Things that still irk me

aieeegrunt said:
You remove him too
Click to expand...

I don't normally remove him, but I do normally remove Kupe from the leader pool. Ai can't handle him at all, and he ends up sucking every single game.
 
They have their own solution for excess era score in the dramatic ages mode, having apply extra loyalty pressure, which I think is an interesting solution, but I'm not that fond of the all or nothing dark ages city loss approach in the mode.

I like the game era system introduced with 6 but not a big fan of how they did golden ages.

Honestly its irked me in basically all of the Civ games that have golden ages that you can get a number of golden ages if you are doing well, which just seems sort of silly and waters down the (admittedly nebulous) idea of a golden age. I'd prefer a system where each civ basically gets 1 golden age per game, that can be triggered by the player under certain conditions, forcing the player to be a lot more strategic/judicious on when they decide to initiate it. Then maybe you get one Civ that can have 2 golden ages per game as a UA or an extra long one.
 
I definitely agree with the roads issue, but for me scarce late game resources mirror RL. I mean would the West in general have any interest whatsoever in the Middle East over the last century if it weren't for Oil?

How many times in Civ VI have we gone to war just to get aluminum/aluminium!!!
 
GIDS888 said:
I definitely agree with the roads issue, but for me scarce late game resources mirror RL. I mean would the West in general have any interest whatsoever in the Middle East over the last century if it weren't for Oil?

How many times in Civ VI have we gone to war just to get aluminum/aluminium!!!
Click to expand...

Agree, it keeps the late game interesting for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sic
GIDS888 said:
I definitely agree with the roads issue, but for me scarce late game resources mirror RL. I mean would the West in general have any interest whatsoever in the Middle East over the last century if it weren't for Oil?

How many times in Civ VI have we gone to war just to get aluminum/aluminium!!!
Click to expand...
Eh, the difference is that IRL we have some resources and trying to find more is beneficial, which leads to war. In Civ 6, the resources are cripplingly scarce. In Earth map, there is, unless you get lucky doing OCC, literally not enough aluminium to mount an effective air defence. To get enough Al to support such an air force, you need multiple sources of Al, which aren't common enough to support the cities with mines and the cities required to support them.

In real life, oil and other resources are plentiful but densely situated. A few countries control the bulk of the supply, and that "interest" is generated by power plays as every country seeks to ensure that it's not used as leverage against them. This leads to interesting dynamics. One country might threaten another to get oil, but then another, who has secured access through trade, wants to protect the status quo and so guarantees the supplier's safety. That leads to interesting interactions as everyone tries to gain advantage while weighing that against the risk of getting involved. There are also many actors involved - if the supplier refuses to sell, then the other country can go somewhere else, so the supplier has a strong incentive to trade. That creates complexity. Further, the suppliers (for complex reasons) tend to be militarily weaker, which also makes diplomacy a viable route versus just invading.

In Civ 6, everyone is just trying to secure sources just to maintain themselves. I don't think I ever trade strategics until they go obsolete for me. Even when I have enough sources...they're just too valuable to give away. I know they're unlikely to get it elsewhere (it's too valuable for most to consistently give it away), so I can manipulate the market to cripple them. There just aren't enough actors to make it a real decision for me. Additionally, if I have those resources, I'm rich and capable of defending myself. AI being what it is, is incapable of translating those riches into an effective defence.

Civ 6 just lacks the nuance necessary to make resource scarcity particularly interesting. It mostly serves to just punish playing tall and being pacifist even further.
 
bbbt said:
They have their own solution for excess era score in the dramatic ages mode, having apply extra loyalty pressure, which I think is an interesting solution, but I'm not that fond of the all or nothing dark ages city loss approach in the mode.

I like the game era system introduced with 6 but not a big fan of how they did golden ages.

Honestly its irked me in basically all of the Civ games that have golden ages that you can get a number of golden ages if you are doing well, which just seems sort of silly and waters down the (admittedly nebulous) idea of a golden age. I'd prefer a system where each civ basically gets 1 golden age per game, that can be triggered by the player under certain conditions, forcing the player to be a lot more strategic/judicious on when they decide to initiate it. Then maybe you get one Civ that can have 2 golden ages per game as a UA or an extra long one.
Click to expand...
That was Civ3, the OG for Golden Ages. Each tribe got exactly one Golden Age; it would be triggered either by building a World Wonder that matched your attributes, or winning a battle with your UU. For certain civs, who had a very early UU, this meant choosing between experiencing your GA when your empire was under-developed or constraining your military conquest until you switched to a more efficient government. UA's had not been implemented yet.
 
vorlon_mi said:
That was Civ3, the OG for Golden Ages. Each tribe got exactly one Golden Age; it would be triggered either by building a World Wonder that matched your attributes, or winning a battle with your UU. For certain civs, who had a very early UU, this meant choosing between experiencing your GA when your empire was under-developed or constraining your military conquest until you switched to a more efficient government. UA's had not been implemented yet.
Click to expand...

