[GS] What are Civ's dullest mechanics?

[The googles do nothing]

If I can easily get a natural wonder. Reduces the challenge too much. Having to work to get a nw is one of the most enjoyable.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Because cities do not get big unless you give them housing all that late game unhappiness does not kick in.

I think that is the greater issue. There's no real incentive to grow cities large as it did in previous games. It's often a net loss in yields because you're getting more from ecastic and such. So if you're playing properly, you'll probably never encounter unhappiness on a large scale, and growing/housing just becomes a fool's trap.

Incidentally the Democracy nerf (and also the stiff different governments penalty) pretty much means I never see 20 pop cities in GS....

 

[Victoria]

amenities barely matter

Well the difference between -1 and +1 is 10% so think of building the coliseum as +10% everything. It is not to be underestimated as a wonder, and that is ignoring the whopping culture it gives.

I think that is the greater issue. There's no real incentive to grow cities large as it did in previous games

100% sir. I was trying to get at that cities should just balloon to some degree while they have enough food. Tall is not good in 6 and ballooning cities would make amenities and trade for them more important and continuous war a large challenge.

Try and play a game where you win if you get 10 pop 30 cities.it is an eye opener.

Great thread by the way @acluewithout

 

[ChocolateShake]

I think the government/policy card system is too mild. In my opinion they need to be more powerful but in return be punishing to change. I think it was in Civ 2 or 3 where your civ wouldn't make any scientific progress for 5-6 turns each time you changed governments?

I'd have preferred special policy cards to be tied to each government type, with just a few that could be used in each one.

I like having huge population cities, I agree though that it isn't really rewarding in Civ 6. I do prefer that over 5's 4-city civs though.

 

[Jkchart]

I think the government/policy card system is too mild. In my opinion they need to be more powerful but in return be punishing to change. I think it was in Civ 2 or 3 where your civ wouldn't make any scientific progress for 5-6 turns each time you changed governments?

I'd have preferred special policy cards to be tied to each government type, with just a few that could be used in each one.

I like having huge population cities, I agree though that it isn't really rewarding in Civ 6. I do prefer that over 5's 4-city civs though.

IIRC up to Civ IV had this. I also think changing governments and policies should be more punishing and taxing - it isn't easy to do in real life, and we can do it so easily basically at our whim in this game. It only penalizes you for using a government you used previously, but who does that in Civ VI? I certainly don't, and I'm not sure anyone else does.

 

[Victoria]

but who does that in Civ VI?

I do sometimes, and it is punishing enough to often not really make it worth it which is probably why no one does.

 

[Jkchart]

I do sometimes, and it is punishing enough to often not really make it worth it which is probably why no one does.

I had to look up what the effects of anarchy even are in this game and yep, not worth it.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I had to look up what the effects of anarchy even are in this game and yep, not worth it.

Managing the periods of anarchy (=dark ages) was part of the fun of older civ games, for me.

It was also a play balancer, as the penalties for the player can be scaled by difficulty level.

 

[Jkchart]

Managing the periods of anarchy (=dark ages) was part of the fun of older civ games, for me.

It was also a play balancer, as the penalties for the player can be scaled by difficulty level.

And that's fair. I feel like Anarchy was better built into the older versions, so it's not like I'm not used to it. Civ VI just actively discourages you from ever wanting to change your government more than a couple times per game.

 

[kaspergm]

I do sometimes, and it is punishing enough to often not really make it worth it which is probably why no one does.

I did it once, and never again.

I do agree, though, I was never much of a fan of the whole policy card system, it feels too board game for me, but it could work if at least it didn't give you so much incentive to slot in and out cards to have them working for one turn, reap all the benefits, and then slot them out again after use. That's just lame.

 

[Victoria]

and then slot them out again after use

Yes, it is like your civ can change its skin at will, you do not build it with personality.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I do agree, though, I was never much of a fan of the whole policy card system, it feels too board game for me, but it could work if at least it didn't give you so much incentive to slot in and out cards to have them working for one turn, reap all the benefits, and then slot them out again after use. That's just lame.

As a fan of board games, to me it's not board-gamey enough. A key aspect of a successful board game is that decisions have consequences, and you're only presented with choices that impact the remainder of the game. The Civ 6 policy system is mostly a make work project, and it's main redeeming feature is that you can just ignore it, if you're so inclined.

