What are your "unpopular" opinions about Civ6?

[Krajzen]

Post things which you think may be in minority or divisive

Mine:
- Gandhi nuke joke is not funny anymore and for a very long time.
- Gandhi and Zulu are both terribly boring at this point and should be removed and replaced by another Indian rulers and African civs in the future, damn tradition. Every time we get ikanda/kraal, impi and hardcore military bias because let'sbe honest, irl Zulu "empire" didn't have much else going on.
- Korea is historically ridiculous choice for series main science-focused civ and really shouldn't get major science bonus.
- I am fine with occasional civs leaders being not exactly rulers such as non independently ruling queens, national heroes, semi-legendary characters etc
- I am apathetic about what particular NativeAmerican civs get into the game, they all seem frankly unimpressive to me and I enjoy any coo ltribe of them as obligatory token representation for Precolombian North Am.
- Georgia is very strong civ. Nah with this one I'm just kidding, it sucks.
- Alexander being separated from Greece and put in his own Macedon civ was genius idea because it liberates Greece from always turning into hardcore military civ because of his personality.
- The game at some hard mode should be an exercise against mere survival till the end, struggle to merely remain standing by 2000s, so the words "can tou stand the test of time" are actually meaningful. Of couese this cannot happen do to casual market enjoying general low difficulty

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

- I don't care about the state of AI, if I can have bit of an adrenaline rush but still win, that's all I care about.

- I don' care who is in, question is, do they have fun gameplay values.

- This game is not mean to be realistic, any claim for it to be so is I think rather silly.

 

[criZp]

Governors and zone of effect buildings are dumb. Cavalry should be one class, not two.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I think the idea of making most units parts of lines that can be upgraded from start to end of game is unduly limiting and results in some odd decisions like spearmen ending up carrying ATGM around.

 

[ZeroSuitSenpai]

Catherine de Medici is the coolest leader in the game, and I'm glad she was chosen to lead France.

 

[BTSeven7]

There is not a human designed system that exists today that you cannot exploit with enough research, effort, and a little crowdsourcing. Yet, somehow people never stop complaning about the AI. Yes, insert comments about how the AI does glaringly obvious X mistake that humans would never do and attach hyperbole about how these glaring mistakes and lack of a Diety challenge caused your dog to runaway, your wife to date her trainer and how it’s the root of modern societies failures.

Unpopular opinion, the AI is fine, progressing and you can enjoy the game.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

1. Sumeria is one of the best designed civs in the game. And because it is by design an Akkadian blob, we do not need and are not going to get Babylon, Assyria, or Akkadia in VI. And frankly I don't want them; would rather have Armenia because ancient Mesopotamia gets boring very quickly in a game that is supposed to be about the entirety of human progress.

2. Rome's design is blobby enough to accommodate an early Byzantine leader. I would rather we just get Theodora for Rome than watch the devs fail again to make a good Byzantium civ, especially with Russia, Poland, Georgia, Hungary, and the Ottomans next door trodding on various points of interest in the region.

3. Nubia is an incredibly redundant civ. The design is generic and I don't think it deserved to be in over Ethiopia, Morocco/Berbers, or anything along the Swahili coast or Bight of Benin.

4. I would rather have the Romani over Romania or Bulgaria. Controversial, but after the Cree, the Mapuche, Scotland, and Kristina, I am hoping the devs continue to push what is "acceptable" for civ. I still doubt the likelihood of Tibet or Israel or even Sakha based on political tensions, but the Romani don't seem to have any specific threat holding them back, so I am hoping on the small chance they are a last stand fudge yeah civ.

5. I think we are more likely to get Ireland and Denmark over Austria. Ireland is notably lacking any representation and is genuinely begged by the addition of Scotland, and Margaret would kick Maria Teresa's ass from here to Prussia. I would even believe Switzerland stands a better sporting chance because of having a clearer, quirkier playstyle.

6. I love Scythia's design, too. A weird hybrid representation of both PIE kurgan culture and the Kazakh nomads, both of which deserved some nods in civ and neither of which supported a strong design by themselves.

7. I think the Russian lavra is pointing toward a Kievan Rus' alternate leader. Given that Olga was the first saint of the Russian Orthodox Church, I strongly think that representing the continuity of Rus-ian identity will be more important to the devs than political propriety. And frankly I'd rather have blobby Kievan representation than none at all.

8. I would prefer Burma over Vietnam. And I would probably not buy any expansion that wasted resources on a stupid dual leader gimmick. There are legitimate reasons for wanting Vietnam in the game, but I think too many are stuck on this weird orientalist fantasy that is the Trung sisters.

9. I support every female leader in the game. Except Amanitore because Nubia. I think they all make sense wholistically and will make even more sense against a finished product when we have Ramesses/Hatshepsut, Empress Cixi, and several other civs/alt leaders included to provide more context. Everyone thought France sucked, but now Eleanore shows that there was a bigger picture in mind.

