What single thing annoys you most about Civ VI?

[Zaarin]

In Civ V you could have 3 or 4 cities that'd hold all you're great work, which is kinda unrealistic.

Is it? Last I checked NYC had half a dozen major museums, who knows how many libraries and archives, and dozens of performance halls from Broadway to the Met. Same for Paris, Rome, London, etc. And those are just single cities in different civilizations.

 

[KayAU]

It is yet another thing big cities should get more of.

 

[shaglio]

I have a new one. I traded an artifact (in a full museum) to the Cree for another artifact. Does the game put the artifact in the full museum like a sensible person would do? No, it puts it in an empty museum so that the Archaeologist from the formerly empty museum only collects two artifacts, leaving the other museum permanently empty without the ability to add another artifact to it, making theming either museum impossible. And I already tried buying another artifact and the game won't let me. Thanks for screwing up my game.

I'll never understand why they decided to make it so that you can't move a Great Work unless the building is full. I'm trying to find a logical game play reason for it, but I'm coming up empty.

 

[Zaarin]

I'll never understand why they decided to make it so that you can't move a Great Work unless the building is full. I'm trying to find a logical game play reason for it, but I'm coming up empty.

That and the restriction on moving Great Works of Art once every 10 turns. But I do have an update: the game generously allowed me to build a second Archaeologist at full cost so I could fill that one slot!

 

[legalizefreedom]

I'll never understand why they decided to make it so that you can't move a Great Work unless the building is full. I'm trying to find a logical game play reason for it, but I'm coming up empty.

Maybe it should be unlocked when you finish a civic.

Or better yet, whenever you decide to move a work, it takes travel time to get there.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Since I'm all about immersion and epic games I would have to say the biggest thing that bothers me at the moment are the lack of World Wonder mods that are available. It's too bad they are such a challenge for modders to create. It's really this one thing that has me going back to Civ 5 occasionally.

 

[aggri1]

I thought districts would be cool. But the implementation severely disappointed me.

Long has it bothered me that most production in Civ comes from dudes digging in hills near a city. I always wanted production to come from workshops / factories. In Civ IV this could have been done by making production buildings provide worker specialist slots - and I had hoped that Civ 6 would use dictricts in a similar manner, namely that most of a city's production would come from people working in the Industrial Zone (IZ). But alas, the IZ is pretty lame, even a six-hammer (eh, cog?) IZ is barely better than a dude on a late-game mine. From what I've seen so far, the 'specialist' slots enabled by districts are super inefficient: 2 production for a worker, 4 gold in the commerce zone?! Are you serious? Better to work the countryside!

I actually most liked the way Colonization did production, and had hoped that districts would be used in that sort of way. Alas.

Oh and I got barely half a game into Civ 6 before I started searching for interface mods. I can't image what they were thinking when they came up with it! All hail CQUI!

And district cost scaling doesn't make any sense to me at all. A dumb gamey mechanic, though at least it's better than Civ 3's 'corruption' mechanism (imo).

And I also hate that workers have 'points' which are used up in doing things. Another dumb gamey mechanic. I live in hope that Civ will adopt Call-to-Power's Public Works points system one day.

Man, I could build such an awesome Civ game! ;-)

Cheers,
A.

 

[Mesix]

I don't know if you intended to make that sound as awesome as you just did. Fallen Enchantress is one of fairly few civ-likes which is not from the Civilization franchise which I have been able to get into. I quite dislike the visuals, but mechanically, I think it's a gem.

Fallen Enchantress was developed by Kael who developed FFH as a popular mod for Civ4 on CivFanatics. I played an early release version of FE and was disappointed. Perhaps I will give it another go.

 

[Mesix]

I'd like if they were half as powerful but twice as many slots.

Also, it will never cease to annoy me that a library could not possibly hold a great work of writing. "Sorry, Mr. Twain, this library is for science books only!"

I always thought it would be cool if great works of writing could provide different bonuses in different types of buildings. In a library or university perhaps they could provide less culture (and perhaps no tourism) and some additional science for example. In a shrine or a temple they could provide some faith. This would create more use for great works and give them a strategic choice mechanic as well.

 

[kaltorak]

Fallen Enchantress was developed by Kael who developed FFH as a popular mod for Civ4 on CivFanatics. I played an early release version of FE and was disappointed. Perhaps I will give it another go.

Developed by Kael is saying too much, The game was already done, but bad. They hired Kael to overhaul it.
The game was awesome when I played it, which wasnt at release. I think it may be pretty dated nowadays tho.

