What puts you off Civ VI?

[user330977]

Hello folks,

I've often read that Civ VI is, in many ways, a continuation of Civ IV in some respects such as playing the map and so on. That said, the game didn't gel well with me. Maybe I'll try it again some day but for me, Civ IV is the best strategy game. What about you?

Regards,
Ita Bear

 

[PPQ_Purple]

What didn't? 1 unit per tile, no more stacks, hexes instead of squares etc.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Hello folks,

I've often read that Civ VI is, in many ways, a continuation of Civ IV in some respects such as playing the map and so on. That said, the game didn't gel well with me. Maybe I'll try it again some day but for me, Civ IV is the best strategy game. What about you?

Regards,
Ita Bear

I've heard a different slant on that. Civ V -- at least until some relatively late changes -- had fallen into a pattern of "single best way to play." Almost regardless of the map type, the Civ you have chosen, the choices of social policies and strategies were similar.

Civ VI, on the other hand, focuses a lot of attention on the map itself. Where to put the districts, where to put improvements, where to send your trade routes. To the extent that Civ VI steps away from a few best ways to play, it nods in the direction of Civ IV.

But the overall mechanics of how empires are grown are very, very different between IV and VI. 1 Unit Per Tile (1UPT) is the single biggest change, which ripples through the entire military side of the game. Builders with finite charges, instead of workers that continue to build improvements, or replace improvements, ripples through the entire domestic side of the game.

By far, Civ IV is the most complex, most multi-faceted game in the franchise, measured by the sheer number of knobs to adjust and decisions to make about managing your empire. Most of the players here LOVE the ability to fine-tune economies of beakers, hammers, food, and gold. Both Civ V and Civ VI make key simplifications, removing many of those adjustable knobs. They have added complexity in some other areas, and have made the different tribes embrace different styles and strategies. Which is the best strategy game? The one where you have the most fun.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Bottom line is 5 just changed the formula too much from what Civ is all about. And 6 kept going in that direction.

 

[Reg Pither]

I agree that 1UPT completely changed the scope and feel of the game, hamstringing not just the military side, but also the economic side that fuelled it. It also made simply moving around the map a chore once you have even a few units. So much more changed, of course, but for me that is the major change that made Civ V a step backwards and sideways from Civ IV.

 

[Pangaea]

but for me that is the major change that made Civ V a step backwards and sideways from Civ IV.

Ironically, it's not as "straightforward" to move diagonally in Civ 5

 

[Joij21]

Well, Civ V has improved graphics over IV. Yet somehow Civ VI has worse graphics then IV. I don't mind the hexagons, but 1upt sucks. Still, I wouldn't mind a limit for doomstacking, but I wish it was limited by something with more depth, like a supply system instead of some pre-determined number. Civ VI introduced districts which make the cities look ugly on small maps. I probably wouldn't mind this if it was something that only happened in the modern eras, as city sprawl IRL is a new phenomenon mostly caused by the advent of the automobile. I really hate that ever since Civ V wonders are now tile based, again can work for some wonders, but definitely not all, as it makes the map too sprawled out and ugly. Global warming system? Eh, I feel a mod for Civ IV could do it without having to include all the newer baggage that the series has now.

 

[Infantry#14]

With each iteration of CIV, the variability between civilizations goes up. Civ IV has the unique unit and unique building and the two leader traits from the trait pool, while CIV VI is like playing a different game when picking a different leader. I prefer CIV IV for consistency and competition.

 

[Quintillus]

The main thing that puts me off Civ VI is Civ V. But the main thing that puts me off Civ V is 1 UPT.

1 UPT is a chore once you get enough units. And it does change the whole military side of the game, and not in a way that makes sense on a strategic map, or in a way that the AI can handle competently. You could always complain about the military AI in earlier versions (although Civ IV could be pretty decent at it), but at least that side of the game was fun. In the newer versions, only building is fun, and expansion is tuned to be slower, making that side less fun as well. IMO, it's slow enough to lose the "one more turn" feel that Civ III and Civ IV have.

I agree that a supply system would have been a better change. Something like what Europa Universalis III and IV have would be perfect... most of the time you don't have to worry about it, but if you have humungous stacks or are invading Russia in winter, it becomes something you need to pay attention to. The decision to move to 1 UPT instead is why I probably will never play Civ V again (unless perhaps I discover a mod that makes that side of the game more similar to Civ III/IV; a friend has also said I might find a peaceful Venice game to be okay). The district system in Civ VI and slight lessening of 1 UPT make it somewhat more interesting to me, although I don't expect it to ever approach Civ/EU III/IV in play time.

Other complaints I have with V and VI don't necessarily apply to the other - global happiness in V, cartoonish leader graphics in VI. They're minor compared to 1 UPT, however. As an example, global happiness was a dealbreaker in vanilla Civ V for me. IIRC it has been nerfed significantly in the latest expansion, to the place that it isn't a dealbreaker. Still, it's a mechanic that I don't think makes sense, especially given the severe and abrupt penalties involved if it falls too low.

