What are your "unpopular" opinions about Civ6?

[iammaxhailme]

I wish this game didn't have resource harvesting/chopping at all like Civ 5, EXCEPT you should still be allowed to put districts (and unique improvements) forests/bonus resources. I hate the chop meta.

 

[Returning Lurker]

I have been so underwhelmed by the selection of civilizations, leaders, units (both unique and standard), the bizarre design choices, and the poor implementation of conceptually cool gameplay mechanics, that this game killed my interest in the Civilization franchise as a whole. I have no intention of supporting this series any more, unless Civ 7 tears everything down and starts from scratch.

 

[Imaus]

I have been so underwhelmed by the selection of civilizations, leaders, units (both unique and standard), design choices, and the poor implementation of conceptually cool gameplay mehanics, that this game killed my interest in the Civilization franchise as a whole. I no longer have any intention of supporting this series, unless Civ 7 tears everything down and starts from scratch.

Whenever I feel like this, I just say, there's always Civ3 and Civ4. Nearly everything here has been in those games, and probably in a better fashion. They have their problems, but the modding communities are so big it's fixed somewhere, or can be dusted off and fixed again with little work.

 

[Morningcalm]

You're going to have to suspend disbelief to some extent if you want a city flipping mechanic at all. On very rare occasions cities have seceded without military intervention in real history, but they've become something akin to city states in the process - they don't petition to join neighbouring nations.

I was speaking more about how limiting loyalty is when considering overseas colonies--currently, loyalty prevents you settling cities within distance of rival AI, and having early forward settling makes it very hard for neighboring civs to peacefully establish nearby cities. In real history, plenty of nations had cities close to each other without revolts and riots from being near rival civs.

It's true that historically it's quite rare for cities to join neighboring nations (Budapest is one example, albeit quite recent and split among neighboring nations via treaty), but some have become independent colonies like the US, and I think "culture flipping" can be that kind of mechanic in the future, where cities break away and become independent nations, akin to Civ IV's vassalage system. I do not think "culture flipping" or city flipping needs to necessarily be about cities breaking away to join rival civs nearby.

 

[PhilBowles]

Think of it this way. Napoleon was a revolutionary leader of a democratic France and is one of the most influential individuals in history thanks to his work of updating laws, military, government etc. That democracy failed largely thanks to the monarchies freaking out and fighting war after war with him, simply because they couldn't allow a democratic government to exist. So at that time in history democracy would have been labelled a failure that couldn't succeed. But it wasn't democracy that was failing, it was the circumstances it existed in. So it's much better to just simplify it down to what a form of government hopes to achieve under ideal circumstances.

Napoleon was no democrat and he ruthlessly cracked down on challenges to his rule, including those in France's colonies (most notoriously in Haiti), and had hereditary rule enshrined in the constitution for his family - he essentially recreated a monarchy. He was however enlightened as a legislator, administrator and reformer. There's no reason that tholse should be seen as conflicting. It's a modern myth that freedom is associated with democracy - benign autocrats aren't much in evidence in the modern world, but the countries in which democracy emerged naturally were typically ones in which most of their economic and technological development, and their liberalising social attitudes, emerged first, usually in monarchies with comparatively benign leadership.

Freedom and a high standard of development begets democracy, not vice versa, and most revolutionary movements tend to adopt authoritarian approaches. Most successful democracies were 'top down' - democracy was instituted by the government as a way to reduce the prospects for destabilising violent dissent, it wasn't enacted by popular will (the American revolution obviously had a democratic outcome, but that was a top down revolution conceived and led by wealthy landowners and intellectuals, not a popular uprising - and even they endeavoured to limit the direct say the general public had in government).

 

[acluewithout]

Jeez, this thread got Spicy fast.

My opinion: I like Infantry needing Oil.

Yes, you can potentially get to Infantry before unlocking Oil. But so what? You can still build infantry, it’s just that the Infantry from your backward no oil banana republic are rubbish compared to my first world WE HAVE ALL THE OIL global hegemony. Go build a Research Lab, chump. Love it.

Also, I dislike productions queues, particularly CQUI.

Relatedly, and I think also an unpopular view, I like the GS production queue is actually very good. It works well, but most importantly, it’s only visible if I specifically click on it. It was worth the wait.

