Thoughts on Civ 6 from a Civ 1 Player

[Trace_of_Christ]

Hi all, I have to agree that with that Civ 6 just might be the worst Civ game ever created. I have been playing Civilization since it first came out on the SNES. I was around 8 years old at the time. I have played every Civilization game when they come out and have been hooked on every single one of them, including Civ 6: R&F. However, this game has changed drastically over the years and I don't mean just the graphics, and unfortunately I believe other than the graphics it has been for the worse. My main gripe is Civ 6 is not nearly as enjoyable as its predecessors. Here are my thoughts on why and possible changes that could really help me enjoy this game once again. Mind you I'm playing on Prince level, Epic rate, standard maps on Continents.

First off, I feel like I am getting ripped off by the AI in this game. Mainly instead of the AI being smarter and better at strategy, I feel they just have way too many bonuses/advantages over human player. For example, lets start with religion. The always in my games have the first religion thru construction of the Stonehenge, which they complete by 2800BC or so. Then here come their missionaries/apostles swarming my cities, converting the two or three if I'm lucky, to their religion which unless you start working on Holy Sites almost first thing good luck trying to suppress the spread of their religion or even found/spread your own. Once they have dominance over every city you have you can never get out of it. I wouldn't mind so much their religious crusades if there was a defense to it, whether to prevent it or to eventually convert my cities to my own religion. But it seems we are forced to play to their hand or just ignore them and let them convert the world. Horrible programming IMO. Never had this problem in any prior Civs. POSSIBLE FIXES: Reprogram the AI so they don't ALWAYS build a Stonehenge and THEN swarm the world with their religious units (all the while they are able to found cities, build armies and wonders all at the same time) OR institute a way for us to defend against their religious units or deny them access into our borders.

Secondly, Diplomacy has become a joke in Civ 6. If your Civilization is doing well, the AI despises us human players. So much so I am constantly getting teamed up by them before the ancient era is even over with. I am always getting denounced, if I'm not at war with every other civilization on my continent. I do not place cities by their borders, always avoiding the negative loyalty spaces one sees when the settler unit is active. In fact I just ignore the AI unless they wage war on me or try to make a deal with me. And speaking of making deals, they ALWAYS want you to give them what they want while offering you next to nothing. This makes them stupid IMO instead of offering you something equally important they offer open borders and two to four gold per turn when asking for a resource, whether it be a luxury or strategic resource they desperately need apparently, but don't want to give you jack for it. Refuse, and they are mad if they weren't already mad before that is. Point is I do nothing to offend them but yet I am hated, simply because I am the human player.

Thirdly, lets talk about War, specifically 'warmongering'. They declare war on me, pillage my improvements, attack my cities, I defend them off. Then I go on the offensive, and NOW every known civilization labels me a warmongerer. If I am the defender, whether I destroy their units or capture a city, I SHOULD NEVER be labeled the warmonger when I am the defender!

All this makes me feel the way I did when I was playing Madden 25 on All-Madden difficulty. They never won by being smarter, like calling the right or best plays, or finding the open receiver. They won bc of that one fumble right before you were about to break the tie that they run back for a touchdown. Or when you see one of their defenders do the humanly impossible such as when you see their cornerback 'glide' from the right sideline all the way to the left sideling within one second to intercept the ball and go out of bounds, then kick a field goal to break the tie. This is how I feel the AI in Civ 6 balances out the bad programming such as their stupidity. They win by cheating, not by being smarter. Please fix, for there has never been a Civ that I felt even the slightest bit disgusted with like I do this one.

Oh, and one last thing...do something about the eternal Information Age, specifically the fact that whatever age you enter in to when the Information Age begins, that's the one your stuck in. Was never a problem in any other Civs prior, and all you have to do is make every 50 or 100 years thereafter a new age, and call them Future Age 1, Future Age 2, and so on. And why don't I get era point bonuses from dedications when I'm in a golden age? Last time I had to get 40 era points just not to be in the dark ages before the Info Age hits, all without era point dedication bonuses resulting in the eternal dark age I get once the information age hits every darn time.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

