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. Mr. Shadows

    Mr. Shadows Nomad of the time streams

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2015
    Messages:
    537
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Incheon, R.O.K.
    My point is that in Civ V the AI was capable of winning some fairly early SVs. It was still brain-dead tactically and built useless Caravansaries in every city but it's bonuses and decision making were good enough to win decisively, sometimes in less than 200 turns. I remember losing a couple nail-biters late in the game at Immortal and Deity in V because I was too slow. It's hard to imagine that happening in the current iteration.
     
  2. isau

    isau Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,048
    V did have better unit pacing IMO but what I do not miss about V at all is the Archer/Crossbow city rush.

    I do think Civ designers need to hire a person with experience making actual tactical games. Some of what was forgiveable in V, the first tactical game, is extremely frustrating to still exist in VI. Like how is there no status effect system with poison, stuns, immobilizes, etc to make combat interesting? Huge missed opportunity.
     
  3. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,886
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Opinions Number 2: Tactical

    What Civ designers need is someone who understands historical warfare at the tactical/operational level. NOT the popular conceptions, which are almost all muddleheaded, ignorant, politically expedient, or just flat wrong, but the actual events and effects. Then we might just begin to get 'combat' in Civ games that is combat (and combat units) instead of fantasy wish-fulfillment.

    For starters:
    Pikes are not anti-cavalry defensive weapons, they are Attack Weapons against anybody dumb enough to stand in their way. Opponents from the Romans to the Renaissance said the same thing: if a pike phalanx is charging at you and you don't have another pike phalanx to oppose it, Get Out Of The Way Or Die. They also happen to be pretty good against cavalry, but being infantry in front of them doesn't do a thing to save your butt when the pointy ends are all pointed at you.
    Muskets/Musketmen were NEVER separate units: within 25 years (about 2 - 5 turns in Civ Time) after the first reasonably reliable hand weapon (arquebus) appeared, the first unit combining muskets and pikes (and halbards and crossbows, to be completely accurate) appeared. The hoary old Civ Staple Musketman needs to be retired.
    At Civ scale, Machine-guns, Antitank Rockets, Mortars, and all the other Modern Era silliness are not separate weapons, either. The machine-gun was integrated into infantry right down to battalion level at the beginning of World War One in all European armies, and down to company level by the end of the war, with lighter machine-guns down to platoon or squad. Mortars were down to battalion/company level, and man-carried antitank rockets when they first appeared were issued down to battalion or even platoon level. If you seriously think that the Civ VI Infantry unit represents a company with separate machine-gun, antitank and mortar units, then I don't know what game you are playing in your head, but it ain't a strategic game covering 6000 years of history/fantasy.
    Great Generals do not add a few combat points to units, they make it possible for units and an Army to do things that the other army Cannot Do. And that ranges from being better organized, like Napoleon's Corps de Armee, to attacking or defending more effectively, like anybody led by George Thomas, Narses, or Rommel, to moving faster and over terrain considered impossible, like Suvorov or Alexander. Great Generals should have both more variety and be far, far more dangerous and unpredictable. Imagine yourself a Darius going up against Alexander, or 'the unfortunate General Mack' against Napoleon I, and you get an idea of how dangerous.

    Units are not the same in all Civilizations.
    2 Cases in point:
    Cavalry. It is very expensive to raise and maintain, cavalrymen have to spend a lot of time on their horses even in peacetime to keep man and horse well trained enough to go to war. Therefore, all civilizations rely on men on foot for most of their army. Except those 'civilizations' composed of men (and women) who spend all their time on horseback in the course of their normal daily lives. For them, light cavalry, at least, is dirt cheap and easy to raise in hordes (literally, the root word of 'horde' means 10,000 horsemen). This includes such Civ staples as the Mongols, Lakotah/Souix and Turks (at least at first) and such 'newcomers' as the Huns and Scythians, and such 'outliers' as the Khazars, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Commanche, Xiongh-nu and anybody else with broad plains around them and horses in the distances. Hungary and Poland fall into this category for much of their existence, as well: the Austro-Hungarian Empire originally had a special term for Hungarian Infantry: 'Heyduken', because the standard Hungarian warrior/solder was on horseback - the original Hussari, among other types.

