1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

What are your "unpopular" opinions about Civ6?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Krajzen, Feb 24, 2019.

  1. iammaxhailme

    iammaxhailme Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2015
    Messages:
    965
    I don't have a problem with Hitler being in the game for ethical reasons (of cousre he was terrible, but having terrible people in historical games is fine. History is full of terrible people) but Stalin and Mao essentially created their nation (Stalin was at least one of Lenin's right hand men). Hitler basically ended his.

    For the person who said he's too recent, though... he was only born a few years after Wilhelmina, only shortly after Gandhi, and Hailie Selassie was born more recently than Hitler. I believe Selassie is the most recently-born leader in Civ V and Wilhelmina is that in VI. Although I would argue that India and the Netherlands would be better represented by somebody farther back in history (as would Germany... not sure about Ethiopia). But Firaxis have shown willingness to have somewhat-recent leaders
     
    Elhoim likes this.
  2. InDubioProReo

    InDubioProReo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    222
    VI is more fun and more detailed than V; but V is the better game.
     
    Fluphen Azine and Kevin J like this.
  3. Balerune

    Balerune Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    371
    Make it Bismark and end the discussion. (Unless you want to dig up a Holy Roman Emperor.)
     
  4. achiafo

    achiafo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2016
    Messages:
    17
    Here's one. The world builder is NOT a modding tool, and should be considered a core component of the base game.
     
    j51 likes this.
  5. God of Kings

    God of Kings Ruler of all heads of state

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,184
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Bismarck led Germany in Civ V and a Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa, leads Germany in Civ VI.
     
    Weraptor likes this.
  6. ThunderLizard2

    ThunderLizard2 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    127
    And Civ IV > Civ 5 even with Vox Populi
     
    MrRadar and Fluphen Azine like this.
  7. youngsteve

    youngsteve Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England
    By some. I am sure the 10's of millions of dead victims & their families don't feel so magnanimous. In 20-30 years times all three will be historical characters like Genghis Khan, Napoleon & the other butchers, as everyone around at the time will be dead. I would rather none of the thee were in the game, or any other relatively modern characters, but if one is allowed then all should be.
     
  8. Solomonic Wisdom

    Solomonic Wisdom Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2018
    Messages:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Holy Roman Empire
    Napoleon started war but did not turn on specific groups of the population with the aim to eliminate them. From may point of view, this is a crucial difference. Unpopular opinion: This is also why Catherine de Medici should not be in the game, as much as I like the design in terms of gameplay. Louis XIV would have been a good choice Henri IV would have been an excellent brave choice.
     
    j51 likes this.
  9. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2,241
    Location:
    UK
    As a modder and programmer myself, do you mind explaining this one? No sweat if you don't, the thread's here for this :D
     
  10. iammaxhailme

    iammaxhailme Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2015
    Messages:
    965
    I guess if we're going to have a civ 5 version of unpopular opinions, I don't really like VP. I prefer NQmod or unmodded tbh. I'm not really sure why, I just never found myself having fun with VP
     
  11. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    10,925
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Speaking of unpopular opinions, I don't like a lot of mods. Most of them cause issues with my game. Still always on the lookout for the perfect mod though. Map mods are always appreciated of course.
     
  12. Red_warning

    Red_warning Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2013
    Messages:
    267
    Location:
    Lappland, Sweden
    I'm not so sure about Mao, people are not allowed to have opinions of their own on that man in China, but as I understand it Stalin is actually gaining in popularity in Russia. Of course, the feelings in neighbouring ex-soviet states are quite the opposite of that.
     
  13. ThunderLizard2

    ThunderLizard2 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    127
    The main thing I like about VP is it makes the AI at least not be totally idiotic. The AI was NEVER fixed by Firaxis in Civ V. Don't know NQmod - does it also fix AI?
     
  14. viper_1986_1986

    viper_1986_1986 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    114
    - Online speed is the worst thing to happen to the game
    - Turnless (started in CIV3 PTW) and now simu turn is the worst thing
    - The new play by cloud is the best thing to happen to the game

    and now with the newst DLC, the default UI isn't THAT bad...
     
