things civ VI did GOOD (part 2)

[Mount Suribachi]

I think firstly we have to say it was a much better game out of the box than Civ V, which was really an empty shell with nothing to do.

The thing I like most about Civ 6 is the layers of complexity and planning required. The forethought required to plan cities, districts, wonders and improvements for maximum effect. The layering of pantheon, religion, government type, policy cards, golden age bonuses, wonder effects, governor promotions etc and how you can synergise them for some incredibly powerful strategies.

 

[nauberry]

I really love, how there is both this thread about the good things civ 6 did and a thread about issues with civ 6 at the same time. It allows for a nice discussion on what has been done well and what should be improved for the next iteration of the franchise.

One neat little thing, often neglected in civ 6 is, that most units have some sort of cultural look. In civ 5 I always found it weird, how a swordsman from Europe looks identical to one from Africa or Americas. Now all early game units have various looks, even though the unit class stays the same. I have to admit, that some of them look a little bit funny, for example the jaguar headed metal wearing swordsmen of the Aztec, but it is miles better than in civ 5. I only wish that the late game culturally tied looks of different civilizations cities would also be present in the late game of civ 6.

-edit-
Couple other small things came immediately to my mind after posting this. I was watching some old civ 5 videos on youtube earlier. They reminded me, that in civ 5 breaking a promise would make everyone hate you until the end of time. I really appreciate the grievance system, even with its flaws, in civ 6. It makes sense, that people forget about bad things you did for them 2000 years prior.

 

[Haig]

I love all the different ways of approaching and doing things in Civ VI.

Lets say you need to harass an enemy empire. You can:
Use raider ships to loot enemy's sea and land tiles
Hire barbarian clan to attack it
Use spies to destroy a dam or create rebels
Destroy enemy infrastructure with bombers
Cause loyalty loss and rebellion on peripheral city
Etc.

Added to that the gorgeous graphics and interesting civ and leader bonuses and many different mechanics like disasters.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I have noticed you used this term before (in other posts), and I was wondering if you could tell me which leader you were referring to ?

Oh, sorry! That's just a name I'd first seen other users use for Pedro (since his title was Dom Pedro II).

 

[Haig]

Dom Satan, the opposite of Gilgabro

 

[Zaarin]

Can you go into more specifics about what you didn't like about the religion in this game? I am interested and don't remember it very well from Civ5.

I think my biggest issue compared to Civ5 specifically is that in Civ5 the AI would actively spread a religion they didn't found, which will never happen in Civ6 thanks to Religious Victory and the limited benefit of religion to non-founders. More specifically I don't like religion being tied to a specific founder as realistically many religions have been more significant in places outside where they were founded (e.g., Christianity and Buddhism never became the dominant religions of Palestine or India but became major religions elsewhere). Also in Civ5 you'd see the formation of religious blocs as religion had larger diplomatic consequences. Passive spread of religion was also much more effective in Civ5--a change that, again, was no doubt made to accommodate Religious Victory.

In the future I'd like to see religions develop more in the background and then allow civs to embrace or reject them as state religions, to see religious blocs form, reformations, schisms, heresies--religion could be a lot more interesting than what we currently have.

I have noticed you used this term before (in other posts), and I was wondering if you could tell me which leader you were referring to ?

I started that term for Dom Pedro II of Brazil, who in Civ6 is an evil backstabbing maniac--I've had him declare war on me the turn friendship/alliance has expired more times than I can count.

 

[Linklite]

...In the future I'd like to see religions develop more in the background and then allow civs to embrace or reject them as state religions, to see religious blocs form, reformations, schisms, heresies--religion could be a lot more interesting than what we currently have.

The concern I have with that is that I don't think I'd ever play religion again. I rarely play it now, only when it's a Victory Condition (I often turn it off). If it didn't have a Victory based around it, I don't think I'd ever play it.

 

[Zaarin]

The concern I have with that is that I don't think I'd ever play religion again. I rarely play it now, only when it's a Victory Condition (I often turn it off). If it didn't have a Victory based around it, I don't think I'd ever play it.

Under what I just proposed, you wouldn't have much choice--either you accept a religion or find yourself alienated from your neighbors.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Under what I just proposed, you wouldn't have much choice--either you accept a religion or find yourself alienated from your neighbors.

I mean from a historical standpoint it sounds very realistic.

 

[Linklite]

Under what I just proposed, you wouldn't have much choice--either you accept a religion or find yourself alienated from your neighbors.