    2nd Case: "Standard' infantry. In most Civilizations in most times, it was the peasant farmer with whatever weapons he could scrounge: a spear, a converted hoe, flail, or axe, a sling. But, some civilizations made a point that those who wanted a say in the state had to defend it (this concept may date all the way back to the original Indo-Europeans), so in a number of Civs, the 'standard' was pretty high: armored Hoplite spearmen in Classical Greece, the Centuries of armored spearmen and swordsmen of early Republican Rome, the ferocious spearmen and swordsmen of Classical Gaul and Germany.
    Which means that the Civ design of a few 'standard' units all costing the same and acting the same and the occasional Unique Unit is Bass-Ackwards: Most Civs had Standard Units that were unique in one way or the other, if in no other way than in the cost to the Civ to form the units and to lose them from their 'economy'.
    Almost every unique unit in the game is not, in fact, Unique:
    The Redcoat was originally modeled on the Dutch infantry of the 1680s, then adapted its tactics based on t he American Experience in the American Revolution. Dutch, Prussian, and the infantry of the new United States were all virtually identical in their tactical methods - the relative effectiveness was a product of training and leadership of individuals ideal units, not the language they were speaking or the country they came from.
    Hussars were only originally Hungarian, by the middle of the 18th century every army in Europe had them, and frankly the best of them were Prussian and French, not Hungarian.
    Phoenicians may have invented the Bireme and the Trireme, but the Classical Greeks adopted both and, it can be argued, perfected the trireme ramming style of naval warfare.

    and so on and on ...

    **END RANT** *RESUME NORMAL AT T-MINUS THREE, TWO, ONE*...
     
    Krajzen, Kjimmet, Uberfrog and 3 others like this.
  4. _hero_

    _hero_ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    671
    • I couldn't care less about graphics. The long loading times make me not even bother playing the game somedays.
    • I prefer civs being less unique with only minor differences such as it was in IV. The over emphasis on uniqueness limits the amount of leaders the devs can realistically add to the game.
    • The tech tree is not too fast in civ 6. Instead, humans irl have been far too slow to advance due to all sorts of poor choices and set backs.
    • Going along with that: Civ games have always been far too lenient in terms of set backs. Disasters should be able to completely wipe cities out in the earlier eras. Political turmoil causing serious internal setbacks should be a thing. Military should have a real population cost and there should be actual casualties on both sides in every engagement instead of a health bar.
    • It isn't so much an issue of the AI being bad as it is the mechanics of the game being stupid and the only reason the AI seems easier in 6 than previous versions is because the bonuses they get on higher difficulties aren't as strong as they were in previous civ games. If the AI was actually good in those games, it wouldn't have needed bonuses.
    • Therefore, the AI is inherently unfixable in civ 6. They can make the game harder only by giving the AI better bonuses, but this simply limits playstyle by closing off more and more avenues to victory. That's not "fixing" the AI, it's simply making the game less fun.
     
  5. Arilian

    Arilian Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    662
    Location:
    Hungary
    loading and turn times are more important than graphics indeed.
    also animations - who plays with them? a waste of development resource...
     
  6. Stilgar08

    Stilgar08 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,427
    Location:
    Zeven, Germany (Lower Saxony ;)
    I do. And I like it and won't say sorry! :p
     
  7. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    10,870
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    All the time, even on my slow computer I was running this game with for 2 years. I need my chair kicking. It's why I had to figure out what was causing the stutter in my animations in the diplomacy screen (the culprit was the bypass line that bypasses the game launcher). It's not a satisfying game until Mvemba throws his staff down on the ground.
     
  8. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    I have a suspicion of what your problem was with the bypass command. You are playing on Win 10, correct? If so, Win 10 is DX12, so when you launch from the launcher, you probably select DX12, right? Thus, if you copied my line to bypass the launcher as it is, that line is meant for DX11. In the same thread, there is an instruction to use the same command but for DX12 (a very small change in the line). If you still are willing to try, you could try that, or live with the stupid launcher, your call.
     
