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. Cagarustus

    Cagarustus Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2017
    Messages:
    362
    I’m talking about the 20th century ones like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc.

    Napoleon, Caesar et all are acceptable.
     
    Mr. Shadows, Bearmanjew and MooFreaky like this.
  2. sa1vy

    sa1vy Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2016
    Messages:
    127
    Gender:
    Male
    The fog of war makes it infuriatingly impossible to garner any information quickly about the landscape without using the tooltip. I don't care how reminiscent of a map it is; if I can't tell what's on the tile while scrolling past, it's not doing it's job.

    District placement cost has the most convoluted formula and messed up mechanics ever. 1) Give the players the formula instead of making them muck about trying to reverse-engineer it. 2) Why make the cost scale with the number of techs and civics unlocked? Make it based on the number of districts you've already constructed. This sets a soft-cap on the viable size of sprawling wide-empires, and makes tall not quite as bad by comparison. 3) What kind of sense does it make to lock the production cost of a district by placing it? And how does this make any sense if you switch the production back to what it was the very same turn, after placing it? This sets up for annoying micromanaging.every turn. You're just throwing away production if you don't place the district as soon as possible, like when the city grows to 4 or 7, or unlocking a district you've been waiting for. It's a mechanic that doesn't make any sense, and is annoying to accommodate.
     
    Kmart_Elvis likes this.
  3. Villager720

    Villager720 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2011
    Messages:
    233
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NC
    • Too many European civs (including the colonials)
    • Golden ages are a bad mechanic and force you to behave in ways that could be contrary to what you’re aiming to do so you can rack up arbitrary points and thus avoid getting punished by a less than representative mechanic
    • I think it’s silly to have the ancient Hebrews/Judea never get included due to current historical concerns
    • Same goes for Tibet
    • Additional mechanics do not mean more fun
    • I like the Zulu being a staple
     
    Imaus likes this.
  4. theadder

    theadder Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    332
    Location:
    Addoria
    Great works are awful.
     
  5. megabearsfan

    megabearsfan Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    453
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    1.) I wish Firaxis would throw out the traditional victories and experiment with a victory system that actually *encourages* diversifying your empire. Perhaps a victory point system inspired by board games like Settlers of Catan, or some victory system where each civilization has unique criteria for winning or earns points for completing civ-specific agendas:
    http://www.megabearsfan.net/post/2016/07/05/Brainstorming-victories-in-Civilization.aspx

    2.) I also wish the game would take a more "simulationist" approach for Civ VII. V and VI have been very board-gamey, and I would like VII to go more in the direction that IV was going. Specifically, I want playing the game to feel more like running an empire full of actual people, and having to satisfy their needs (all in a very abstract sense). Thus, much of the challenge would be dealing with internal problems, rather than simply playing against other civs.


    I also approve of a Byzantine leader as an alt for Rome. My ideas were:
    a.) Constantine with an ability to move the capital for some reward. Kind of moot now, since Dido got that. My runner-up ability idea would be "Once per game, when entering a Dark Age, you may instead immediately turn it into an Heroic Age and receive all the benefits." The Heroic Age still counts as a Dark Age for era score, and a second Heroic Age can be earned after it.
    b.) Justinian AND Theodora as dual leaders (both are on the leader screen) with some religious ability.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2019
    Fluphen Azine and j51 like this.
  6. blackcatatonic

