Things I hoped would be gone from Civ5

[cephalo]

I really didn't like the concept of city states. I much prefer the idea that everyone starts off equally, and if given the chance, could develop into a great civilization. Civ4 had city states if you just fill the map with lots of civs, some would necessarily stay small and you could deal with them how you wanted to, albeit without the gamey bonuses.

I didn't like having two tech trees. A civilization knows what it knows, and everything you know is dependent on everything else. You can't have Rock n' Roll without electricity, you can't have organized religion without a writing system, etc. It makes sense to have a winding, diverse path, but splitting the tree in two pretends that culture can advance without science, and vice versa.

With both of these contrivances in place, I can't see Civ6 surpassing Civ4.

 

[gfeier]

Just getting rid of the stacks of doom from Civ4 made Civ5 and Civ6 better games in my book.

 

[demidyad]

I agree about City States, the best way to handle it imo is like in RevolutionDCM, where barbarian encampments can turn into Minor Civs (effectively city states) which can then "graduate" into major civs. But I would like to see this system developed further in vanilla civ, where diplomacy increases or decreases in complexity depending on the relative power of the two civs. I agree with the idea that everyone starts off equal and has just as much chance to conquer the world as anyone else.

 

[Siptah]

You can disable city states, not that I have proof, but I'm sure it will be possible. So set them to 0 and increase the amount of civs on the map.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Just getting rid of the stacks of doom from Civ4 made Civ5 and Civ6 better games in my book.

1UPT is the biggest reason why Civ V couldn't become an okay game (even with the expansions) in my book.
The unstacking of cities in Civ VI is another very bad decision - these things completely ruin the scale for me.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I really didn't like the concept of city states. I much prefer the idea that everyone starts

With both of these contrivances in place, I can't see Civ6 surpassing Civ4.

I agree. Civ4 had not contrivances whatsoever. Everything Civ4 did was the right way to do it, and we know it for a fact because that's the way Civ4 did it.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I wish civ6 would make border expansion more like civ4. Having borders expand 1 tile at a time means that your territory is often a patch of islands rather than a continuous territory for a large portion of the game. It takes away from the sense of having an empire.

 

[cephalo]

Just getting rid of the stacks of doom from Civ4 made Civ5 and Civ6 better games in my book.

That's a controversial one, but I agree. I didn't like stacks of doom. I though Civ5 combat was more decisive and less about massive production.

 

[Acken]

They add another dimension and civ6 seems to give a lot of choices relative to city states.

The only thing I dont like about city states is the room they take and the fact that they clog the terrain with units.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I like the City-States. Of course, the ability to remove them from any given game is a must, but hopefully the Civ VI devs don't need me to tell them that.

 

[Stringer1313]

I wish civ6 would make border expansion more like civ4. Having borders expand 1 tile at a time means that your territory is often a patch of islands rather than a continuous territory for a large portion of the game. It takes away from the sense of having an empire.

I somewhat agree with this. I agree with the annoyance of seeing a patch of nonsensical globs on the map for much of the game. On the other hand, early empires arguably were more like nonsensical globs (arguably). And it becomes more satisfying when those globs merge in the renaissance / industrial era, which mirrors the notion of country lines being more distinct in the modern era.

 

[Stauffenberg]

Micromanagement has been a bad side of all civ games up to civ 6. I hope the builders and auto build / upgrade of roads will make the need for hordes of workers obsolete.

I also didn't like having to build trade posts, farms, mines or lumber farms in every hex on the map. That was tedious. With wonders and districts needing separate tiles it means you get much more variety and less micromanagement. Time will tell if we don't need to constantly look for hexes to improve in civ 6.

The diplomacy system in civ 5 was dull and one dimensional as well. So far we haven't seen much of the new diplomacy system. I particularly disliked the unfair trade deals the AI offered. If I asked for 1 jewelry resource they could ask for maybe 10 different types of resources in return. The little we've seen of trade agreements so far in civ 6 indicates that Firaxis try to help the AI a bit by always making the AI's get better deals than the real players. It's very hard to make the AI's accept even deals. I hope civ 6 is a bit better in trade deals than it was in civ 5.

 

[Babri]

1UPT is the biggest reason why Civ V couldn't become an okay game (even with the expansions) in my book.
The unstacking of cities in Civ VI is another very bad decision - these things completely ruin the scale for me.

No offence but you should then keep playing cIV because 1UPT is the route that the devs have chosen & most fans are very happy with it.

In my opinion (and many others), 1UPT is one of the best things that have come to civ franchise. Now unstacked cities seem to bring the same thing to city management and I am quite happy about that.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I'd really love to see the lifetime statistics for both Civ 4 and Civ 5 compared. CIv 5 has done tremendously well even to this day, it continues to be Steam's more popular game to be played.

 

[Ryika]

City States are great, gameplay-wise. They make smaller empires into something that you actually want to interact with, that can help you move forward instead of just being the loser Civs that really have no influence on the world. But I do agree that the downside of that is a relatively stale map. But then again, the focus is clearly on the big players,

Your argument against two tech trees seems to be "I don't like this!" when we cut away the nonsense. Most people here seem to disagree.

Overall it's clear that the "I want only one thing from this game: To be able to build huge sprawling empires and to have tons of Civs doing the same!"-faction will not be pleased with Civ VI.

 

[Grumpbeard]

I didn't like having two tech trees. A civilization knows what it knows, and everything you know is dependent on everything else. You can't have Rock n' Roll without electricity, you can't have organized religion without a writing system, etc. It makes sense to have a winding, diverse path, but splitting the tree in two pretends that culture can advance without science, and vice versa.

Civ V had two tech trees?

 

[Siptah]

Civ V had two tech trees?

maybe the social policy trees?

 

[Martinus]

The two tech trees is the change I am most excited for in Civ 6, and I love city states. So I guess YMMV.

 

[Grumpbeard]

maybe the social policy trees?

Ah, that makes sense.

 

[apocalypse105]

The problem i have with city states in civ 5 THAT THEY TAKE SO MUCH ROOM. 16 city states on standard map thats whay to much..

its olso wonders me that city states minor countries have the same voting power then major powers

In most civ 5 standard maps you will be surounded by city states as result you can only settle 4 cities and conquer neigbour for more.. i allways reduce them to 8 in a standard map thats makes the game more balanced because you have more settling space.

However diplomatic victory isnt fun anymore you need less city states.. My change is that they change the city states amount to the same as civilizations on a map and give city state less voting power example ony one delegate. And a major civ 2 or more..

So you need other civs to vote you. Make it more like civ 4 where you need to have verry good relations with a civ so they vote for you. And make population, land count for voting. Huge nations have more voting power.


I agree on the seperate tech trees. They should make civis available to technologies as a result you have a bigger tech tree and more options they wanted to make sure that players didnt falllow the same tech path each game on higher difficulties well this is the solution because you have more options open for you in tech tee should i research this tech it allows me a new goverment or should i go for militaristic units.. and so on. Both can be good choises depending on situation.