How's that much different to now? At the moment, I get relationship penalties, but also, unless I proactively act against it (or for it, I guess), I don't really have a choice either. They either come and convert me, or they don't.

 

[TCBB]

Engaging with the map is definitely the best thing about Civ 6 (which is, of course, a result of the whole district separation mechanic).

I recently fired up a game of Civ 5 while I was waiting for the new NFP patch to drop, and it immediately struck me how much I missed engaging with the map. I was seeing mountain ranges and thinking ‘oh look, a great +4 campus!’ or spotting a great river network and saying ‘ah, fresh water!’ before realising that it’s nearly all redundant in Civ5 - the map simply doesn’t matter like it does in Civ 6.

 

[Zaarin]

How's that much different to now? At the moment, I get relationship penalties, but also, unless I proactively act against it (or for it, I guess), I don't really have a choice either. They either come and convert me, or they don't.

That penalty/bonus is so minor that it has had no bearing in any game of Civ6 I've ever played. Also what I proposed means that religion is something that happens beyond the player's control: you accept the religion as your state religion or you don't. Having the same state religion would add a major diplomatic bonus; having different state religions would add a major diplomatic penalty--ergo you're going to have to have a lot in your favor to make allies of non coreligionists.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

I started that term for Dom Pedro II of Brazil, who in Civ6 is an evil backstabbing maniac--I've had him declare war on me the turn friendship/alliance has expired more times than I can count. [/QUOTE]

Lol remember Brazil's war theme from Civ V? It's so gangster man...like bond villain music with some Jobim splashed on top

I think my biggest issue compared to Civ5 specifically is that in Civ5 the AI would actively spread a religion they didn't found, which will never happen in Civ6 thanks to Religious Victory and the limited benefit of religion to non-founders. More specifically I don't like religion being tied to a specific founder as realistically many religions have been more significant in places outside where they were founded (e.g., Christianity and Buddhism never became the dominant religions of Palestine or India but became major religions elsewhere). Also in Civ5 you'd see the formation of religious blocs as religion had larger diplomatic consequences. Passive spread of religion was also much more effective in Civ5--a change that, again, was no doubt made to accommodate Religious Victory.

In the future I'd like to see religions develop more in the background and then allow civs to embrace or reject them as state religions, to see religious blocs form, reformations, schisms, heresies--religion could be a lot more interesting than what we currently have.

I enthusiastically agree. Religion should provide bonuses throughout the game and play a role in loyalty, diplomacy or even yields but shouldn't be a VC...the point of so many religious (Well moreso for the abrahamic but still) is to spread them to get benefits but that completely conflicts with a religious victory that forces you to convert the world...if you get what I'm saying. And on that point, why can't every civ found a religion still? We already get pantheons anyway...what's the harm in allowing more people to found religions?

The devs should just go back to having incentives for wanting to keep your religion (Yields, bonuses, etc.) on your end, and for "religious civs" give them bonuses to spreading religion (Think Tithe and the like but more complex). In that kind of a model you'll got back to the Civ V dilemmas of choosing to defend or spread your religion and getting the more interesting diplomatic and gameplay options for religion as a whole...it'd be leagues better than the weird religion system of VI any who

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I think my biggest issue compared to Civ5 specifically is that in Civ5 the AI would actively spread a religion they didn't found, which will never happen in Civ6 thanks to Religious Victory and the limited benefit of religion to non-founders. More specifically I don't like religion being tied to a specific founder as realistically many religions have been more significant in places outside where they were founded (e.g., Christianity and Buddhism never became the dominant religions of Palestine or India but became major religions elsewhere). Also in Civ5 you'd see the formation of religious blocs as religion had larger diplomatic consequences. Passive spread of religion was also much more effective in Civ5--a change that, again, was no doubt made to accommodate Religious Victory.

In the future I'd like to see religions develop more in the background and then allow civs to embrace or reject them as state religions, to see religious blocs form, reformations, schisms, heresies--religion could be a lot more interesting than what we currently have.


I started that term for Dom Pedro II of Brazil, who in Civ6 is an evil backstabbing maniac--I've had him declare war on me the turn friendship/alliance has expired more times than I can count.

The whole spreading methods of 6 with the apostles and such isn't that fun . . . which is a shame because I think the actual religions and beliefs themselves are the most fun of the series. I mentioned elsewhere that I would prefer they ditch RV altogether and just make it more useful to achieve the other victories.