    blackcatatonic Queen of Meme

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,933
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    UK
    • I don't care that Civ selection tends towards the Eurocentric, and I also think it's futile to expect the Eurocentrism to go away, because of Firaxis being an American company but also because frankly I think gamers at large aren't as bothered. I don't think it's necessary that every corner of the map isn't fully represented. Civ VI has done a pretty damn good job and if there is a third expansion there won't be much left missing.
    • I don't care (much) that they chose the "wrong" leader for a Civ as long as they went with someone interesting.
    • I don't care about Civ balance. Give me Civs with interesting, unique and fun mechanics, even if they're brokenly powerful. Gathering Storm did relatively well with this. Rise and Fall did not.
    • I don't care that the AI isn't a tactical genius, as long as it puts up some kind of a fight.
    • Relatedly, I quite enjoy the game not being too hard. I play the game to build a civilization and enjoy its sandbox qualities. Struggling to win unless I play to a template doesn't do it for me.
    • The music in Civ VI is mostly very good but I still miss the peace/war themes from Civ V. The era progression was a nice idea but it works with some themes more than others. I feel if you listen to the Civ VI American theme's era progression, it works so well that it's hard to believe they didn't design the whole concept around that one song.
     
    Krajzen, King Rad, Bearmanjew and 5 others like this.
  7. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    4,740
    Location:
    Lucerne
    I like how pro and contra the perceived eurocentricity of the civ selection are both seen as „unpopular“ by the posters in this thread.
     
    Equilin, Karmah, bbbt and 6 others like this.
  8. SagarRathore

    SagarRathore Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2018
    Messages:
    57
    Gender:
    Male
    Civ series is mostly based on European perspective of history.It is quite understandable as they are dominating world for at least past 300 years.Discovery of America and colonization of Asia/Africa gave them edge over rest of world.But last 300 years are only small part of human history and with shifting of power towards Asia Pacific region Civ franchise should hire staff from these regions taking their perspective simultaneously being sensitive to their objections.This way we can get better gameplay and civ franchise will get massive boost considering India,China account for 40% of world population.
     
    Imaus likes this.
  9. blackcatatonic

    blackcatatonic Queen of Meme

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,933
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    UK
    I suspect this is because one stance is (perceived to be) an unpopular opinion among posters here, because a few people are quite vocal on the subject, whereas the other stance is an unpopular opinion among the playerbase at large.
     
    Siptah and oakdragon like this.
  10. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,023
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I'm perfectly fine with the number of European leaders. Let's be honest here, Asian and European cultures are the ones that thrived the most. Most of that is because of trade across the region, another mechanic I would like to see better represented. You shouldn't be getting a paltry +1 science on a trade route while a pillager gets 300 science.
     
    oakdragon, Kjimmet and blackcatatonic like this.
  11. Tech Osen

    Tech Osen Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,382
    Issue with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot is that they are mostly remembered for attrocities inflicted on civilian populations, the last two mainly on their own country. There is little point in bringing that to the game.
     
  12. AmazonQueen

    AmazonQueen Virago

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,815
    Location:
    Gingerbread Cottage
    Genghis and Caesar may not be remembered for atrocities committed on civilian populations but they certainly committed them. I suppose its good that we have higher expectations for modern leaders but we should be aware of what earlier leaders were responsible for.
     
    Fluphen Azine likes this.
  13. Basileus Rhomaion

    Basileus Rhomaion Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2017
    Messages:
    162
    Gender:
    Male
    1) The era system as it has existed for all Civ games thus far is flawed by design and limits what one can do with each Civ or how it evolved in real history.
    2) Unit classifications such as "melee", "heavy cavalry" etc and the relations between them in combat are horrible and lead to huge misunderstandings about how warfare truly evolved. It also creates vast imbalances that switch in each iteration of Civ.
    3) Great people should never be a particular set of figures in every game with fixed bonuses and timings. It makes the Great people "gambling" game very predictable, streamlined and boring. Great people should come unexpectedly with higher and lower probabilities under certain conditions and have the capacity to radically shape how the entire match (not just 1 civ) unfolds. Isaac Newton didn't just make England get a Library boost, he more or less invented the entire field of Physics for the entire world.
    4) "Geographical quotas" as I call them are nonsense. There's nothing wrong with giving lesser-known civs more recognition and I actually applaud that, but putting in civs just to cover a certain "underrepresented" geographical area makes no sense. Some areas were simply more advantageous for the development of more civilizations and it's logical to have more civs from those areas than others.
    5) Not that controversial, but I deplore most post-colonial civs. They are more often than not uninteresting and can't add an interesting spin to the game either mechanically or historically. Even worse, they deprive far more interesting unexplored civs from their chance to be included. For example, I was delighted when the Cree were added instead of Canada, until they decided adding the latter as well would be a swell idea.
    6) The Civilopedia is horrible at describing the historical aspects and context of each civ, leader, unit etc.
    7) The idea of all leaders having the same agenda, personality and tendencies for 4000 years straight, no matter the circumstances or the events of a match is laughable and a big reason why the AI seems irrational.
    8) Some scenarios are actually more fun than the base game itself and this should have been an incentive to implement more. Note that this is not the first time in Civ's history this has happened; Fall From Heaven in Civ IV is still strong in memory (mine at least).
     
