Whats wrong with Civ 6 ... your opinion

[Pistol90]

I started this thread for one reason. To see if am the only one which at the end is not happy how Civ 6 turn out to be. Its by far most content-fill game yet, but too much thing are out of the order, dont make sense, make game more boring etc.

Lets start to order one by one mechanics which are good idea, but terribly implemented.

You have World Congress, but its sessions start even not all Civ met each other -- who in the world thought it was way to be implemented ... then you have voting complicated in a unneccesary way.

You have Ages, but in most cases they are useless --- you have Diplomatic victory but its a joke -- you can achive it by being worst kind of genocidal maniac.

You have climate changes -- but they dont effect anything ... you have way to fight against them --- but in the end cant do nothing --- and there is no reason to care at the first place.

You have loyalty , but it ended up being just another thing to make game boring because you cant settle outside you control of interest. You have free cities but they act like barbarians instead of some political entity.

You have City states, but you cant pledge to protect them ... so they ended up being capture.

You have Alliances, but its not related how alliances work in real world ... WW1 started because of alliances, and German and Austria didnt have military alliance, neither Serbia and Russia have religious alliance, neither France and Russia cultural ... it was just an alliance

Not to mention AI and so many other things ...

My question is are you satisfied how Civ 6 turn out to be. I am not talking about how much content there is , but how its been implemented and game mechanics.

 

[bonafide11]

Many great ideas, but questionable implementation. It isn't beyond saving, it's still a great game. But just making buckets like tourism something to fill up without any affect on the world or gameplay are really annoying. Tourism needs to affect loyalty already, it is an obvious flaw with the game and I can't believe they haven't corrected it yet. I think I'm going to add it to my signature!

 

[ferenginar]

I haven't voted, as none of the options apply. Civ VI is IMHO the best Civ yet, by a country mile. However, there are nonetheless, certain aspects that could do with tweaking.

I have just won my first Diplomatic Victory in GS, easily moved to 8 points by winning votes, based entirely on saving up favour for this and nothing else. Then went on a massive killing spree, to wipe out all but one Ai, to ensure they couldn't down vote me the next time round. Absolute piece of cake, but not very Diplomatic. I think perhaps, that you should be stripped of a Diplomatic victory point if you wipe out any opposition Civ.

 

[Naeshar]

I voted for wrong ideas to start with. All your points are valid, but mere details. (also to point out that you can play with ordinary alliances in vanilla civ6). I think the core mechanics are implemented wrongly.

I really liked the original concept of trade yield, that was either converted to science, gold, luxuries or stolen (corruption). The science and culture yields as such (from worked tiles and buildings and population) enforce constant progress without any cost. Once the empire gets big, these spiral out of control and you can blaze through ages. Example everyones favourite premier science civ. This kind of system forces maximizing yields instead of balance and control. Sure it makes things easy, but also much more dull.

Loyalty was presented as one of the major changes in RnF and it was. Unfortunately it only limits expansion and warmongering to some extent. It is good to see no more forward settling, but loyalty is irrelevant otherwise.
Ages are very gamified. Gathering these points (just like CS quests) detracts from the empire building, and affects literally only loyalty (as powerful as that is), and the resolutions, which are either pointlessly generic (dark/normal) or there is one best choice (gleaming/heroic ages). These are quite good, but those giving additional age points are too bland. Too many times I picked monumentality or currency reform because they would give most points for next age.

The city spreading is great idea and the implementation is almost as good, however as result the map is crowded with districts and wonders. I almost feel some of the wonders should not require a separate tile and be built in district instead (Big Ben, Ruhr Valley, Bolshoi Theatre for example). Most cities in late game do not work many tiles, or they are the leftover tiles like coast. This feels more like a content overload rather than mechanical problem.

 

[universecreep]

Lots of features - great. Poor implementation/balance - sigh...

The game needs some polish to work out some of the frustrating issues (AI doesn't know how to use all the game play elements, diplomacy is still boring/weak, under powered policy cards, world congress is unwieldy and the subjects voted do not affect the course of the game).

 

[awesome]

Global warming.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

My question is are you satisfied how Civ 6 turn out to be. I am not talking about how much content there is , but how its been implemented and game mechanics.

I find Civ 6 quite simply to be boring, which is a new experience for me, as I never found any previous version of Civ boring. The base mechanics for 6 are just so weak and unbalanced, it robs the game of the "one more turn" feeling. I'm a builder at heart, but empire building doesn't come with the pressure to balance competing needs the way it did in the past.

For me, Civ 6 is like a lingerie model who didn't finish high school: beautiful to look at, but it'll never challenge you, and it's ultimately unsatisfying to spend time with.

 

[BenitoChavez]

They really need a patch to improve the balance, improve the AI, and fix some bugs.

Otherwise it's a great game

 

[Unconquered Sun]

It's like it's made by a dev team who've never played a Civ game before.

 

[AriochIV]

While I think that the game would be deeper if the various systems interacted with each other more, I think what is often overlooked is how much the terrible UI drags the game down. I'm generally not a fan of custom UI mods, but I recent tried eudaimonia's "Concise UI" mod and I was kind of taken aback at how it really demonstrated how bad the default UI is. The screens are pretty and seem dense with information, but 80% of it is useless. So many systems in the game are either insufficiently exposed in the UI, or in some cases are almost totally opaque to the user, that they might as well not even exist. You can't effectively manage a system for which there is no meaningful feedback.

The many unnecessary extra clicks required in many screens don't help the gameplay either.