First off, I feel like I am getting ripped off by the AI in this game. Mainly instead of the AI being smarter and better at strategy, I feel they just have way too many bonuses/advantages over human player. For example, lets start with religion. The always in my games have the first religion thru construction of the Stonehenge, which they complete by 2800BC or so. Then here come their missionaries/apostles swarming my cities, converting the two or three if I'm lucky, to their religion which unless you start working on Holy Sites almost first thing good luck trying to suppress the spread of their religion or even found/spread your own. Once they have dominance over every city you have you can never get out of it. I wouldn't mind so much their religious crusades if there was a defense to it, whether to prevent it or to eventually convert my cities to my own religion. But it seems we are forced to play to their hand or just ignore them and let them convert the world. Horrible programming IMO. Never had this problem in any prior Civs. POSSIBLE FIXES: Reprogram the AI so they don't ALWAYS build a Stonehenge and THEN swarm the world with their religious units (all the while they are able to found cities, build armies and wonders all at the same time) OR institute a way for us to defend against their religious units or deny them access into our borders.

If you are playing on Prince difficulty then your initial complaint does not apply. The AI receives no bonuses at that difficulty level; not in production, nor in combat strength, nor in settler spawn numbers and so on. If you played on higher difficulties I'd agree this complaint is sound because it's true, but since you mentioned you play on this specific difficulty level, then this doesn't apply to you.

Not all civs have a religion focus, so not every civ rushes Stonehenge. But even if they did (and several of them in fact do), that's just called strategy. The AI wants to play a religion-based game and there's nothing wrong with that. It's definitely annoying, but so would a human player trying to do the same.

There are 2 ways to get out of an opponent religion: a) You wait until another AI player starts trying to convert you which usually prevents AI religious victory or b) if you have not yet founded a religion, you go for it and found it in one of your converted cities, instantly converting it to 100% to your new religion so you can continue from there.

If you have already founded a religion and the AI suppressed it, then I suppose your opponent simply paid more attention and invested more in religion, so it's a fair win there.

And the reason why this was not a problem in previous Civ games is because there was no religious victory condition. I think it's quite obvious that in a game where you can actually win by religious conversion, the AI would be programmed to seek that.

Secondly, Diplomacy has become a joke in Civ 6. If your Civilization is doing well, the AI despises us human players. So much so I am constantly getting teamed up by them before the ancient era is even over with. I am always getting denounced, if I'm not at war with every other civilization on my continent. I do not place cities by their borders, always avoiding the negative loyalty spaces one sees when the settler unit is active. In fact I just ignore the AI unless they wage war on me or try to make a deal with me.

Civ VI diplomacy is in fact very shallow, but the problem you are invoking isn't absolute. The reasons why you could be denounced vary depending on the AI leader agendas (the permanent one plus the hidden one). You winning as early as ancient era is mechanically impossible to be the reason they denounce you, there is simply no agenda for that to happen. They may dislike you for a lot of things; gold income, government type, population etc. If you do ignore the AI as you mention, then no wonder that at some point they would find something for some of them to get agitated. If you don't approach them with diplomacy to make them friendly (which is entirely possible), then you are coin-flipping about who is going to try to attack you next.

Denunciations by distant civs are also often connected to AI alliances and friendships. If they are planning to have a joint war against you, then they will both denounce you.

Thirdly, lets talk about War, specifically 'warmongering'. They declare war on me, pillage my improvements, attack my cities, I defend them off. Then I go on the offensive, and NOW every known civilization labels me a warmongerer. If I am the defender, whether I destroy their units or capture a city, I SHOULD NEVER be labeled the warmonger when I am the defender!

That just sounds like a personal disagreement. I would wager that using a defensive war as a pretext to permanently capture enemy cities is a good enough justification to be accused of warmongering. It's the same gameplay-wise as using a Liberation or Reconquest casus belli to capture enemy cities that never belonged to anyone else. The war goal is not to expand, so if you do you will have repercussions.

This is more or less the same with other, much more complex strategy games; in EU4 you receive significantly less AE if you have a Reconquest CB, but you still suffer AE in some form. If they attack you and you take provinces from them at the end of the war, you suffer AE regardless. If being on the defensive was a safe haven of conquest, then it would be extremely exploitable, especially against the Civ VI AI that can't compete in combat even if its life depended on it.

This is how I feel the AI in Civ 6 balances out the bad programming such as their stupidity. They win by cheating, not by being smarter.

True, but not on your difficulty level. You should not be encountering any handicaps of this manner if you play on Prince.

And why don't I get era point bonuses from dedications when I'm in a golden age?

Because the game doesn't want to let you have a perma-golden age and makes it harder for you to accumulate era points? I think that's a very reasonable balancing option. Golden age dedications are better anyway, the non-golden age ones are simply geared so you can get to a golden/heroic age more easily.