That penalty/bonus is so minor that it has had no bearing in any game of Civ6 I've ever played. Also what I proposed means that religion is something that happens beyond the player's control: you accept the religion as your state religion or you don't. Having the same state religion would add a major diplomatic bonus; having different state religions would add a major diplomatic penalty--ergo you're going to have to have a lot in your favor to make allies of non coreligionists.

I would be a little concerned that it would turn it into the religion diplomacy of CivIV--basically you would spread religion to everyone and they'd be your friend. Wasn't very deep. I'm sure there are ways to sidestep that though.

 

[Zaarin]

I would be a little concerned that it would turn it into the religion diplomacy of CivIV--basically you would spread religion to everyone and they'd be your friend. Wasn't very deep. I'm sure there are ways to sidestep that though.

Make religions appear regionally and then you have religious blocs form, perhaps with regions of pluralism at the meeting places (like pre-Islamic Central Asia and the Near East, to cite historical examples).

 

[cain3456]

The loyalty mechanism. That alone makes Civ6 better than Civ5.

 

[Duuk]

What I like about 6 (with some minor tweak suggestions for 7)

1) Amazing array of civs, all fleshed out. Not always perfect or well balanced, but each one plays slightly differently and I like that.

2) I love the district system, especially gated behind population, which means that you can't have EVERY CITY HAS EVERY BUILDING, you are literally required to specialize (or at least pre-plan). Con to this: It made the world "smaller" as each city represents basically an entire nation-sized swath of land on a standard sized earth or europe map. All of France can only contain 2 cities. So for 7 I would hybrid between 4 and 6: Districts would be "inside" the center tile (and with super detailed resolution monitors, there is no reason that someone shouldn't be able to zoom in and see their city if they really wanted to). Then the decision goes back to "do I spread my cities apart for maximum resource support or do I tighten them back up for closer loyalty (see #3!)

3) Loyalty. I played the ever-lovin' snot out of Civ4's RevolutionsDCM mod. I love watching empires crumble (even my own). As a tweak, making cities on other continents bleed loyalty and then form their OWN civ (rather than just being a "Free City", and obviously only if there isn't massive loyalty pressure to flip the city) would be amazing. And then Victoria's Leader Ability would be "the Sun Never Sets" and her cities don't suffer loyalty pressure (...unless you're taxing your citizens too much, or lack Tea amenities lol).

4) I really like trade routes and how important they are. They should be upgraded and integrated with the diplomacy system so that First Contact goes, "Hi, I just met you, and this is crazy, but where's your capital, help me find it maybe?" so you can assign trade routes to carry amenities, too. If I were again to begin Civ's trade system, each city would generate "commerce" that would translate as maybe 3 commerce to 1 gold if the city isn't trading it, but you could trade it for full value on a trade route. Trade route capacity would have to go up, obviously, and ALL resources should be kept count. Imagine having a trade route running from Paris to Xanadu trading 4 horses per turn to Kublai for 40 commerce
(which would be 40 gold for you!). You both come out ahead... Lord I could write a beautiful trade route system for Civ6. (Now I want FXS to ask me for the Final Frontier Pass!)

5) The disaster system is MUCH better than the old random events. I'm not a fan of the fantasy disasters (OMG Japan built ironclads, florida is now under water!) but hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes, volcanoes, droughts, all kind of awesome. The disaster system could be improved by separating city growth back into food/housing/happiness/health. Unhealthy cities have chances to cause plague events that can sweep along trade routes (lookin' at you here, Silk Road, Italian City States, and Constantinople) and measuring and balancing how fast you grow, knowing you need X pops to build the next district but also knowing that X pops will probably make your city riot or plague prone? Gold.

Overall, Civ6 finally passed Civ4 for me as Best In Show (3rd Place: Call to Power 2), even with the things I hate like 1UPT.

 

[PiR]

In addition to everything that has been already said, I would also consider as good aspects of the game: combats, climate change, appeal, archeology, boosts/eurekas, great persons, emergencies, espionage, era score

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Religion was pretty weak in Civ V, felt like a waste of resources. Civ VI religion feels a bit more rewarding to found and spread and I'm pretty sure you can turn off the religious victory condition anyway.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

There is a lot I love about Civ 6 and think it is the best in the series but to me, the single greatest thing about the game is the music. They absolutely nailed it in Civ 6 with the evolving themes.