Also, I think FXS are devoting sufficient resources to the AI and are basically trying their best, and are not deliberately making the game easy for short attention span candy crush millennials. No, the AI is not great. But I think it’s just because it’s hard to make it good.

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.

Agreed. Also, agreed. Also, agreed.

Founding corporations or having them on the map is a silly idea. Even worse then banks and stock exchanges giving flat gold. Corporations are a massive step backwards.

While we’re on it, any sort of “manufactured” goods is also a bad idea. Blue Jeans, Toys and Perfumes from Great People is plenty.

I think I’ve previously posted support of Vassals in the game. I recant it all. Suzerain is all the Vassal you need. The only thing we need is the ability to place Envoys with Major Civs not just City States and maybe a few other diplomatic options for City States (beyond Levy and War).

Bringing Vassals back would be a another massive step backwards.

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,

Agreed (mostly, and only if @Sostratus doesnt call me on it). Agreed. Agreed, but no comment on SA. Agreed. Agreed.

I’m also okay with Ghandi’s obsession with Nukes. I’m just sorry Curtin is not more of a Warmonger, because that would be hilarious.

 

[MooFreaky]

Napoleon was no democrat and he ruthlessly cracked down on challenges to his rule, including those in France's colonies (most notoriously in Haiti), and had hereditary rule enshrined in the constitution for his family - he essentially recreated a monarchy. He was however enlightened as a legislator, administrator and reformer. There's no reason that tholse should be seen as conflicting. It's a modern myth that freedom is associated with democracy - benign autocrats aren't much in evidence in the modern world, but the countries in which democracy emerged naturally were typically ones in which most of their economic and technological development, and their liberalising social attitudes, emerged first, usually in monarchies with comparatively benign leadership.

Freedom and a high standard of development begets democracy, not vice versa, and most revolutionary movements tend to adopt authoritarian approaches. Most successful democracies were 'top down' - democracy was instituted by the government as a way to reduce the prospects for destabilising violent dissent, it wasn't enacted by popular will (the American revolution obviously had a democratic outcome, but that was a top down revolution conceived and led by wealthy landowners and intellectuals, not a popular uprising - and even they endeavoured to limit the direct say the general public had in government).

I did not meant to imply he was a democrat, simply that he was democratically elected initially and then that democracy failed for many reasons (and I suspect by your comments you had an education from a British perspective, where Napoleon = French Hitler. Whereas the rest of the world is less blinkered and sees the good and the bad sides of him, though in many cases too willing to ignore his failings).
I would never think of Napoleon as a flawless or even benevolent ruler (but he was an extraordinary human being), simply that during his reign democracy ended for one reason or another (and is definitely more than him seizing power, much evidence suggests he tried hard to keep it away from hereditary rule, but had his hand forced). And at that time it would be easy to say Democracy fails because someone will always seize power and ruin it. Just like the common criticism of Communism that people love to trot out.

And you are totally right about democracies not being enacted to create freedom, it was generally a way to keep a small group of families in power while looking like everyone had a say. The Greek city states (the ones that had democracy), the Roman Republic, many of the Gallic tribes, had forms of democracy but they were all about keeping the top dogs happy and with positions of power, so that they wouldn't kill each other. Instead, they just violently oppressed those below them when they wanted a say too.

But how do you implement any of that in the game? Which is why I believe what they are doing is good, just keep the idealistic forms of each.

 

[Prester John 2]

Excessive use of acronyms and "should of" in this forum annoy me.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

1) I like postcolonial civs and believe many of them have just enough merit for inclusion as cultures that have been around for millennia.
2) I like the inclusion of more diverse leaders even if they didn’t rule “de jure”.
3) I prefer the more dramatic and idealized feel of Civ V than the cartoonish and lighthearted approach of Civ VI.
4) THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE THAN ONE CIV TO REPRESENT SOUTH ASIA!!!
5) The civs need to be more radically unique in terms of playstyle, even if it comes at the cost of balance.
6) The late game needs to be seriously revitalized in order to compete with the thrill of early game adventurousness.
7) Diplomacy!!! This has two parts - foreign and domestic. There should be a much more nuanced system of discussion and trade with other (AI) leaders. The way you interact with other leaders should be a core component of the game experience. It should also be more transparent as to why another civ is being friendly or hostile toward you. Domestically, there should be serious threats to your rule. You should have to work maintain control over your own people. If the economy remains low or if you routinely fight wars of aggression, your citizens should rise up and become a serious threat against your empire.