 

[KayAU]

Fallen Enchantress was developed by Kael who developed FFH as a popular mod for Civ4 on CivFanatics. I played an early release version of FE and was disappointed. Perhaps I will give it another go.

I thought Fall From Heaven was fantastic. I think what kaltorak said is right, they brought in Kael to make it good. I know the game was poorly received at release, and seem to recall that Stardock apologized for not meeting expectations. I didn't play it at release myself, but based on the versions I have played, it seems Kael succeeded. As it stands today, in my opinion, Fallen Enchantress is a very good game.

Fallen Enchantress - Legendary Heroes is the version to get.

Developed by Kael is saying too much, The game was already done, but bad. They hired Kael to overhaul it.
The game was awesome when I played it, which wasnt at release. I think it may be pretty dated nowadays tho.

Visually, I think it was never all that appealing, at least not to me. It still plays very well, though, and has a pretty good UI when compared to some other games in the genre.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I agree with many of these but for my biggest complaint, even though it's not original: lack of interesting things to do late in the game. I generally go for science victories so there comes a point where the game turns into "next turn" until those rockets are done and nothing else matters. But maybe the fundamental problem is the idea of victory conditions themselves. The world doesn't just stop because someone launched a rocket. Maybe the game should stop at a certain point and your progress in all areas can be taken into account. When I think back on past games, I don't know if my best memories are of how I achieved a victory - it's usually some moment like the time I conquered the Germans or the time I converted all the religions on my continent. Those were conditions I set myself.

For smaller things, I am annoyed by the wonkiness of the agendas : "You're headed for bankruptcy!" one turn (but I'm +150 gold per turn!) and then "You have a great economy!" the very next turn. Or Victoria loves to say how great she thinks I am moments before declaring war. I get that sometimes leaders lie to each other but I don't think this is machiavellian, I think it's wonky.

You are not interested in the late game because the civ late game is over in practice long before it's over in fact. Ending a game where there is virtually no chance of losing will still take over an hour in many cases, and if you're trying to optimize for win date significantly more.

Time difference between "one nation is almost certainly going to win" and "VC actually completed" has always been an issue in 4x games. Newer civ games exacerbate this with shoddy-optimized performance and a UI best described as hot garbage, but it's a design hurdle in general.

There have been superior design solutions and better UIs since the 1990s. Firaxis could do it, if they cared.

 

[Disgustipated]

I know this is kind of turning into a rant thread, but... my current game:

37 antiquity sites. Sigh. It's not exactly practical to build enough archaeology museums to clear all these antiquity sites. Granted, I have been warring a lot. Many tiles will just have to be unimproved.

 

[shaglio]

I know this is kind of turning into a rant thread, but... my current game:

37 antiquity sites. Sigh. It's not exactly practical to build enough archaeology museums to clear all these antiquity sites. Granted, I have been warring a lot. Many tiles will just have to be unimproved.

In my last game, I founded a late city. I was almost done building the Harbor with a spot planned for the Commercial Hub to make a nice little triangle . . . until I unlocked antiquity sites and, wouldn't you know it, one just happened to be on that perfect spot I had planned out

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

In my last game, I founded a late city. I was almost done building the Harbor with a spot planned for the Commercial Hub to make a nice little triangle . . . until I unlocked antiquity sites and, wouldn't you know it, one just happened to be on that perfect spot I had planned out

In real life, you start to excavate the site, then discover the artifacts, then wait while it takes 10 turns longer to complete the dig while the artifact is extracted.

 

[AntoineS]

What annoys me the most isn't even that the game has all these issues that you guys rightfully point out.

Rather, it is that a second expansion will come out and that's it... No more support, no further development, do it yourself community create a new Vox Populli...we'll focus on Civ 7 and the same reoccurring cycle will take place.

Civ 7 will be faulty, we'll be disappointed, 5 or 6 DLCs and 2 expansions later, on to Civ 8...

In the end none of these games ever reaches its full potential. There's no mystic about these games anymore. Hoping for something worthwhile in the long run is vain. Buying the game is increasingly unappealing because let's be real, it doesn't look like Firaxis cares about the community that made its game what it is.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

What annoys me the most isn't even that the game has all these issues that you guys rightfully point out.

Rather, it is that a second expansion will come out and that's it... No more support, no further development, do it yourself community create a new Vox Populli...we'll focus on Civ 7 and the same reoccurring cycle will take place.