Moderator Action: Removed language not consistent with rules ----NZ
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[criZp]

There is not a human designed system that exists today that you cannot exploit with enough research, effort, and a little crowdsourcing. Yet, somehow people never stop complaning about the AI.

That's because the AI fails at very basic stuff, and only noobs would be fine with that.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I like playing as Georgia.

I care very little about historial accuracy or muh immersion.

Korea is overrated. Australia is where it's at.

 

[iammaxhailme]

Domination victory is the least fun way to play the game and I wish tier lists didn't focus nearly exclusively on the military.

 

[kb27787]

Warmongering should be so nerfed such that once you take a city in an unjustified war you are pretty much guaranteed to be at perma-war with every other civ in the game except for certain ones (Alex and Gorgo for example).... similar to BNW diplomacy.

Make AI's probability to declare war be actually dependent on diplomatic relations, and give AI lots of bonuses towards military production so they have carpets of units again (similar to BNW)

 

[berlin88]

Some of the civs are in the game simply because the devs wanted to give representation to all regions of the globe, regardless of whether or not that civ actually deserves to be represented.

For example, would be Britain vs the Zulu nation. When Great Britain conquered the regions belonging to the Zulus, the British were an industrialized and technologically advanced nation, having railroads, electricity, modern artillery, etc. While the Zulus on the other hand, were still using medieval era technology, such as spears and shields, with the occasional modern firearm stolen from the British on the battlefield.

 

[MonkeyPaw]

Gandhi nuke joke is not funny anymore and for a very long time.

Everyone thinks this

 

[Imaus]

I'm still not used to hexs but 6 is better than 5 for me. That said, the Eurocentric focus of the series is still apparent. Yes, Europe came out 'on top' in the Renaissance and Industrial eras, and most of the world stood around in an iron age at best when encountered, but other civilizations still existed and could give them some run for their money, and while the game won't go to the future where we see the rest of the world catch up and form their own cultures and hegemonic blocs, we're not trying to accurately remake the whole of history page for page, are we? We can have a China that goes out in 1421 here, or a Babylonia that never fell, or a West African Imperial System that rejected Slavery and opposed the Europeans, when we even have a Earth map to begin with.

Flooding the game with Hungary, Sweden, Poland, Australia, Canada, etal feels like needless filler. Now, maybe those civs should still be coded in, playable, maybe even emergent from 'parent civs' (Eg, Australia, Canada, the USA et al can spawn from England, Poland out of the tribes there, Sweden from the Vikings, Hungary from the Steppe, stuff like that), but we really should give Africa, Asia, and America something. I can think of Mali, Songhai, Ghana, the Ashanti, Dahomey, Kanem-Bornu, Swahili, and maybe a general 'Bantu' civ ontop of that to help fill out Africa alone. The Amazonian civilization, Olmecs, Cakotia, etal can help flesh out America, the Tibetans, Vietnamese, Javanese, Sumatranese, and Dravidiains can help fill out Asia, stuff like that.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

• I don’t find the choice of civilizations to be nearly “Eurocentric” enough. I’d like the decision making process to be weighed in favor of those civilizations which were important to Western history.
• The omission of Israel (and to a much lesser extent, Tibet) from the game can only be due to unconscionable cowardice on the part of Firaxis. Authoritarian regimes and violent extremists should not get a veto on the Art that’s made.
• We need unapologetically villainous leaders, who are depicted as such in the game. Let’s see Stalin, Hitler, and Ho Chi Minh included, and let’s treat Attila and Gengis as the vile scourges they were.
• We don’t need gender parity among leaders. Between “representation” and “iconic,” I’ll take the latter as the deciding factor every time.

 

[Sagax]

- Gandhi nuke joke is not funny anymore and for a very long time.

Everyone thinks this

*Laughs in Firaxis*

 

[berlin88]

I'm still not used to hexs but 6 is better than 5 for me. That said, the Eurocentric focus of the series is still apparent. Yes, Europe came out 'on top' in the Renaissance and Industrial eras, and most of the world stood around in an iron age at best when encountered, but other civilizations still existed and could give them some run for their money, and while the game won't go to the future where we see the rest of the world catch up and form their own cultures and hegemonic blocs, we're not trying to accurately remake the whole of history page for page, are we? We can have a China that goes out in 1421 here, or a Babylonia that never fell, or a West African Imperial System that rejected Slavery and opposed the Europeans, when we even have a Earth map to begin with.