Oh lol I totally forgot about that. I have the vague memory of that early UU frustration. But maybe another go at it with a bit more initiating flexibility
 
One little nitpick that I have has cropped up a couple times for me times last night. I hate that, when you purchase something in a city with gold or faith, the window closes down afterward. So if I want to buy couple Apostles or a handful of Traders, I have to open the window, click to purchase the unit, open the window again, click to purchase the next unit, click to open the window again, etc. Why can't the window just stay open until I close it down manually? It does that every time I choose what I want to build in the build queue, but not when I buy something.
 
Last edited:
about golden ages,
The Rhye's and Fall Mod for Civ 4 had "historic" victories when the player accomplished something akin to what the civilization actually did, like Egypt building X number of wonders by a certain time. Or tried to do something but couldn't, like Carthage circumnavigating the earth. Maybe Golden Ages ought to be something similar. But I don't know how smart the AI would be trying to accomplish that.

I just don't like how golden ages are by chance in the past 3 games.
 
Disgustipated said:
I don't normally remove him, but I do normally remove Kupe from the leader pool. Ai can't handle him at all, and he ends up sucking every single game.
Click to expand...

I remove civs like Australia just for having awful music

bbbt said:
They have their own solution for excess era score in the dramatic ages mode, having apply extra loyalty pressure, which I think is an interesting solution, but I'm not that fond of the all or nothing dark ages city loss approach in the mode.

I like the game era system introduced with 6 but not a big fan of how they did golden ages.

Honestly its irked me in basically all of the Civ games that have golden ages that you can get a number of golden ages if you are doing well, which just seems sort of silly and waters down the (admittedly nebulous) idea of a golden age. I'd prefer a system where each civ basically gets 1 golden age per game, that can be triggered by the player under certain conditions, forcing the player to be a lot more strategic/judicious on when they decide to initiate it. Then maybe you get one Civ that can have 2 golden ages per game as a UA or an extra long one.
Click to expand...

It’s a feedback loop. Either you get a Dark Age, and unless it’s a planned slingshot to a Heroic Age it puts you down and you struggle

Or the benefits from a Golden Age let you chain them
 
The rarity of aluminum and uranium in Gathering Storm is absurd. Especially uranium, since spaceports at least can become magical sources of aluminum late in the game (based on what logic I do not know).

Uranium is not a particularly rare element. In real life we don't see developed countries forgoing or forswearing nuclear power because of some lack of uranium. The trick is refining it, since only one isotope (U-235 I believe) is of use for nuclear fission reactions. That's a technical issue, and the yield of uranium mines should double or triple when a civilization has reached a certain point in the tech tree.

The game is so slanted against uranium I get the sense that the developers have some sort of personal grudge against it. And YET, it costs 3 aluminum PER TURN to maintain a helicopter, but no uranium whatsoever to make or maintain a nuclear submarine.

"Sorry, we have to keep our Newscopter grounded today, she's all out of aluminum and we're still waiting for the next shipment of soda cans."
 
Widdershins said:
Uranium is not a particularly rare element. [...] The trick is refining it, since only one isotope (U-235 I believe) is of use for nuclear fission reactions.
Click to expand...
Uranium-238 has a relative abundance of around 99.3%. Unlike U-235, it is non-fissile (half-life of 4.5 billion years), but by capturing neutrons it can be transmuted into fissile Plutonium-239 ...
In "normal" nuclear reactors, about one-third of the generated power comes from the fission of Pu-239, which is not supplied as a fuel to the reactor, but produced en passant from U-238. Breeder reactors create even larger quantities of Pu-239. So in principle all is usable.

 
uhu said:
Uranium-238 has a relative abundance of around 99.3%. Unlike U-235, it is non-fissile (half-life of 4.5 billion years), but by capturing neutrons it can be transmuted into fissile Plutonium-239 ...
In "normal" nuclear reactors, about one-third of the generated power comes from the fission of Pu-239, which is not supplied as a fuel to the reactor, but produced en passant from U-238. Breeder reactors create even larger quantities of Pu-239. So in principle all is usable.

Click to expand...
Thanks. So I don't need to disturb the dust accumulating on my various physics textbooks!
 
Another irksome thing: huge, high-stakes decisions that happen with a single click of a button, without hope of recall.

So you want to place a district on a marsh? Well that's fine: in the game you're asked if you really want to do this, and I don't mind giving confirmation.

Didn't mean to levy a city-state's military? Oh, you were aiming for one of the other buttons crowding that one with nary a single pixel of spacing, and clicked "Levy Military" by mistake? Too bad: there is no "ARE YOU SURE???" prompt, and now you've lost a ton of gold and have an overpriced army of museum pieces to contend with for 30 turns. Or go ahead and spend a load of time quitting and reentering the game before the turn is autosaved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Askia Muhammad
Commanders in Civ6
Replies
0
Views
303
Askia Muhammad
Askia Muhammad
K
  • Locked
Nuclear Weapon Defense
Replies
1
Views
745
leif erikson
leif erikson
D
Alexander is the spiritual leader…
Replies
16
Views
598
Monene
M
planetfall
Is civ6 too boring for you?
Replies
1
Views
474
Ordnael
Ordnael
planetfall
Any diety ideas sans CS and Barbs?
Replies
5
Views
498
Oberinspektor Derrick
Oberinspektor Derrick
Back
Top Bottom