  9. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    10,870
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Not sure, I did add DX12 at the end. Was it suppose to have those quotation marks at the beginning? that seemed strange to me, but it worked, as in being able to play the game, and did bypass the launcher. I haven't had issues with the launcher on my new computer (just my old one had problems a couple of times).
     
  10. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    Only thing that makes sense in your scenario is for the game to run on Win10 but with DX11 and something not liking it. Otherwise, it does not make any sense whatsoever for the bypass to affect your rendering of diplo scenes.
     
  11. Jewelrunna

    Jewelrunna Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Messages:
    182
    Gender:
    Male
    Pretty much every one of these threads just turns into "my opinions on the game" since everyone likes to think their opinions are valid and unique, so I'm just going to drop the pretense and share my thoughts, positive and negative:

    Positives
    • The uniqueness of each Civ is a major plus for the franchise. 4X games in general are moving in a direction where every playable faction is drastically different from each other, whether you're looking at Endless Space, Endless Legend, Stellaris, among others. This is generally a positive, since each faction provides a radically different playstyle, but can make entry into the game difficult for new players to understand. Civ VI strikes a very nice balance in this regard. There are a lot of commonalities between the Civs, but enough of a difference to make each Civ feel different in a satisfying way. While every game is going to have a specific metagame, and in an asymmetrically balanced game some Civs while simply fit that meta better than others, each Civ should be able to more or less hang through balancing. (But we'll get to balancing later).
    • The focus on the map is a major improvement for the game over Civ V. In the previous iteration, all you really cared about was nearby luxuries, and maybe if there's enough bonus resources. Here, where you settle really determines how good your city will be, what districts you can build, and etc. It introduces a lot of important decisions to be made in a game, which makes for far more engaging game play in my opinion.
    • I love how wonders in Civ VI are more situational than they have ever been before. The map (there it is again) really decides what wonders you're going to build, and if you want a specific wonder, you have to play around it. Now, some of the best wonders in the game are pretty generalist (Big Ben, Forbidden City, Eiffel Tower, Colosseum, etc.) and I kind of wish that these were more difficult to build too. Maybe Big Ben would have to be built adjacent to a Commercial Hub and City Center. Idk, just some ideas I'm throwing out there.
    • One-unit-per-tile is one of the best changes the Civilization franchise has ever made, same with the hexes over squares. The devs are just horrible at balancing this, but more on that later.
    • City-States having specific bonuses is a really great change, and adds greater variance for each playthrough.
    • Like above, Great People having specific bonuses is great.
    • Since Gathering Storm, I personally have had great experiences with the map generator. I know some people have had problems with start biases and city-state placement (and I have had some struggles with Canada), I've mostly had good experiences. Outside Canada (and there might be overall less tundra in the game, but that's just based on anecdotal evidence) I've had good start biases, good city-state placement, and continents/mountain ranges/etc. have been fine. The only problem is that I've found some strategic resources, specifically coal, to just concentrate in one area, which can really slow down progression in the industrial era. This can probably be tuned though.
    • Natural disasters are great additions, and I want more pseudo-random events. Population booms, plagues, economic crashes, more disasters like Earthquakes and Tsunamis, etc. I just want more to spice up gameplay. As long as they're pseudo-randomly generated so there's some consistency and not complete random number generator BS, along with the option to turn these down, I would like more.
    Negatives (I'm going to probably come across more negative than positive about the game, and that's not my intent. Civ VI is actually my favorite game in the franchise, as someone who's played since Civ IV, just because of diversity of gameplay and the importance of the map. However, I'm going to go in pretty hard on Civ VI because I think these are all problems that really limit the enjoyment of the game but are also all quite fixable.)
    • The tech tree moves way too fast. This is problematic not only because units and buildings get phased out pretty quickly, but because of the inclusion of the eras system. Because you (and more importantly, the AI) tech so fast, each era is much shorter than they probably should be. For era scores that are specific to a certain era, like constructing wonders, this starts to feel pretty bad. The civic tree, from my experience, is more or less fine. Just tune the tech costs/science generation a wee bit.
    • Tying in with the above point, production is too scarce a resource and production costs are way too high. By the time you can field a certain unit or wonder, it's already obsolete. In Civ V, you really feel like your cities are powerhouses once they get going. In Civ VI, your cities feel anemic and struggle to get anything done. Either include more ways to get production (new buildings, better specialists, have population give a scaling amount of production) or tone down the production cost of everything. This is probably my second biggest complaint about the game.