Flooding the game with Hungary, Sweden, Poland, Australia, Canada, etal feels like needless filler. Now, maybe those civs should still be coded in, playable, maybe even emergent from 'parent civs' (Eg, Australia, Canada, the USA et al can spawn from England, Poland out of the tribes there, Sweden from the Vikings, Hungary from the Steppe, stuff like that), but we really should give Africa, Asia, and America something. I can think of Mali, Songhai, Ghana, the Ashanti, Dahomey, Kanem-Bornu, Swahili, and maybe a general 'Bantu' civ ontop of that to help fill out Africa alone. The Amazonian civilization, Olmecs, Cakotia, etal can help flesh out America, the Tibetans, Vietnamese, Javanese, Sumatranese, and Dravidiains can help fill out Asia, stuff like that.

There is one small problem with this analysis. The other countries didn't really catch up technologically. The various colonial empires shared advanced western technology with these countries, which allowed them to acquire things they were otherwise unable to produce locally. The one exception to this, is the far east, where those countries were able to develop advanced R&D programs of their own. In most of the other countries, they rely on imports for heavy machinery, industrial operations and the like. Had the western nations not voluntarily shared their technology, most of the non western world would be decades or even centuries behind the western world in terms of technology.

A perfect example, is the famous scene in Lawrence of Arabia, where the Ottoman Empire launches an airstrike and the defenders have little more then poorly armed rifleman on camels. The Ottoman empire ruled over the middle east for centuries, yet virtually none of the countries they ruled over, developed any industrial capability. The Ottomans themselves had a modern industrial economy, yet they ruled over nations that were nomadic and were comparable to an agrarian society technologically.

 

[Cagarustus]

I like playing as Georgia.

I care very little about historial accuracy or muh immersion.

Korea is overrated. Australia is where it's at.

I gave him a vegimite sandwich... and said: “do you come from a land down under?”

• I don’t find the choice of civilizations to be nearly “Eurocentric” enough. I’d like the decision making process to be weighed in favor of those civilizations which were important to Western history.
• The omission of Israel (and to a much lesser extent, Tibet) from the game can only be due to unconscionable cowardice on the part of Firaxis. Authoritarian regimes and violent extremists should not get a veto on the Art that’s made.
• We need unapologetically villainous leaders, who are depicted as such in the game. Let’s see Stalin, Hitler, and Ho Chi Minh included, and let’s treat Attila and Gengis as the vile scourges they were.
• We don’t need gender parity among leaders. Between “representation” and “iconic,” I’ll take the latter as the deciding factor every time.

No thanks. Brutal dictators shouldn’t get representation in Civ games.

 

[iammaxhailme]

No thanks. Brutal dictators shouldn’t get representation in Civ games.

OK, well there goes half the cast

 

[Morningcalm]

-Civilization as a whole is too Euro/West-centric. This is understandable to some extent due to the nature of the audience for the series (popular in Europe, US, etc) and origin of the series ("Western" developer). But if we're pretending to be about world history as a whole, we should be looking outside of the West. It is problematic to assume civilization began and reached its peak in the West, and thus we should also look for more representation elsewhere.

-Korea's science bonus is justified when given to leaders like Sejong and Seondeok, just as military bonuses for Greece are justified when given to Alexander (even if the Greeks on the whole are more known for their culture, art and philosophy than their military prowess overall, Sparta and Alexander notwithstanding--that honor of military prowess typically is more preeminent for Rome or Mongolia). Every civ has had eras of some scientific preeminence. And I should point out Scotland when led by Robert the Bruce was hardly thinking about propping up a military rebellion with golf courses, let alone about getting cities to be happy to produce more science.)

-I think Russia getting religious bonuses is fine, just not when led by Peter the Great, who thought men were wasted in the Church.

-Gender parity is nice if the female leaders are deserving, but I don't think leaders (male or female) need to be amazing heroes to be in Civ. And let's face it, some "iconic" leaders like Napoleon were hardly flawless (humiliating defeats in Russia, Egypt and elsewhere in his case, and a disappointing return after his first exile). Female leaders like Hatshepsut, Catherine the Great, and so on are worthy inclusions regardless of gender parity. But female leaders like Nur Jahan, Zenobia, Idia, and Lady Six Sky are well over due for inclusion, and there may be others. (I am glad we got Amanitore for Nubia at least, but Amanirenas, a one-eyed kandake who repelled Rome might be an even more worthy inclusion. On a similar note, having done more research on Catherine de' Medici, I've concluded she's a really worthy leader for France, notwithstanding the sexist and racist remarks made about her on YouTube (ironically, she was criticized for being Italian even in her day.))

-The absence of the Maya and Ethiopia in Civ VI is disappointing. (This is my least controversial point in this post.)

-Loyalty mechanic makes little sense historically. Culture flipping needs to be in Civ, but in a different manner.

-Civilization VI needs new menu music for each expansion, and more scenarios.

-Canada and Australia shouldn't have been in Civ, but now that they are in, they are at least....interesting to play. I like the leaders for them as they add quite a bit of flavor.