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

Maritime trade is also why major nations build navies and develop colonies and "power projection" - all of which are notably minimized in Civ VI. Battleships are useful as artillery platforms in land battles, because they have a bombardment range of hundreds or thousands of miles. I really can't remember the last time I built an Aircraft Carrier or a Submarine.

Of course, from a game-balance perspective, we wouldn't want Civ to model history too closely, because we want a greater range of viable play styles than has existed in history. Strong maritime trade backed by a decent navy has always been "overpowered" in real life. If Civ hewed too closely to reality, the only reason not to pursue a maritime strategy would be if you got saddled with a really poor starting position and had to make do. Still, I think Civ has gone too far in abstracting international trade into a series of passive bonuses, and in making sea trade only slightly better than land trade (iirc, trader units can travel further over water than over land, but they don't yield more). You also don't have to transport luxuries or strategic resources from their point of origin, they just distribute themselves across your empire without effort or impediment.

 

The whole traders make roads thing is neat, but I miss building road networks and hooking up cities for some gold income that way. It is a fun building mechanic. And civ4 required you to connect roads the resources if i recall. I wouldn't mind seeing a "Have to get a road to the city to share the amenity network" situation. And think of the cards, CS bonuses, great people, and other stuff you could build around a city connection mechanic!

 

what annoys me is the AI could have 2 archers, a catapult and 2 swordsmens attacking a city with walls, and i hold them off with 2 archers.

 

The AI has made me give up on Civ 6 and go back to Civ 4 and despite the older graphics I'm having way more fun with Beyond the Sword.

It's a bit sad actually.

 

Not sad, really, I don't think. I've gone back to Civ 5 and am having far more fun with it. Different games for different people.

Changing a game is not the same as improving it. Civ 6 is a new game and will appeal to people looking for a different game experience. Some of those will be new to the civ community, people who didn't care for Civ 4 or Civ 5.

 

Civilization IV is now my second favorite CIV game after the release of Rise and Fall

 

Not sure what's annoying about that... a walled city with 2 archers is a very strong defense against only 5 units.

 

There is some calculations in military history that attacking army needs to be 3 times stronger than defender to be able to win battle (of course with same generals lets say) - with basic defensive lines ... so fortified city in Medieval time with Archers would be really , really , really hard do conquer ... thats why Constantinopole fell to Turks only after canons were invented, no matter the army size you could penetrate it

 

This is not really a problem for me, but an annoyance. I hate when I go to build an Industrial Zone or Entertainment Complex and I have to painstakingly calculate the range that it will cover and which cities are included. A nice little Quality of Life change would be a highlighted hexagon (orange for IZ and yellow for EC) at the mouse pointer that would show me the district's range so I could make an easy, informed decision. It could even make cities glow (the same color) that are already affected by an IZ/EC so I can better avoid double coverage if possible.

 

This is an important thread, with some great comments.

The great tragedy of Civ VI is not that it's a Sandbox game. That may be a disappointment compared to previous forms where the AI performed better, but there are plenty of highly fantastic sandbox-style experiences.

The great tragedy is that they designed a sandbox game that due to awful balancing (and to quote Arioch, Firaxis spent multiple years with a Sloppy, indifferent recognition of so many balance issues) gets to sludge as the game moves onward past the first third or half of the game. This is a tragedy. The hammer system of VI has far too much similarity to Civ 3 style corruption (which Devs swore they realized was so awful), and the OP and many others outline all this above. Building infrastructure was so painfully inefficient compared with building military units and taking the AI's buildings and districts. I agree with those above that think VI must be played on Emperor as to be creatively played/enjoyed.

The profoundly unpleasant experience I've had with VI might change with this expansion, because I do see the Developers building a prettier, much more thorough sandbox with all these new features. But, and it's a huge butt, if they realize a 3rd year massive expansion with a ton of the same balancing issues unrecognized... I will simply have no words.

 

I'm seeing some new UI stuff which is encouraging. I won't hold my breath but if they break a decade-long trend of disregard for end user experience I'll take it as an encouraging sign.

I don't anticipate the AI getting better. Not with yet more mechanics/interactions and so little emphasis on it. But frankly if the UI is actually good rather than just marginally less awful I'll play the game a lot more regardless.

 

The devs on today's livestream talked about how getting canals to work was a major effort that took much more work than they expected.

That work didn't come from nowhere. It will have impacted other areas of the game they may have hoped to address.

 

Though I haven't thoroughly perused all the information about the new expansion, I haven't seen anything so far that suggests they've buffed tall cities. PLEASE give us a reason to build teeming metropolises of 20+ population again instead of just spamming as many cities as possible in the space you have to get the flat bonuses from district buildings. The easiest way to give an incentive for tall is to bring back multiplication bonuses for yields.

Don't misunderstand: I don't want to nerf wide play, per se. I don't want to punish people for building a small arctic city to harvest some oil and furs. I instead want to give an incentive to build fewer cities in the same amount of territory. Give us a viable reason to space cities 6 tiles apart. It would also help cut down tedious micromanagement if we could focus on fewer, higher quality cities.

 

Let's see how the power system works. If it buffs Tier 3 buildings and the specialists who work them, that might be the boost that makes it worthwhile to invest in the infrastructure necessary to support large cities.

 

It's confirmed now that water trade is getting a massive buff in the expansion. But land will be able to catch up once they get railroads, which is also realistic and contributed to the success of cities like Chicago and Harbin. Apparently there will be a transport efficiency score for each route that will multiply the yields.

 

The siege of Leningrad?

 

Right. I actually think Archers are too effective against Ancient Walls. You really should have to bring some kind, any kind, of siege engine. I use a mod that gives City States free Ancient Walls at the beginning of the game. That seems to effectively prevent the AI from sweeping the map clear of City States, but I think that's only because the AI is such a boob. If the AI were improved, it would use Archers to overwhelm City States early, and then we'd back to City States being smears on the pavement by the Middle Ages. (fwiw, the Free Ancient Walls mod for CSes doesn't make them invulnerable. Aggressive Civs will still attack them, but it won't always work, and it gives you time to get over there and help, if you want. I recommend it, if you don't use it already. It should just be in the base game, frankly.)

 

I appreciated that they are trying to buff trade routes on the sea! I don't know if it's enough but at least that's the right direction, even if all other problems are still here.