    • The unit progression tree and overall unit balance is egregiously bad. This is my single biggest complaint. Cavalry and ranged units are just too dominant in the game, and everything else is just irrelevant. Why do classical-era swordsmen jump straight to muskets in the renaissance era, while horsemen and chariots get an upgrade in the medieval era? Why do muskets go straight to modern infantry, without any semblance of a "rifleman" in between? Where are Trebuchets and industrial-era artillery? Why are anti-cavalry units so gosh-darn awful and why do melee units get a plus ten combat bonus against them? There are so many gaps in the unit tree and the meta is so centralized around two (three if you separate the cavalries) unit types that anything else just feels bad. Some unique units are standalone units for no reason (Samurai, Khevsurs, Redcoats, Garde Imperiales, etc.) when you could have a unit there to replace, and consequently be an upgradable unit. Contrast this with the Mamluks, Cossacks, Legions, Toa, and you see the problem with those units. And don't even get me started on the absolutely disgraceful state of the naval progression tree. Say what you will about Civ V, but this is one area where the game is objectively better than VI in.
    • I would venture as far to say that Firaxis (specifically the Civilization team, as the XCOM team do fine work) has possibly the single worst balancing team out of any major developer. I find it impossible to believe that they actually Q&A test their game. How a Civ like Nubia, the Aztecs, or even Russia can have so many amazing bonuses and not get nerfed at all, yet they decide to nerf England of all the Civs still baffles me to this day. They could not have looked at the current Gathering Storm state of England, Canada, Spain, India, France, Norway, and the Khmer and thought "yeah, this is fine balancing". This also ties into the above unit progression post, but more general. Forcing Civs to play in a specific style (colonialist) that doesn't work in Civ games, and hasn't worked in Civ games, just hurts Spain and England (though England more, since Spain does have other options). How can you look at Norway, compared to Phoenicia and the Maori, and think they're at all comparable? Why is the chateau still complete garbage? Some Civs are always going to play better within the metagame; this is simply unavoidable. However, it honestly feels like the low & bottom tier Civs are simply that bad because the devs either cannot see that their bonuses just aren't scaled enough, or that they just don't care. Either is unacceptable from a balancing perspective.
    • Loyalty was a good idea that needed to be tuned more or cut entirely. It's great that it opens up peaceful avenues of expansion and nerfs forward settling, but it just makes domination games unbearably annoying.
    • Right now, there is absolutely no incentive to grow tall cities. Now, Civ VI is better than V in the tall versus wide debate, because it doesn't needlessly pigeonhole you into one playstyle. In contrast, it simply offers no reason to go tall. High population cities don't offer any real incentives over ten population cities that have their three core districts already built. Now, GS is already a little better in this regard than R&F. Additionally, there are two tall Civs that come to mind that are pretty good right now, those being the Cree and the Inca. However, those Civs are good because they let you accrue production while growing tall, not from being tall in and of themselves. The Khmer, India, and to a lesser extent Kongo (I also sort of consider Georgia to be tall due to the walls housing bonus) are still lackluster because they get no rewards to playing tall. Korea is another exception simply due to Seondeok's unique ability. I quite like the suggestion (I believe that it was Potato McWhiskey that suggested this) that citizens should give an amount of production for each pop, potentially scaling. This both solves the production problem as aforementioned, and even though expanding where you can will still be the optimal strategy, it does reward growing large cities that the game currently does not.
    • Representation. This is a weird one to convey, so indulge me for a moment. I love that Civ VI is giving representatives from cultures and nations that haven't been in the game before. I love seeing the Kongo, Maori, Hungary, Nubia, and other newcomers along time long-standing veterans. However, what I don't like is that it comes at the cost of representation of really important culture and nations that should be shoo-ins. I don't like that really significant nations like Portugal, Austria, Byzantium, Babylon, the Maya and Ethiopia are all missing. I don't like that we're missing a lot of Native American representation, like the aforementioned Maya and other North American tribes; the Iroquois are the first to spring to mind, but others, particularly more Western tribes, are worthy of representation. Though I like seeing Georgia, Canada, and Australia all in the game, it's a bit of a slap in the face to seeing them over these mainstays. This is something that can probably be fixed via DLC or another expansion, but if there isn't one, Civ VI will be lacking in this area. Another facet of representation is through leader choices. Now, I'm not going to sit here and argue whether or not Catherine de Medici or Eleanor of Aquitaine are important historical figures that are worthy are representation; they are. However, when we're talking England and France, there are a plethora of more worthy figures to choose from. The same is true for Egypt, Sweden, and the Dutch; though I will concede that Kristina allows for a more focused Sweden from a design perspective, and my main beef with Wilhelmina is that she lends to a pretty bland leader ability.
     