I like the idea of each civ being somewhat more unique. In practice, however, the appeal that has doesn't outweigh my dissatisfaction with the core mechanics in the newer versions.

 

[ArchGhost]

1upt of course. Probably the most common complaint, so let's just gloss over that for now.

I only have Civ6 on console. So I'm not as put off by the style with the goofy looking leaders and stuff since my intro to the series, CivRev, was also that way. And I love CivRev.

It's clunky and unless it's been drastically changed since I last played it (almost a year on now) the interface is atrocious. I had to look up how to clear queues at one point and it was completely vexing, no contextual prompt or anything and every time I tried to use intuition to figure it out I only got more frustrated as it just kept appending build orders or only inserting the new build and never replacing anything.

I find the map much harder to read at a glance. Call it lack of familiarity or blame it on the stylization, but I easily miss hill tiles still. No such issue with civ4, I can instantly identify terrain due to much more distinct profiles for each type. A floodplain is not easily mistaken for plain, jungle for forest, or a peak for a hill. In Civ 6, everything kind of melds together a bit and it gets frustrating.

Didn't really vibe with the district system. Fully willing to chalk that one up to lack of experience and it just being different. I just think simplicity of "building goes in the city. Period." is a lot less of a hassle than micromanaging the districts and their wildly all over the place reqs. Combined with tile improvement and juggling tile control it just seems like a little much.

Speaking of tiles, I think cities in Civ6 are unnecessarily sprawling. It's easy to control a lot of territory with a civ like Rome, utilizing it all seems overwhelming (again, lack of experience) but how crazy tall cities can go is just not as appealing as going wide, which I like a lot more in Civ4 which supports either. Didn't like the Tall bias in Civ5 either.

Still don't like city-states. Unnecessary clutter IMO. At least they are more interesting, especially since doing the right quest for the right city states can be quite powerful in a game so focused on investing in fewer, key units compared to Civ4.

I didn't really play it enough to bother to learn about how the GP work in Civ6. But it seemed like just another thing made unnecessarily more complex (civ6 is the one with the "lottery" right? or was that civ5? )



Things I really liked about civ6:
-Agendas for the most part. Makes the AIs more interesting. One of the things about Civ4 is that particular way that certain AIs behaved could define how you would react to that AI, and the situation you found yourself in with them instead of them just being cookiecutter rival players. Meeting Monty in iso or if Mansa is on the map at all can influence your entire game. I've played enough to form opinions of which AIs I like or don't like and why based on the way they play in many games. For instance, I hate AIs like Gilgamesh who are difficult to bribe but will freely attack others when he feels like it, compared to a complete psycho like Genghis who can be easily bribed away/counted on to go for a peacenik first. I see agendas as a continuation of that idea.

-The civic/card thing system. I think unlocking the new cards, governments being tied to your slots types/amounts, and the large amount of cards with various strategies was all extremely interesting, and probably the strongest part of the game IMO. The civic system in Civ4 is rather straightforward and loses luster quickly when you know which civics are better than the others and why.

-The tech tree and civics tree running in parallel is really cool. Culture is finally good for something in and of itself globally, instead of moving toward an objective obliquely through grooming certain cities. I thought this was handled WAY better than Faith in civ5. Eurekas are also fun as some of them are quite controllable (build X of this unit, build X improvements, etc) and not only just the random map-based stuff that feels way too much like huts in Civ4.

 

[Mathalamus]

Civilization 6, and 5 before it, just changed too many things. one unit per tile with the AI permanently unable to use it effectively or at all. thats the main part. literally everything else could have been the same, but if they kept the stacks, the game would have been so much better its no contest. to me, civilization 6 was doomed the instant the team decided to follow up on civilization 5, not 4.

 

[Sarin]

1UPT is a good idea, but 5, and from what I've heard so far, also 6, have awful execution. 1UPT needs smaller tiles and AI capable of using it.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

1UPT is a good idea, but 5, and from what I've heard so far, also 6, have awful execution. 1UPT needs smaller tiles and AI capable of using it.

No it's really not. Like have you ever actually tried any of the old school strategy games where the concept originates? In those you DON'T use every unit in every turn and turns still take forever. Even if the mechanism worked perfectly it would still have been bad because it would have made turn times last forever, unit movement clunky and painful and have shifted the focus of the turn from managing your empire, which is the core of a civ game, and into managing your units instead.

CIV is not a military strategy game. It's an X4 game. The military strategy has to compete with the other 3 Xes for space and not push them out.

