This game is a joke

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Actually, it's fairly normal in my experience: it's happened to me with both Norway and England in Civ VI, and it happened when trying to get a desert start for Morocco in Civ V and Nubia in Civ VI - 10 or more restarts without a coastal tile or desert tile anywhere in the starting radius or near it.
That's why I play with the Nomadic Start and Faster Starting Settlers Mods, so I can move my settler to a reasonable starting position appropriate for the Civ I am attempting to play in 1 - 2 turns.

One other reason why it would be nice if we get a Nomadic Start in Civ 7.

If you want a reliable start bias though, there's always the Maori.

 

[Zaarin]

If you want a reliable start bias though, there's always the Maori.

Though "small island in the arctic" is a pretty disappointing start bias for anyone.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Though "small island in the arctic" is a pretty disappointing start bias for anyone.

I meant start in the ocean, which is precisely what they do.

 

[Zaarin]

I meant start in the ocean, which is precisely what they do.

I know, but in virtually every game I've played AI Kupe always seems to end up on some one-tile Tundra island that no one else wanted anyway.

 

[HiRezAudio]

What a joke this game has turned out to be. Right now I`ve been trying to start a new game as the vikings.
After 12(!) attempts they`ve still not been placed even near the coast but far up in some desert or mountains. Isn`t there at least some mod that can fix up this?

Tryed to play the Europe scenario a couple of times, only to find there was no France and no Russsia. Just a joke of a mini-europe. But be shure, if I start a game in ancient era I`ll meet Teddy Roosevelt.

Late civs like the US should not appear until much later in the game like they did in some Civ4-mod, and leaders should change up through the centuries.

So sorry but this is a non starter of a complaint.
Have you bothered to actually read the blurb that appears during launch? It clearly states that there is no historical accuracy, either for leaders, their behaviour or their spawn sites. Period.
It is fun and not a historical simulation.

 

[reddishrecue]

So sorry but this is a non starter of a complaint.
Have you bothered to actually read the blurb that appears during launch? It clearly states that there is no historical accuracy, either for leaders, their behaviour or their spawn sites. Period.
It is fun and not a historical simulation.

I agree with this. The game is totally fictional.

 

[Naokaukodem]

So sorry but this is a non starter of a complaint.
Have you bothered to actually read the blurb that appears during launch? It clearly states that there is no historical accuracy, either for leaders, their behaviour or their spawn sites. Period.
It is fun and not a historical simulation.

Although you might still expect civs with sea abilities and a game that has spawn biases to spawn near... you know, sea.

 

[Zaarin]

Although you might still expect civs with sea abilities and a game that has spawn biases to spawn near... you know, sea.

The broken starting biases are a serious and long-standing problem.

 

[Gedemon]

I agree with this. The game is totally fictional.

while it's indeed not a historical simulator, it is a 4x with historical flavor, and use "historical traits"* that are for some map dependent, while "playing the map" is an important part of the design.

*quote from the game's description

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

I must say, what a relief that we as a community have overwhelmingly established that Civ VI is in no way designed or intended to be played as a historical simulation! After all, now it can be acknowledged, should one be inclined to play the game that way, a combination of mods can yield rather satisfactory results. I'll just bring up two of many possible scenarios.

Historical Spawn Dates
p0kiehl's Better Pantheons
Religion Expanded
Rosetta
Sui Generis
Tomatekh's Historical Religions
Yet (not) Another Map Pack

1) The Ancient World

Just choose any ancient civilization with the basic settings of HSD on Greatest Earth Map and you can enjoy a nice run through history with up to 63 civilizations and 16 relatively accurate religions (subject to civilizations sharing overlapping religious preferences). You can colonize the Mediterranean as the Phoenicians or watch the AI establish sprawling empires under the Romans, Persians, and Indians, all without ever encountering Teddy Roosevelt until his proper time.

2) Portugal and the New World

Choose a bunch of pre-industrial civilizations to fill out Europe and Africa, along with a mix of pre-Columbian and colonial nations from the Americas, then load up the Giant Earth Map with the Colonization section. Using the HSD Lite settings, all the Old World civilizations will spawn at the beginning, whereas the New World civilizations will spawn at their relative dates. I'm partial to Portugal, as even with two cities, it's an absolute tactical nightmare fending off the Spanish forever war, all the more once navies get involved. If you can make it through micromanaging your sliver of coast, Cartography will let you colonize the Americas and then watch your colonies rebel and form new nations. If you choose for new civilizations to match the highest level of tech and culture, Brazil will even use containment to kick you out of all New World city-states!

Beyond this, you can add modded civilizations, adjust the resources with mods (including Resourceful 2), and tweak a number of other settings. I even booted up both scenarios today to make sure they load. I suppose it goes to say the base game offers little by way of historical simulator, but the modding community has come up with a lot of ways to make such a play style possible.

 

[reddishrecue]

while it's indeed not a historical simulator, it is a 4x with historical flavor, and use "historical traits"* that are for some map dependent, while "playing the map" is an important part of the design.