 

[Sagax]

While I think that the game would be deeper if the various systems interacted with each other more, I think what is often overlooked is how much the terrible UI drags the game down. I'm generally not a fan of custom UI mods, but I recent tried eudaimonia's "Concise UI" mod and I was kind of taken aback at how it really demonstrated how bad the default UI is. The screens are pretty and seem dense with information, but 80% of it is useless. So many systems in the game are either insufficiently exposed in the UI, or in some cases are almost totally opaque to the user, that they might as well not even exist. You can't effectively manage a system for which there is no meaningful feedback.

The many unnecessary extra clicks required in many screens don't help the gameplay either.

To add to it: it makes no sense that notification pop ups are that huge and cover your ENTIRE screen in mid-late game. Especially when a single modder came up with an embarrassingly (to Firaxis) simple solution to that.

 

[alancsilver]

While I think that the game would be deeper if the various systems interacted with each other more, I think what is often overlooked is how much the terrible UI drags the game down. I'm generally not a fan of custom UI mods, but I recent tried eudaimonia's "Concise UI" mod and I was kind of taken aback at how it really demonstrated how bad the default UI is. The screens are pretty and seem dense with information, but 80% of it is useless. So many systems in the game are either insufficiently exposed in the UI, or in some cases are almost totally opaque to the user, that they might as well not even exist. You can't effectively manage a system for which there is no meaningful feedback.

The many unnecessary extra clicks required in many screens don't help the gameplay either.

Yes.... This is probably the one thing that kills the game for me. There are others, but the UI is just terrible. It is too hard to find the information. I was used to playing with CQUI before GS, that I forgot how horrible the base UI is. Trade route sorting, city information, info about other civ outputs (science, culture, military), unit info and most of all trying to locate objects on the map (amenities and resources and such) It is painful to make so many clicks to find info that other mods provide. Thus making games take longer and making me not care at all...

As I said there are other issues especially what was added to GS rather than fixing current issues, but UI man....

 

[Uncle_Joe]

As has been stated before, Civ6 moved away from being a game and is much closer to being a sandbox. The AIs aren't really there to try and win the game, but merely to provide some opposing friction for the player.

I like most of the mechanics in Civ6 but I don't play it because it's not really a strategy game anymore.

 

[rockhpi]

I feel like GS has extended the end game out without making it more interesting.

 

[Starwars]

I love the game and find it superfun but like some, I'm not thrilled that it seems to be moving into a more "roleplaying" or sandboxy type of experience rather than a strong strategy game.

But again, that said, it's a very fun game overall.

 

[bonafide11]

As has been stated before, Civ6 moved away from being a game and is much closer to being a sandbox. The AIs aren't really there to try and win the game, but merely to provide some opposing friction for the player.

I like most of the mechanics in Civ6 but I don't play it because it's not really a strategy game anymore.

I don't really agree with this. The AI still needs improvement, but it has improved some I believe since R&F. There is still strategy and it's not a sandbox, you can play with different strategies for optimal levels. Some work better than others. I think this post is just being a bit overly nitpicky and whiny.

 

[MrRadar]

I think what is often overlooked is how much the terrible UI drags the game down..

I doubt it is overlooked, I'm already tired to repeat this on these boards, but it should be stressed and pointed out on every occasion nevertheless. Easily the worst UI during the 25+2 years of the franchise.

You can't effectively manage a system for which there is no meaningful feedback.
The many unnecessary extra clicks required in many screens don't help the gameplay either.

Before UI mods It just used to drive me up the wall, trading and available resource checking first of all.

Two expansions later nothing has changed, we only got global resource screen, which I am yet to find a use for.
I don't know what to think, seriously. Two expansions, deal screen useless, reports screens – headache inducing, trade routes screen - just lying and misinforming you.

 

[Victoria]

This is a great thread, shows that even here many people are happy with it.

You can make your own rules up, play with mods, plenty of choice.

 

[Sostratus]

There is little I would classify as "Wrong." I would say some areas need improvement.

Specifically:
Game pacing - production costs. They've never touched this* but the way the scaling is into late game creates a whole load of pacing problems.
*they did right away but it was a 10% district base cost reduction.

Building yields. Now that the meta is generally known they can react to it. Some things probably need tweaking (like the relative value of science vs gold, say.)

Unit Combat / Cost in the face of the new resource system. Some units have had their power budgets changed a lot now that they are limited by resources (or not.)

Aircraft carrier fleets don't give more air unit capacity. Whoops, how did that get in there

~~~~~~~~
All these things don't require copious amount of dev time, like "they should make railroads do cool stuff" etc.
Carl, King of QA, could take an intern and a spreadsheet and hammer this out in a month or two if they were clever about it.

Edit: Obviously there's a lot of other areas I see need shoring up too, but I'm sticking to the low cost, 'drop in', 'make the intern do it,' ones, in case FXS needs to keep them busy this summer.

 

[Silvtown]

For me - and I've wanted to post this in a variety of recent threads - it's the inability of the AI to pursue victory. You survive the early game rush and then it doesn't feel like there's any pressure to play well. The game gives you all these reports and tons of little micromanagement opportunities, but there's no point. Someone else posted that GS extended the late game without making it interesting, which is true. It would be much more satisfying if you needed to really play well to get ahead of an AI that was racing towards a victory. I feel like Civ V did this better, and Civ IV did it quite well.

I do enjoy the game and I think it has a lot of potential. Hopefully a couple more patches will fix the worst exploits and get the AI to focus better on victory (which I think is an easier ask than trying to turn the AI into a war/tactical guru).