What did Civ 6 get right?

[Mahi]

With this thread I'm just curious what people think Civ 6 got right, or should keep on developing on in future iterations.
Also would be interesting to hear what people Civ did wrong and should drop in future itererations.

I realize I've probably did not add all relevant topics in the poll so include them in the text.

 

[Olle Wernersson]

I picked City Districs and great persons. Even though I feel like the adjesensy bonuses were a bit too much I like the idea of expandning the city where I want to.

 

[Gorbles]

Builders, graphics, Districts.

I mean I think it got a lot right, but those are the highlights for me (and what I notice when going back to previous entries).

 

[Naokaukodem]

I voted none, because I think either they are bad or neutral. Even the AI I don't like it because it has too many bonuses in Deity IMO.

One thing I like though is in diplomacy where flat gold worth less than GPT. We can make loans to the AI, a feature that I'm not using, but thinking to. Hopefully they won't go back to Civ5 gold value in Civ7, if we can even do this. They tend to begin all over at each iteration, and I think that's not necessarily for good.

 

[Disgustipated]

Ha, religion got no votes. I do like things on religion, just not a fan of the "battles". And no surprise AI gets 0. Diplomacy I didn't find bad, it's just there weren't a whole lot of interesting things to do.I'm neutral on that.

I did vote districts districts even though I find some of the adjacencies ridiculous like the mountains thing with campus districts. But I liked the "puzzle" thing to put together.

I did vote governors, they weren't perfect, but they were an interesting enough addition to the game, just a bit too much micro though.

And I voted leaders, graphics, great persons, and city management. I have no real comments on these, considering I have over 3000 hours in this game, they must have done these things right.

 

[Civinator]

I voted none, because I think either they are bad or neutral.

The option "None" is missing in the poll.

 

[Ordnael]

I picked city districts and graphics.
I think you should add resource management, happiness/amenity gimmick.
I liked the religion gimmick too but I can't decide if CIV VI got it right or not!
Some folks might've voted leaders as in they like their persona, graphics, bonuses as I do...but the leader agendas are a recurrent point of dislike that permeates almost all of the forum users.

 

[frutiemax]

City districts, city management and builders/improvements/charges for me. Screw that AI, let's hope they make a proper one for Civ7...

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Honestly not much. And overall, the experience seems like a simple re-working of Civ 5

With enough mods there are some improvements to some of the newer features, like being able to move districts.

 

[Patine]

The option "None" is missing in the poll.

So, is the option, "Other (Specify Below)."

 

[Isengardtom]

I liked the city districts and the era score/ages system.

The governors started out great but became a bit stale after a while. Natural disasters were mixed.

 

[Smegger213]

I will not be voting for anything. I think Civ 6 is far inferior to Civ 5. I have tried numerous times to get into Civ 6 and I have always given up and gone back to Civ 5. I hate the way they did the fog of war in Civ 6, where it would revert back to a parchment map style. Yes, you could use map tags to highlight things like barbarian camps. But I still find it hard to see where the camps were on the sepia brown map.
Also the AI in Civ 6 seems to be far too aggressive, even at lower difficulties. Some Civs would regularly spring a surprise war on me, and I didn't like having to deal with that.
I still think Civ 5 is the far better game IMO.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

City districts. Nothing else.
Unit lineups and fixed promo class system is something i HATE. it contradicts to military evolutions. especially Bombard came after Musketeers. while IRL a vice versa.
the game was intentionally made to be modded. by heavy hand modders.

 

[Miserable Old Git]

One of the most useful minor tweaks was the map search facility. Also, and in huge contrast to Civ Vi, the ability to save and use the game starting parameters.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Key things that Civ6 got right -- that really enhance my enjoyment, that keep me coming back -- are the districts and the governors. Governors let me give a temporary boost to a city, to buff the builder it will produce, increase the chop yield, buy a district, for only as long as I need it. Then I can reassign/reuse the governor somewhere else. Very dynamic. Districts allow me to specialize a city like I did in Civ4, taking advantage of specific strengths.

At a secondary level of enjoyment, I love the variety of leaders and variety of civs. I like the tracking of GP points for specific Great People, rather than the simple categories of Civ4 and Civ5. I like adding support units (balloon, drone) to increase the range of my siege units. Since I pursue the space/science victory a lot, from Civ2 through Civ6, having additional steps appeals to the builder in me. I also like map search and map tacks.

Most importantly, I embrace the Civ6 metanarrative of "MOAR CITIES!!" Similar to my favorite Civ3, I like that my empire is rewarded for growing onto new territory. Through expansion I can provide more resources/luxuries to my people, which increases amenities. This growth mindset is a stark contrast to my experience playing Civ5, where my people were LESS happy as my armies/navies were MORE victorious.

Yes, I have notes about things that Civ6 did not get right, but we have other threads for that.

 

[Quintillus]

Map tacks! Super useful. Search is also useful, in particular for resources. I miss that now when playing other iterations.

Districts among the big-ticket items. It makes VI interesting in a way that prior iterations are not, and is perhaps the single biggest reason that VI is the iteration I've played most in the past 12 months. Even if planning the area-of-effect ranges can be a bit cumbersome without mods. I voted Great People as the second, I also like the progress-per-category, and the unique attributes is a nice touch and adds variety.

I also largely like the golden/dark/heroic age systems.

Like vorlon_mi, being friendly towards expansion is also essential for me, and is why V is my least-favorite version. So I was really glad that VI moved back in that direction.

It is sad but not surprising that Diplomacy and AI have zero votes, and that is what I hope changes the most when the sequel to this poll arrives many years from now for Civ VII. I don't always want a challenge, but when I do, I play a game that isn't Civ VI, or I play multiplayer with a human friend. But even if I have a human to challenge me for the victory conditions, I still miss when I'd play Civ IV with the same human friend and we'd sometimes have to work together to try to prevent an AI from winning.

 

[Goldflash]

I voted for several, especially districts. But really, I don't think civ VI didn't do anything worse than the pervious games (AI has always been boneheaded) except for the World Congress. They took a system that was simple, if not a little boring, in Civ V and over complicated it and made it obtuse and frustrating.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

AI Is not to be pleased. particularly when it comes to complex warfare like at sea or air. They were too fond of cavalry though.

 

[Emotional Husky]

Districts. It might end up being a gameplay mechanic unique to CIV 6 and exists only there, but the whole game wraps around it. Everything else that the game gets right kind of hinges on the fact that developers got that aspect of the game SO right.
There were also a huge number of QOL improvements (leader ribbons, tile tacks, map lenses, map place names, etc.)

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

I picked City Districs and great persons. Even though I feel like the adjesensy bonuses were a bit too much I like the idea of expandning the city where I want to.

This is pretty much the only thing I'm excited for CIV 7 for, the natural expansion of cities without dumb stuff like placing a campus 3 tiles away in the year 3500 BC.
The era system combined with civ swapping looks absolutely trash though.