    j51 likes this.
  14. ImperialGuard

    ImperialGuard Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    468
    Location:
    Canada
    The leader of Canada should speak English not French .... England defeated the French @ the Plains of Abraham and Canada became an ENGLISH colony not a French colony. :)
     
  15. civplay

    civplay Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2011
    Messages:
    134
    The sign of a good game is one that's simple to pick up, but complicated to master. Civ 6 is precisely the opposite. Overly complicated to a casual, nooby player to the point its daunting. But once you understand the only game mechanics which really matter is science (and culture), military, and production, the game becomes ridiculously simple. The other mechanics such as religion, spies, governors, loyalty, diplomacy, city states, great people, era scores and even different military types are all poor window dressing. What's worse is that they're easily exploitable for veteran humans, but equally confusing for the AI and noobies. Civ 6 would be vastly improved by removing most of these superfluous mechanics, or at least completely overhauled. Religion, spies, and diplomacy are especially egregious.
     
  16. thecrazyscot

    thecrazyscot Spiffy

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,829
    • Anyone who wants to play with mods should expect to need to have all expansions and DLC, and modders have zero responsibility to make their mods backwards compatible.
    • I want more non-expansion DLC for civ and think it's a great model for adding additional content to the game.
    • DLC and expansion prices have been perfectly reasonable.
     
  17. Sagax

    Sagax Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    Laurier speaks both in game.
     
  18. Amrunril

    Amrunril Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,065
    I never found corporations an interesting mechanic and feel no need for them to return. And city states are the only type of vassal the game needs.

    I think that Jerusalem is pretty much the perfect example of a religious city state, and that making Israel a major civ would be a bad choice purely for this reason.
     
  19. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,683
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    1. The unit gaps are fine right now as they have fixed the most needed ones (I don't see a need for rifleman or longswordsman).
    2. I'm fine with the post colonial nations that we have and wouldn't object to a Spanish speaking one.
    3. I'm not tired of Alexander or the Zulu. The Zulu at least stops South Africa from appearing, right?
    4. I like many of the female leader picks including Kristina, Wilhelmina, Seondeok, and even Catherine and Eleanor now. (Though Louis XIV or Elizabeth would have been ideal).
    5. I don't care if Civ is leaning towards being too Eurocentric although it seems to be getting less so than previous iterations. Anyway Europe is just as diverse as other continents,
     
    Bearmanjew and gozon like this.
  20. Architect

    Architect Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    512
    Gender:
    Male
    Post-modernism has wrecked the core of Civ just like it has wrecked the core of western civilization. All cultures are not equal. There are absolute truths. Freedom is the best state of man.

    Civ should be more about good and evil. Barbaric and totalitarian political systems being equated with liberal democracies is a very dangerous game we play. When I adopt Communism as my political system it should not be just a different way to produce or research things compared to democracy. Hitler can't be in the game but Fascism is just fine? Is there some form of Fascism that is "true" Fascism that wouldn't result in the same atrocities Hitler committed? Using those political systems should come with the real downsides they have had historically. First off would be centering their power around slaughtering millions of people and then you go from there. Then at least there would be some truth to the historical representation.
     

Share This Page