 

[Trace_of_Christ]

If you are playing on Prince difficulty then your initial complaint does not apply. The AI receives no bonuses at that difficulty level; not in production, nor in combat strength, nor in settler spawn numbers and so on. If you played on higher difficulties I'd agree this complaint is sound because it's true, but since you mentioned you play on this specific difficulty level, then this doesn't apply to you.

Not all civs have a religion focus, so not every civ rushes Stonehenge. But even if they did (and several of them in fact do), that's just called strategy. The AI wants to play a religion-based game and there's nothing wrong with that. It's definitely annoying, but so would a human player trying to do the same.

There are 2 ways to get out of an opponent religion: a) You wait until another AI player starts trying to convert you which usually prevents AI religious victory or b) if you have not yet founded a religion, you go for it and found it in one of your converted cities, instantly converting it to 100% to your new religion so you can continue from there.

If you have already founded a religion and the AI suppressed it, then I suppose your opponent simply paid more attention and invested more in religion, so it's a fair win there.

And the reason why this was not a problem in previous Civ games is because there was no religious victory condition. I think it's quite obvious that in a game where you can actually win by religious conversion, the AI would be programmed to seek that.



Civ VI diplomacy is in fact very shallow, but the problem you are invoking isn't absolute. The reasons why you could be denounced vary depending on the AI leader agendas (the permanent one plus the hidden one). You winning as early as ancient era is mechanically impossible to be the reason they denounce you, there is simply no agenda for that to happen. They may dislike you for a lot of things; gold income, government type, population etc. If you do ignore the AI as you mention, then no wonder that at some point they would find something for some of them to get agitated. If you don't approach them with diplomacy to make them friendly (which is entirely possible), then you are coin-flipping about who is going to try to attack you next.

Denunciations by distant civs are also often connected to AI alliances and friendships. If they are planning to have a joint war against you, then they will both denounce you.



That just sounds like a personal disagreement. I would wager that using a defensive war as a pretext to permanently capture enemy cities is a good enough justification to be accused of warmongering. It's the same gameplay-wise as using a Liberation or Reconquest casus belli to capture enemy cities that never belonged to anyone else. The war goal is not to expand, so if you do you will have repercussions.

This is more or less the same with other, much more complex strategy games; in EU4 you receive significantly less AE if you have a Reconquest CB, but you still suffer AE in some form. If they attack you and you take provinces from them at the end of the war, you suffer AE regardless. If being on the defensive was a safe haven of conquest, then it would be extremely exploitable, especially against the Civ VI AI that can't compete in combat even if its life depended on it.



True, but not on your difficulty level. You should not be encountering any handicaps of this manner if you play on Prince.



Because the game doesn't want to let you have a perma-golden age and makes it harder for you to accumulate era points? I think that's a very reasonable balancing option. Golden age dedications are better anyway, the non-golden age ones are simply geared so you can get to a golden/heroic age more easily.

 

[Trace_of_Christ]

Wow, completely missed my points, and I'm not about to clarify them since i know what I'm talking about, I've played every civ game since the first one, hundreds if not thousands of hours in each one. Point is this game has some quirks that were not as such in previous civ games. This is not an arguments thread , simply stating what makes this game less enjoyable in certain ways compared to previous civs. Regardless, of your points, it makes it no more enjoyable

 

[Xmonger]

I've also been playing since Civ I, though I was more mature than you at that time, and to me Civ VI is clearly the best of all the Civ games. Every one in fact has been better than the previous, and every one has had a legion of players who said the previous game was so much better. I think it's unwillingness to change and see the new game on it's own, which is easy since people invest many hours in the old game.

Your post is pointless though, who cares? If you don't like, don't play, and don't bother us with your self proclaimed expert opinion.

 

[Trace_of_Christ]

The point of the post was to point out the issues with this game, for the devs not for people who want to argue. For example, whats the point of diplomacy when the AI is always offering bad deals? Why have it? Its as easy for you not to read my post or reply. Also, never claimed to be an expert, just claimed to have experience in the series, hence that adds validity to my post bc I have seen the game change, and I too have loved every single one of them, including civ 6. But there are concepts in this game that needs some overhaul. If you had paid attention to what you read you would have saw that in my post. I enjoy the game and the concepts, but the need improving, plain and simple. Is this site full of trolls? Btw, there are tons of reddits and other posts that state the same