 

[Icicle]

Dullest mechanics:

Religion. It's so tedious. I'm grateful you can ignore it completely.

Happiness. It has so little impact there's almost no point in ever noticing it.

World Council. I was excited for it, but the implementation is just so blah.

I think the government/policy card system is too mild. In my opinion they need to be more powerful but in return be punishing to change. I think it was in Civ 2 or 3 where your civ wouldn't make any scientific progress for 5-6 turns each time you changed governments?

Yes, although if you had the "Religious" trait you changed instantly. But I agree very much, I want government to require more thought and have more drawbacks in exchange for benefits.

 

[acluewithout]

I did it once, and never again.

I do agree, though, I was never much of a fan of the whole policy card system, it feels too board game for me, but it could work if at least it didn't give you so much incentive to slot in and out cards to have them working for one turn, reap all the benefits, and then slot them out again after use. That's just lame.

As a fan of board games, to me it's not board-gamey enough. A key aspect of a successful board game is that decisions have consequences, and you're only presented with choices that impact the remainder of the game. The Civ 6 policy system is mostly a make work project, and it's main redeeming feature is that you can just ignore it, if you're so inclined.

Man. I really like the policy card system, particularly now that FXS is doing a bit more with it eg cards that need tier 3 governments. Interesting decisions, lots of flavour, flexibility but you have to make trade offs. It's awesome.

And I love the Governments (except for tier 4 which... Yeah, need more work). The card system let's you compare between them but they're all still different. Each one is a big jump in power. Their extra abilities are cool and moreso with Legacy Cards.

What's missing? Well... Big picture, I feel like what the whole thing is crying out for is to have something like the Civ V social policy system sitting on top of it, so you keep the flexibility of the current system, but add in some permanent choices too that really shape your society. Just seems like a no-brainer to me - you could have unique policy cards unlocking through social policies along with unique units, buildings and wonders etc.; you're people being happy or unhappy because you've picked a government consistent or at odds with your Ideology.

Little picture? Well. Yeah, switching Governments should hurt more. Maybe just a few rounds of anarchy for any change, based on currently loyalty levels , happiness and or current age. Tier 4 Governments need a rethink - they need to be more of an extension of the tier 3 governments, because currently they're rubbish making you give up democracy's bonuses etc. And FXS could still do more with the policy cards mechanics generally.

On the cards that you only need to slot for one turn. Really, what's the fuss? They're aren't many. You actually need to have pretty good timing to make it work. And ultimately you don't have to do it if you don't want to. The real problem is the Professional Army card. Not because it's a slot for one turn card - because discounts on upgrades is just flat out broken. It's so powerful, and screws with the production value of units, that I really think it can only be in the game as a Civ ablility or Suzerain bonus - not as a card anyone can use.

 

[darkace77450]

I was never much of a fan of the whole policy card system, it feels too board game for me

Alas, I feel that way about many of VI's mechanics. And I say that as an avid fan of board games.

What's missing? Well... Big picture, I feel like what the whole thing is crying out for is to have something like the Civ V social policy system sitting on top of it, so you keep the flexibility of the current system, but add in some permanent choices too that really shape your society.

I think governors were supposed to till that niche. They're too limited in scope to be a true replacement for social policies, but I think that was the intent behind their skill trees.

 

[acluewithout]

I think governors were supposed to till that niche. They're too limited in scope to be a true replacement for social policies, but I think that was the intent behind their skill trees.

Agreed. Indeed, a lot of the previous Social Policy system has been pulled apart and repurposed across different bits of the game - the culture tree and Goverments themselves take some inspiration as do lots of the policy cards.

I still think there's room for a more explicit Social Policy / Ideology system. FXS would have to rework the Governments to be purely focused on "Political Institutions". That would really only impact Tier 3 which might need to get renamed something like Constitutional Monarchy, Republic and Dictatorship. You'd then get a mix of Policy Cards from the Culture Tree and Social Policies.