  15. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,959
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Okay, here's my Case of Opinionitis Malus:
    1. All the effort they put into the Atomic/Information/Future Eras is a complete waste. First, because the game is almost always over by then unless you damp down everything but Science Victory and second, because nobody in Firaxis knows how war is and has been waged for the past 30 years and so still doesn't understand the Information Era and probable Future Era military.
    2. Immortal Leaders simply Stifle any Civ that has been around for more than 30 years. That's why there are dozens of Mods that are simply Alternative Leaders. How about a way of playing an Alternative Civ to the strait-jacketed stifled Civ you get in the base game?
    2a. As in, if I start England in the middle of the Dorsetshire Desert why in the name of Python, Monty would I bother to develop Royal Naval Dockyards? Why can't I develop my English desert Maryannu Chariiots with Longbows?
    3. The cartoony animations of the units hurt my eyes to watch, and get really, really, really aggravating after about 1 repetition each.
    4. The Tech Tree and Civics Trees are both too linear, too simplified, and still too independent of In-Game Events.
    4a. As in, why can't I have a Native American Civ that develops a completely different form of agriculture like planting a jungle or cultivating the Forest instead of same ol' grain-planting ox-hauled plowed fields?
    5. Animated Leaders of any kind are neat about twice. By the third iteration of the game they are a waste of playing time.
    6. After 6 tries, Civ still doesn't allow me to do all the things that real Humanity has done to the landscape or have to deal with real historical Climate/Terrain change: where are the barren hills denuded of trees, the open pit mines, the silted up ports (Scarborough in Medieval England - Climate Change is Not Just Now) or the carefully planted oak forests of Spain and California?
    7. Alpha Centauri was and is the best Civ-Type Game, and amazingly everybody in the Game Design World seems to have forgotten about all the things it did well that they haven't done as well since.
    8. And, finally, the only thing I really miss from Civ 2 is Elvis as a Culture Advisor. That was Inspired. . .
     
  16. Abaxial

    Abaxial Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2017
    Messages:
    331
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, but this has always been the way with 4X-type games. There are four phases:

    Initial expansion
    Crisis (you meet the AI)
    Domination
    Mop-up

    If you get past phase two, you win. Been true since Empire onwards.

    So true! Really a bad decision, that.
    Agreed - I keep it turned off.
     
    MisterBoomBoom likes this.
  17. berlin88

    berlin88 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    71
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    I am now currently playing my first game of Gathering Storm, and it has been interesting to say the least.

    I am doing an 8 player continents map as Australia against 7 AI civs. The AI civs are Canada, Scythia, America, Germany, Hungary, Norway and Scotland. Aside from Scotland settling one of its forward cities in a spot where I wanted to place a city, the game was going reasonably well until the year 1800 or so.

    Around the year 1800, things quickly went south, when disaster struck. First, I got hit by flooding that damaged several districts / farms and cost me 3 musketeers and 1 worker, then tornados ripped through two additional cities and damaged multiple industrial and scientific districts. To make matters even worse, I then had Norway declare war on me, while also getting a notification that a hurricane is approaching my coastal city of Sydney. Talk about bad luck, three cities get hit hard by natural disasters and then Norway declares war on me. I have to repair all the damaged districts, while also trying to building more units to fend off Norway's attack. The only good news, is that Scythia and Scotland declared war on Norway and may come to my aid.

    My general city approach, is to build the capital city and then surround it by 6 additional cities, each spaced 4-6 tiles from the capital city. That has generally served me well in most games, but with the addition of natural disasters in Gathering Storm, I may have to rethink this approach. In my current game, I was only able to build 5 additional cities, as Scotland blocked me from building the 6th city.
     
  18. isau

    isau Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,049
    The most disappointing thing about Civ 6 is if you make a mod to give Paradrop to a strange unit like Siege units or Settlers, the AI won't use it. :( What could have been.
     
  19. InDubioProReo

    InDubioProReo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    222
    V had paratroopers, I assume Spec Ops does the same in VI? Or am I wrong? I think V had better units overall tbh.
     
    Sostratus likes this.
  20. Sostratus

    Sostratus Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    1,130
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Spec ops indeed do the paradrop.

    I think 5 had much better pacing overall, and so having a full unit roster (most lines had upgrades most eras) worked flawlessly. Only the Great War Infantry and the Longswordsman really struggled to see combat, but that was more a specific case of the tech tree allowing beelines it maybe shouldn't have.

    In 6, they thought having fewer units overall would help highlight the importance of UUs; but this is a logical fallacy.* The real culprit behind units "not having enough time to shine" is game pacing and flow.
    *It seems appealing at first glance, but the problem is that it only works if every unit line has gaps in the same spot. But that would make the game feel incomplete. They also originally wanted players to vary their army by staggering upgrades, which negates this whole idea. Again, you can have time to shine, varied forces, and full unit trees if you just pace the game properly.

    Here's an example: Legions exist. Legions are very strong against classical units. Suppose I suggested we create Longswordsmen in the medieval era, 45 strength units, for all civs. The gut reaction of some would be that this would make the legion less useful, because we won't use the legion in the medieval era!!
    That's the fallacy. In the medieval era, legions have to fight knights and crossbows anyways; offering the Roman player the option to upgrade his troops into longswords when he needs to beat off knights, or keep them unupgraded if he's just chewing up pikes etc, makes the unit itself more useful, not less.
    Look at the new Cuirassier unit. Before, knights went straight to tanks. Doesn't that mean knights and knight UUs had 3 eras to shine on the field? Of course not - by renaissance they were waning because other units, like Pike and Shot, got upgrades. Just because unit line A doesn't upgrade in Era X does not mean the other lines don't. Because of that, any given unit has a clock on its useful life of about 1.5 eras maximum. You don't need every hole filled, but the vanilla roster had a ton of gaps, and it was bad for the game overall.
     

Share This Page