 

[Victoria]

There are too many TLA’s
I hate that I am more scared of the marshmallow bear than the zulu’s
I hate the diplomatic victory
War weariness should be a challenge rather than some lint at the bottom of your pocket
I weary of hate.
I am at a complete and utter loss how pillaging was allowed to be changed to what is it.
I want to be able to build an electric fence to keep rock bands off my wonders.

 

[Vahnstad]

Post things which you think may be in minority or divisive
Mine:
- 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.

I agree with this one. Although they could just skip him next time, just like they skipped Napoleon (although they should've skipped CdM as well).

 

[ezysquire]

I want to be able to build an electric fence to keep rock bands off my wonders.

That's fun; a police unit too perhaps.

 

[criZp]

For game purposes it works fine. Cavalry has served so many purposes over history and in warfare that putting it into one class would be hilarious.

The game purpose of both light/heavy cavalry is the same one: kill the enemy units.

 

[Chefofrats]

1. I dislike the idea of immortal leaders, ruling absolutely for thousands of years, even under a demoracy. For the benefit of immersion I would much rather play as just Phoenicia than Dido, even if her animations really are awsome.
2. While I think the AI underperforms, I would not like it to be better to the extent that I would lose the enjoyment of being able to win every game. Losing is not fun.
3. I do not care what civilizations are represented in the game. I am Polish but I could not care less if Poland is in the game or not. What matters is if a civilization is fun to play as, not what it's called or what heritage it represents.
4. As somebody who grew up under communism, I can't stand the Civilization series idea of giving communism more production and more science as government bonuses. It is a ridiculous, ahistorical idea, recalling not the reality of communist regimes but their image created by propaganda. Yes, communist states built a lot of factories, but they were inefficient and made stuff nobody needed rather than stuff that actually mattered. I still remember learning about our impressive railroad carriage production while there was no toilet paper for weeks at a time at the shops. If anything, communism should give a penalty to production.
5. The game missing slavery as a concept is an idiotic, ahistorical bow to political correctness. Whole economies of historic empires were based on it, we cannot just ignore it because somebody will get offended. Historical truth hurts, that's one of its benefits - we can learn from our mistakes. Slavery should be represented in the game, but give increasing penalties with cultural progress.

 

[Warwolf22]

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.

when you’ve made your game so hard even the AI can’t master it

 

[Naeshar]

Let's get unpopular.
1) I would like Civ to be more Eurocentric. Representing obscure tribes as civilizations is inappropriate. The Zulu are represented as strong medieval militarist, however their strength was limited to their country (never building an empire), while fighting industrial/modern british infantry. Sure, they had some success... But doesn't classify as a major power. Aztecs claim strong ancient times, while the eagle warriors fought conquistadors with firearms. 150 Spaniards brought the empire to dust.
2) Civ specialization, uniques shall be removed. The perks should be chosen in-game, not predefined by some stereotype. German industrial stereotype and Indian multi-religious coexistence were emergent cultures based on circumstances, not a given. The Viking traders and raiders were not unique, and emerged due to overpopulation and limited agriculture in Scandinavia. Legions were a legacy of the republic within densely populated Italian peninsula, and the history was written by the victors. Other cities could use similar units as well.
3) No known victory criteria. I like to play the simulation and empire building and not the gamey part.
4) The future is not set in stone. The science and culture trees are. Native American cultures existed for millennia without knowing of riding or wheels or actual writing. On paper and such, I mean. If there is no niter in our lands, how do we research muskets? Do we have to invent monarchy, if we already jumped to a merchant republic government? Can we just not learn about things from trading with neighbors? Also, focusing on a certain discovery within a large civilization in medieval times is hard. People have various interests, and most discoveries were done independently from a state desire.
5) Forget political correctness. Or apply it thoroughly and remove China, Russia and America.

I liked Civ2 and CivBE. The empires are rather generic and your in game actions matter more than history.

 

[Gorbles]

Struggling to phrase an unpopular opinion that isn't snarky, and really not aiming to be. It is incredibly telling, for me personally, how many people prefer Eurocentric civilisations because they were nominally better, without examining the historical circumstances that lead to such a situation (namely massive amounts of colonisation and exploitation that prevent developing countries from even getting on an even technological footing, combined with a disregard for non-European cultures and heritage to the extent indigenous tribes are demeaned as barbaric or somehow lesser humans).