I actually think something like Ideology and Social / Policies could be a good tool or hook to fix a lot of gaps in Civ VI. For example, Ideologies would be a good hook for improving World Congress (you could have resolutions that effect certain ideologies - or are only available based on what is the dominant Ideology in the game), Colonial Cities, Religion and Conservation / Environment (you could have Social Policies / Ideologies focused on these), better Gov Plaza Buidings, Uniqie Units etc (unlock through Ideology), unit balance (ideology means world wars, which means FXS could take a big look at how units and war work). And, of course, lots could be done with diplomacy and loyalty. Lots of stuff.

Regarding Governors, my view is still that they are a good mechanic. They're just ... boring, somehow. For me it's the same faces every game and the fact I can only take each Govenor once which really forces me to take the same guys every flipping game more or less - it's really only the first three Governor titles where there are any meaningful decisions - do I spend my first three titles on Magnus / Liang, or Pingala, or Amani - and after that, it's basically just a question of whether to drop points into Pingala (if I haven't already) or Reyna (for gold). Governors are all very well balanced and work, but also samey and unimportant. I'm still amazed FXS didn't make them a bit like Great People and you had to compete for them.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I did it once, and never again.

I do agree, though, I was never much of a fan of the whole policy card system, it feels too board game for me, but it could work if at least it didn't give you so much incentive to slot in and out cards to have them working for one turn, reap all the benefits, and then slot them out again after use. That's just lame.

I agree. I really prefer the more solid feeling, permanent, more game changing social policies in Civ V compared to VI's cards, which generally feel like "you have to micro each turn to get the biggest numbers".

With regards to going to old governments... the only times I've ever done this are to go back to Oligarchy if I really want some more strength on my units in a midgame war, or to go back to Theocracy to get some cheaper naturalists lategame.

 

[civviefan]

Agreed that the amenities system is a wasted opportunity. But I love housing as a concept and see potential for a more punishing effect if you ignore both.

For me, religion should be taken away from combat map. What they’ve done is great! But...over time you get bored of moving yet another set of units on the map. It’s also the most immersion breaking (well, actually not if you are of the religious fundamentalist disposition or name your religion ‘flying spaghetti monster’). I think the next Civ should take religion into its own screen (a la great works) with all info gathered there and act as a mini game based on points and direction of influence. Do you spend 10 faith to convert the adjacent friendly city or 100 for the enemy 10 titles away, which will spread your religion in due course?

I think the governors won’t come back, but the idea behind city specialisation is a good one.

 

[acluewithout]

Having so many mechanics tied to units was maybe a misstep in hindsight.

Military units are unavoidable for Civ and are fine. Settlers and builders... well, founding cities and improving land could have been done differently, but it's a Civ game so it's settlers and workers / builders. Again, it's.fine.

Traders? Yeah, it's okay in the early game when you only have three or four and it all feels very silk route. But it feels very silly late game and is a pain to manage.

Religious units? Fine, but feels very silly. Religion reduced to a reductive mini-war game. Great people? Umm. Yeah, quite silly. Immortal writers traversing the map and exploring the globe better than scouts. And so on.

I think I'd rather have had some of these mechanics work more like cards you earn and then spend at some point (eg Newton or Einstein card you "play" and get some bonus, maybe the card has a cartoon picture of the famous great person, rather than great people being a unit that walks around the map until you retire them). Or have more units work like Spies that you assign to cities or functions - that would have worked better for Religion I think - eg assign Missionary to City X and then choose mission.

Anyway. I think the ship has sailed on that one. It's units units and units. Dear me, even a Rock Band unit. It's fine. But often very silly. And very micro.

(Although. On the other hand. Maybe the logic of having all these additional types of units was intended to make sure the map wasn't just totally focused on military units and or to help make more mechanics feel like they play out on the map. I guess we could debate whether that has actually worked, but I can't really fault the desire to want the game to have more of that feel.)

 

[Stilgar08]

I really really love the flexibility you get from the policy system. I agree though that it should be possible to have certain cards only be available under certain governments. I think the legacy cards are a first step in that direction.
The one turn cards are only a problem because cards are so heavily connected to civics forthcoming What about having a limit/timer to keep every used card for at least 3 turns on standard and lock them for, say 8 turns before reuse?

Good but dull mechanic? To me it's the ages system I can't remember if I ever even had a dark age. It generally needs more teeth. And maybe some sort of legacy, too...