but I can't care less about the comparisons with Civ V (and that's what I'm saying to all the people saying "yeah but this thing happened even in the older Civs", that makes thing even worse not better from my point of view).

 

[Elhoim]

It's a given that the tech timeline in any game of Civilization will not exactly follow history, but in pretty much every game of Civ VI I play, the tech leaders are always WAY ahead of history (with flight in the Renaissance, etc.). It would be nice if the baseline rate of tech advancement was tuned more closely to a historical timeline.

It's almost as if they didn't take Eureka boosts into account when balancing science rates.

Definitely. I almost forgot how bad it is in the game as I always play with these modifiers:

("ERA_ANCIENT",0),
("ERA_CLASSICAL", 25),
("ERA_MEDIEVAL", 50),
("ERA_RENAISSANCE", 80),
("ERA_INDUSTRIAL", 120),
("ERA_MODERN", 160),
("ERA_ATOMIC", 210),
("ERA_INFORMATION", 260);

 

[Sostratus]

So yes, Civ 6 has issues. But it was way better than Civ 5 from day 1. At least the 4 city being the optimum is a thing of the past.

This aspect, and districts, between 5->6 has been my favorite. You actually can have functional nations instead of little holdouts pocketed amongst a paradisical wasteland no one went into for some reason.

I have one word for you: Magnus.

I find it hilarious he's "the steward" and his starting promotion dictates that you clear cut every tree and butcher every last sheep and cow you can find. Some stewardship! He really should have been a +bonus resources yield guy instead of chopping king.

As for everything else:
Districts scale 10x as you progress through the tree
Units scale ~10x as you progress through the tree, and importantly their cost+building cost is dictated precisely by what tier of the tree they sit on, and nothing else.
Chops scales with the exact same modifier as districts do.
Production scales with workable mines (which go from +1 to +3.)

Which of these things do not belong?
On release, we got to stack IZ + EC bonuses in every city. I recall early threads basically complaining that you got all your cities to 2-300 production and +10 amenities, they built everything, now what do you do?!
Then they hit the IZ with the nuclear nerfbat. They also later reduced science from population. But this is irrelevant; The last 4 eras of the game (industrial, modern, atomic, information) all have cost increases you have to eat, but they never replaced your ability to keep raising production except through population growth. Ever wonder why there is no card to boost IZ buildings like every other district? Because you were supposed to have stacked effects anyways. Details, details.

Since only chops keep up with costs, we chop. Then because we chop, we don't build many IZs, which means post-deforestation our cities don't really have production anyways, because we could get away with only spamming Campus/TS/CH through mid game on the chop economy. Well, I guess since we can't actually build units and buildings quickly now, so we should use our gold to upgrade the military we built before and all out rush to the spaceport and just eject ourselves from this playthrough ASAP! It all falls apart because of that decoupling.

My biggest hope for GS is that the expanded late game means we may actually have to fight a major military conflict with a tech and economic peer (because they may stop our victory through force outside of conquest wins.) If we did, people would feel very differently about late game strategy. You ask: "but how will you build your spaceports when you are building tanks and bombers?" Well, you're building spaceports, and I'm taking them!