Civ 7 will be faulty, we'll be disappointed, 5 or 6 DLCs and 2 expansions later, on to Civ 8...

In the end none of these games ever reaches its full potential. There's no mystic about these games anymore. Hoping for something worthwhile in the long run is vain. Buying the game is increasingly unappealing because let's be real, it doesn't look like Firaxis cares about the community that made its game what it is.

Or, alternatively, Firaxis recognizes that changes made to the game post-Civ 3 have either (a) fractured the community or (b) expanded the total audience of potential Civ players, depending on your viewpoint. Some people prefer Civ 4 and would pay for more development and content for that engine. Some prefer Civ 5 and would pay for more development and content of that engine. Some prefer Civ 6 and would pay for more development of that content.

If Firaxis decides to support only the Civ 6 engine going forward, they'll reap greater sales from that market, but not from the people who are looking for a different Civ experience. Civ 7, on the other hand, gives them an opportunity to both expand the potential audience even more, and up-sell to people who like earlier versions and are left cold by Civ 6.

Finally, I don't buy the idea that Civ 7 needs to be faulty on release. Civ 6 wasn't really faulty on release, it was just … Civ 6. If you liked it, great. If you didn't, you spent a lot of time (like I did) trying to figure out what was "wrong" with it. Only to eventually realize there was nothing wrong with it. It was (and is) the game the development team wanted to make. Not a game I enjoy playing, but that's on me for wanting a different gaming experience than Civ 6 offers.

 

[AntoineS]

Or, alternatively, Firaxis recognizes that changes made to the game post-Civ 3 have either (a) fractured the community or (b) expanded the total audience of potential Civ players, depending on your viewpoint. Some people prefer Civ 4 and would pay for more development and content for that engine. Some prefer Civ 5 and would pay for more development and content of that engine. Some prefer Civ 6 and would pay for more development of that content.

If Firaxis decides to support only the Civ 6 engine going forward, they'll reap greater sales from that market, but not from the people who are looking for a different Civ experience. Civ 7, on the other hand, gives them an opportunity to both expand the potential audience even more, and up-sell to people who like earlier versions and are left cold by Civ 6.

Finally, I don't buy the idea that Civ 7 needs to be faulty on release. Civ 6 wasn't really faulty on release, it was just … Civ 6. If you liked it, great. If you didn't, you spent a lot of time (like I did) trying to figure out what was "wrong" with it. Only to eventually realize there was nothing wrong with it. It was (and is) the game the development team wanted to make. Not a game I enjoy playing, but that's on me for wanting a different gaming experience than Civ 6 offers.

I get your point about expanding the total audience of potential civ players it's solid. That's clearly what they're doing. But in the end you do say "some wish civ 4 had been further developed, others civ 5, others civ 6" well in the end it just shows that no game has been developed enough. No game has reached its potential.

Again it's just my point of view... If you're not satisfied with 6 I don't think it's on you. Some people enjoy it but if we just look at this forum many are frustrated to some extent and that is on the game developers. They should understand their audience instead of their audience having to understand them.

I believe at some point in the long term future they will be forced to change their approach to keep being successful. Bringing the mystic back by focusing on the community and developing a less commercial game but rather a game that makes sense like it did to Sid Meier's when he first created it. Something along those lines.

That was just my 2 cents on the initial question "what is the single most annoying thing about civ 6 to you". To me, beyond everything that's been pointed out already, it's that its development cycle looks to be the same as 4 and 5 and probably as upcoming 7 although I don't know that for a fact.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

They should understand their audience instead of their audience having to understand them.

I expect they do. I'm just not it.

I believe at some point in the long term future they will be forced to change their approach to keep being successful. Bringing the mystic back by focusing on the community and developing a less commercial game but rather a game that makes sense like it did to Sid Meier's when he first created it. Something along those lines.

​

I sincerely hope so!

 

[RealAntithesis]

Another vote for the braindead unit cycling. I can't believe Firaxis never fixed it or even saw anything wrong with it. Trying to concentrate on an attack on one front is almost impossible since the game selects the next unit based on its own internal order resulting in selecting a unit a screen or two away from where you were instead of units closest to the previous unit you were controlling.

It's been years without the simplest things being fixed - though in this case it's more of a quality of life fix for an extremely annoying game play feature (it's like they don't really play their own game with a critical eye or don't listen to their customers...). The inexplicable reluctance to fix things like this isn't a particular failing of Firaxis either. Bethesda is another company that does the same thing. Seems it's only paid for dlc that gets most of the development time instead of things that people have already paid for.