*quote from the game's description

Yes, I like the designs they're really cartoony in civ 6. More than civ 5 and more pleasing to the eye. I used to think it was real until I read the caption on civ 5 which said it was totally fiction. This is where civ 7 is going for (if there will be one) better graphics since graphics keep improving now like gigahertz in computers.

 

[Joch]

well the beauty of Civ6 is you can play it as you like,

You want "historical" starts? You can use one of the official or modded true start location maps AND customise the CIVs that will show up. These days I only play games on the official TSL Europe, Asia or Med maps.

You want something totally random? You can have that to, but dont be surprised if Norway starts in a desert and you meet Teddy Roosevelt in 4000 B.C....

 

[reddishrecue]

well the beauty of Civ6 is you can play it as you like,

You want "historical" starts? You can use one of the official or modded true start location maps AND customise the CIVs that will show up. These days I only play games on the official TSL Europe, Asia or Med maps.

You want something totally random? You can have that to, but dont be surprised if Norway starts in a desert and you meet Teddy Roosevelt in 4000 B.C....

Oh wow, I would've expected Norway to start in an icy area. Sort of like random and the map seed cooperated with each other to bring you Canada in an icy terrain, for example.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The broken starting biases are a serious and long-standing problem.

I almost exclusively play Rome or Germany so I have’nt noticed

I could see how playing one of the many, many “gimmick” civs and not being able to use your gimmick being frustrating

 

[AntSou]

As an old Civ-player I`m sad to see how the game has gone from facinating to cartoonish. The current version is like a clone
between Civ V & the way too simplified xbox-version but thanks to modders there are still hope

We're in 2022, what's the point of reposting criticisms from 4-6 years ago? This has been discussed time and again. Some people like it, others don't. It is what it is. There's much worse things still present in Civ 6 that deserve being talked about, and among the things that need to be improved upon for Civ 7, none of what you mention should be a priority.

 

[Alaindor]

We're in 2022, what's the point of reposting criticisms from 4-6 years ago? This has been discussed time and again. Some people like it, others don't. It is what it is. There's much worse things still present in Civ 6 that deserve being talked about, and among the things that need to be improved upon for Civ 7, none of what you mention should be a priority.

Free speech? Liberty of opinions? Different sense of what should be the priorities for civ7?

Even though I disagree with the original comment, I feel one should have the freedom of expressing oneself and not be rebuked by another's opinion.

 

[Zaarin]

Even though I disagree with the original comment, I feel one should have the freedom of expressing oneself and not be rebuked by another's opinion.

He did have the freedom to express it and used it, but if one's masculinity is so fragile that it's threatened by colors more vibrant than mud I think that's very fair game to be rebuked for adding nothing useful to the conversation. If all a user is concerned about is changing the art style, I think the rest of the community has the right to urge the developers to ignore them when prioritizing what to change in Civ7. (Plus Civ5 was the odd one out with its socialist realism in the first place; old Civ fans have some serious rose tinted glasses when it comes to what the previous games actually looked like.)

 

[Alaindor]

He did have the freedom to express it and used it, but if one's masculinity is so fragile that it's threatened by colors more vibrant than mud I think that's very fair game to be rebuked for adding nothing useful to the conversation. If all a user is concerned about is changing the art style, I think the rest of the community has the right to urge the developers to ignore them when prioritizing what to change in Civ7. (Plus Civ5 was the odd one out with its socialist realism in the first place; old Civ fans have some serious rose tinted glasses when it comes to what the previous games actually looked like.)

I beg to disagree. The user might be new to the forum and might want to express his own feelings, how would he know this has been discussed countless times before? If as soon as someone is expressing an opinion he gets rebuked because it might have been discussed before, then what is the point of even coming to this forum as after six years, I am sure everything has already been discussed before at one point in time?

Priorities are very up to one's personal's feeling: I myself would want to prioritize having a better AI, but I sure am ready to listen to people having grievances with art styles, historical realism, and so on...

I guess I get tired of having people telling me what I am allowed to say and what I should be allowed to think... sorry about that...

 

[Zaarin]

The user might be new to the forum

"Joined: 2009"

I sure am ready to listen to people having grievances with art styles

I'd be very happy to listen to an intelligent critique of the art style--I have one myself, which is that it's woefully inconsistent--but I have yet to hear a "critique" (more accurately, complaint) that didn't use the words "cartoonish," "childish," or "brightly colored."

I guess I get tired of having people telling me what I am allowed to say and what I should be allowed to think... sorry about that...

No one's being told what they're allowed to say or think, but if you want to shout into the void without any risk of rebuttal you should probably write a blog and disable comments instead. If you post in a public forum, you should expect the possibility that someone might respond and that the response may be negative.

 

[Alaindor]

No one's being told what they're allowed to say or think, but if you want to shout into the void without any risk of rebuttal you should probably write a blog and disable comments instead. If you post in a public forum, you should expect the possibility that someone might respond and that the response may be negative.

Oh well. it wasn't my comment but I felt for the person that made it. There are ways to respond and "what's the point..." just didn't feel right to me. If you can quote a recent post that brought anything new and constructive I'd like to read it. Never mind.