    j51 likes this.
  12. Wingednosering

    Wingednosering Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    536
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto
    I wasn't expecting to jump into this thread, but this post on page 2 basically sums up my thoughts on Civ. I loved Civ V but felt it got a bit bloated by the end. Civ VI was bloated out of the gate.

    I feel like Civ VII should cut back on half the features and just deliver a balanced, enjoyable, tactically rich foundation for expansions to build upon.

    I take Civ VI as a lesson in what happens when you build a mansion on a foundation made of toothpicks.
     
    civplay and Krajzen like this.
  13. Jkchart

    Jkchart Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2016
    Messages:
    603
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    England's Workshop of the World is great as it is and is well designed with the new industrial changes (and history of England) in mind*.

    I'm not saying its perfectly synergistic as an ability, but reasonably well balanced and useful.


    *Yes, I am aware that England = UK during this time period, but the Industrial Revolution and most of the UK's industrial capacity, population, and capital, were all in England. Renaming England to Britain is a different topic, though not inappropriate seeing how firaxis usually designs England.

    Edit: Also, though it needs more fine tuning, I think the Loyalty system is great and was a much needed nerf to the generally seen as optimal warmongering path, which vanilla Civ VI basically encouraged you to do.
     
  14. God of Kings

    God of Kings Ruler of all heads of state

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,172
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    I believe that before new content is released, Firaxis should hire Marbozir, Potato McWhiskey, and other players who consistently win in Deity to do actual beta testing (and balancing), while Quill18 (who often plays at the Deity levels, but doesn't win all the time) can do some fun beta gameplay.

    Firaxis made a huge mistake in not hiring Sukritact (and he can continue staying in Thailand as well).
     
    Imaus and j51 like this.
  15. j51

    j51 Blue Star Cadet

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,035
    Location:
    Ping Island
    Ain't that the truth!
     
  16. Carto

    Carto Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2019
    Messages:
    13
    These might be unpopular opinions:

    (1) I think it's time for harvesting features to go. It's powerful enough that harvesting strategies can completely bypass other game systems. Worse, the AI isn't aware of these strategies. While the production boost is thematic, clearing space for districts and wonders provides a new benefit to balance out the costs.

    (2) I'd like to see the religious and cultural victories removed. I really like how culture gameplay has matured in Civ VI, but the culture victory feels passive. Religion has the opposite problem; outside of the victory conditions, spreading and removing religions doesn't feel like it has much of an impact. Take away the victory types, and these could both be great systems for soft power diplomacy. Maybe take some of the more static accumulation systems (e.g. favor, envoys, loyalty) and scale them with the number of tourists or followers in other civs?
     
  17. youngsteve

    youngsteve Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England
    I agree that getting the advice of experienced lets players would be helpful, but what they should be doing is getting the game to be balanced at its default setting, which is prince, & give a decent challenge to the casual players who are the majority for all games. They can then balance the game at higher levels. The problem is that developers constantly are at the beck & call of so called elite players instead of balancing the basic game. Deity should be for the best players, who want a good challenge & should be very difficult to obtain. Ordinary players using the higher levels should be destroyed playing at these levels, & should be playing at lower levels. Unfortunately, the developers seem to do the opposite, pandering to the so called elitists, & dumbing the whole game down.
     

Share This Page