 

[Sarin]

No it's really not. Like have you ever actually tried any of the old school strategy games where the concept originates? In those you DON'T use every unit in every turn and turns still take forever. Even if the mechanism worked perfectly it would still have been bad because it would have made turn times last forever, unit movement clunky and painful and have shifted the focus of the turn from managing your empire, which is the core of a civ game, and into managing your units instead.

CIV is not a military strategy game. It's an X4 game. The military strategy has to compete with the other 3 Xes for space and not push them out.

It's not like it's impossible by design to create unit grouping, formations and group pathfinding which could make it almost as smooth as the doomstack moving from previous Civs.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

It's not like it's impossible by design to create unit grouping, formations and group pathfinding which could make it almost as smooth as the doomstack moving from previous Civs.

Of course not. A good example being say Hearts of Iron. But at that point you turn CIV into a game that's much more focused on military strategy and not a proper balanced 4X game. And at that point you might as well go play a game that focuses on this and does it better like the aforementioned Hearts of Iron. The fun of 4X games is that they are a jack of all trades master of none arrangement where you can focus on which ever of the aspects you enjoy most or to each to varying degrees as opposed to being forced to focus heavily on just one.

 

[Sarin]

Of course not. A good example being say Hearts of Iron. But at that point you turn CIV into a game that's much more focused on military strategy and not a proper balanced 4X game. And at that point you might as well go play a game that focuses on this and does it better like the aforementioned Hearts of Iron. The fun of 4X games is that they are a jack of all trades master of none arrangement where you can focus on which ever of the aspects you enjoy most or to each to varying degrees as opposed to being forced to focus heavily on just one.

I see it differently. Until 1UPT, the military strategy was almost nonexistent and relied mostly on the number and type of units you could produce and throw together into doomstack. With 1UPT, military strategy and tactics become as important and engaging as optimizing your workers' orders.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I see it differently. Until 1UPT, the military strategy was almost nonexistent and relied mostly on the number and type of units you could produce and throw together into doomstack. With 1UPT, military strategy and tactics become as important and engaging as optimizing your workers' orders.

Number and type of units IS strategy. You aren't shuffling units because that's not your job as a strategist or the leader of a country. Your job is to tell Army Group Center to get on with pushing to the Volga and not micromanaging every tank battalion. CIV4 has a perfectly adequate strategic layer which relies on figuring out what units you need, in what numbers and where and than making sure your economy can produce and sustain those units and get them where they need to be.

Now is there room for improvement in CIV4? Yes, absolutely. The strategic layer is merely adequate as opposed to great. And I would certainly like to see combat change so as to place more emphasis on raiding, besieging and other activities other than bashing stacks together.

But going to the opposite extreme and making you babysit every unit around isn't the answer.

 

[Sarin]

Number and type of units IS strategy. You aren't shuffling units because that's not your job as a strategist or the leader of a country. Your job is to tell Army Group Center to get on with pushing to the Volga and not micromanaging every tank battalion. CIV4 has a perfectly adequate strategic layer which relies on figuring out what units you need, in what numbers and where and than making sure your economy can produce and sustain those units and get them where they need to be.

Now is there room for improvement in CIV4? Yes, absolutely. The strategic layer is merely adequate as opposed to great. And I would certainly like to see combat change so as to place more emphasis on raiding, besieging and other activities other than bashing stacks together.

But going to the opposite extreme and making you babysit every unit around isn't the answer.

You also have to babysit every worker, and give each unit individual attack order to get at least that little piece of tactics left in Civ4-equence of attack-right. It's not much different from 1UPT, had there been proper tools for group movement and formations.

As I wrote, good idea, awful execution.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

You also have to babysit every worker, and give each unit individual attack order to get at least that little piece of tactics left in Civ4-equence of attack-right. It's not much different from 1UPT, had there been proper tools for group movement and formations.

As I wrote, good idea, awful execution.

It's different. Very different. There is nothing good about covering the whole map with units and having to spend hours shuffling them around irregardless of how "automated" it gets. None the least of which because automation is the tool of the devil and no self respecting player automates anything.

 

[Sarin]

It's different. Very different. There is nothing good about covering the whole map with units and having to spend hours shuffling them around irregardless of how "automated" it gets. None the least of which because automation is the tool of the devil and no self respecting player automates anything.

So you move your doomstacks unit by unit? We're talking about same level of automated movement. There's no inherent reason why you couldn't group multiple units and send them with one click to location several turns away while maintaining formation or reshuffling into it upon arrival. It would just need a bit of work with pathfinding AI, which is where 5 failed.

Also, the carpets of doom are inefficient solution stemming from bad AI and players stuck in the old mindset. I found that small, properly commanded groups (about 9-12 units+GG) are more cost-effective. Of course you might need a trail of reinforcements for meatshield troops, but that's not different from Civ4. And there's no reason why the game couldn't be balanced around smaller army sizes.

And frankly, I do not feel that it diminishes other aspects. There are 4X games with more complex battle systems that work well, like for example Master of Orion 2.