I guess "keep doing exactly what you're doing Firaxis, I think it's in the right direction". That's unpopular, right?

 

[Krajzen]

It is incredibly telling, for me personally, how many people prefer Eurocentric civilisations because they were nominally better

Not "better" (as in, more moral), and I have never or almost never met here with people who attack indigwnous peoples on the ground of morality, or justify slavery, genocide etc.

Many people prefer European civs because they were objectively more powerful and influential, and more powerful empires are more interesting in the game about most powerful and/or advanced cultures in human history. When one culture had population of 10 000 000 people, 500 years of state history, conquered one milion of square km in dramatic wars and invented algebra and radio it is naturally more fitting theme of this fame than tribe of 10 000 people that lived in tents, hunted big animals without writing system and was annexed decade after first conflict with colonizers. Who cares what geographical determinism led to this, thats what happened in the end.

Yeah we can ask "what if Native Americans weren't screwed by geography ans biological smallpox apocalypse and could develop high tech", that's why we have 1 or 2 of their cultures as civs, but if you may put in your game 10 dramatic established empires of Eurasia or 10 isolated hunter gatherer tribes, empires always win regardless of their skin color.

without examining the historical circumstances that lead to such a situation (namely massive amounts of colonisation and exploitation (...)

Americas and Subsaharan Africa were generally behind Europe, Middle East, India and Chinal already 15th century, before any colonial opression could stunt their development. I mean, you can't look at scientific achievements of medieval Islam and seriously argue that they were matched by any culture in those two regions regarding advanced mathematics and physics.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Not "better" (as in, more moral), and I have never or almost never met here with people who attack indigwnous peoples on the ground of morality, or justify slavery, genocide etc.

Many people prefer European civs because they were objectively more powerful and influential, and more powerful empires are more interesting in the game about most powerful and/or advanced cultures in human history. When one culture had population of 10 000 000 people, 500 years of state history, conquered one milion of square km in dramatic wars and invented algebra and radio it is naturally more fitting theme of this fame than tribe of 10 000 people that lived in tents, hunted big animals without writing system and was annexed decade after first conflict with colonizers. Who cares what geographical determinism led to this, thats what happened in the end.

Yeah we can ask "what if Native Americans weren't screwed by geography ans biological smallpox apocalypse and could develop high tech", that's why we have 1 or 2 of their cultures as civs, but if you may put in your game 10 dramatic established empires of Eurasia or 10 isolated hunter gatherer tribes, empires always win regardless of their skin color.



Americas and Subsaharan Africa were generally behind Europe, Middle East, India and Chinal already 15th century, before any colonial opression could stunt their development. I mean, you can't look at scientific achievements of medieval Islam and seriously argue that they were matched by any culture in those two regions regarding advanced mathematics and physics.

The game covers a lot more than just the last 500 years though. It isn't Europa Universalis.

 

[Naeshar]

Struggling to phrase an unpopular opinion that isn't snarky, and really not aiming to be. It is incredibly telling, for me personally, how many people prefer Eurocentric civilisations because they were nominally better, without examining the historical circumstances that lead to such a situation (namely massive amounts of colonisation and exploitation that prevent developing countries from even getting on an even technological footing, combined with a disregard for non-European cultures and heritage to the extent indigenous tribes are demeaned as barbaric or somehow lesser humans).

The preference is not due to some nominal better value of European civilizations. Our history influenced the rest of the world most strongly due to colonization. I am not claiming it's much good, only influential. There were parts of history when there was another area - see Hellenism (300BCE), Islam (1000AD).
I read a philosophical book about progress. Basically every part of the world adopted a circular view of the world. Circadian rhytm, seasons change, human lives. Everything repeats. (Equatorial civilizations were not influenced by seasons, thus missing something). Boom. Judaism and Christianity come with another view. Mankind progresses towards better life. Kids have better conditions than their parents. There are setbacks, but discoveries show we are going forward, not walking in circles anymore. There is the idea of greatness beyond one lifetime. Since the renaissance we have a different direction and the whole world learns about it. Civilization series digs from this. If it was created by, say, a SEA viewpoint, we would be doing backflips instead of steps forward. Cool, right? They would never get equal technological footing without the world view.

I guess "keep doing exactly what you're doing Firaxis, I think it's in the right direction". That's unpopular, right?

Perfect!