Where's the joy in civ6?

[Sephi]

Well...this is one of my main complaints about Civ 6. Were any systems or features ever significantly changed or refined from how they were first released?

Why would they do that? The game was and still is a massive success on steam. Way more successfull than any civ game before. The game does what it is supposed to do very very well. Similar to civ5 or stellaris it focuses on "fun micro". One unit per tile is the name of the game. Needless micro that you can enjoy if you like it or ignore if you don't. Don't like warfare? Just ignore it and buy a couple units if you get attacked. Don't like social policies? Just select whatever and ignore it. Don't like to plan districts in advance? then just don't do it. Don't like city states? disable them. The civ6 game buffet has dozens of very loosely coupled subsystems to pick and choose from. Want to "feel awesome"? The civ-fortnite edition has you covered with hercules, vampires or zombies. Or go oldschool and show ghandi whose words are truly backed by nuclear weapons. Just don't come looking for any deep strategy and challenging ai, because you won't find much of it. Civ6 is a great video game, just not a good strategy game. Like the poster lastsword put it so brilliantly. In the game of civ6, you don't play the map, the map plays you.

 

[Patine]

One unit per tile is the name of the game.

Thank-you for reminding me of this other odious flaw in Civ6 as a game. Civ-iteration games are supposed to be global, strategic level simulations, not Sid Meier's Gettysburg.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Well...this is one of my main complaints about Civ 6. Were any systems or features ever significantly changed or refined from how they were first released? It seems that the focus has been on adding content, rather than to refine what's already there. I understand this from a financial standpoint, as new content sells and generates excitement. But I think the quality of the game has suffered as a result.

I realise I sound very negative, but please don't get me wrong. I don't think Civ 6 is a bad game, it's just that it had the potential to be much better. There are so many good and interesting ideas in it, and if they had focused more on improving rather than adding, it could have been amazing.

I fully agree with this, and hope they do allow for more modding in civ 7.
At the moment I'm just steamrolling even deity too hard every game, to the point that I have to actively sabotage my own optimization and otherwise handicap myself, in order to get a slower win time and more challenge out of the game.
I really wish there was a Vox Populi of civ 6 to take the game to the next level while waiting for civ 7.

 

[frutiemax]

I would say the only thing that annoys is the amount of micro management in the late game and the broken multiplayer desync issues. The AI is broken with all the newest additions they've made to the game, they'd need to hire an AI specialist for Civ 7.

 

[ShuShu62]

I finally figured out why civ 6 is my least favorite iteration. Finding resources is what you build around in 1-5.

In 6, they are, work once for the bonus, then harvest... Harvest them ALL. One big game of replacing all terrain with districts.

I can understand the appeal of make what I want over leverage what is there.... But, not for
me

 

[nzcamel]

I finally figured out why civ 6 is my least favorite iteration. Finding resources is what you build around in 1-5.

In 6, they are, work once for the bonus, then harvest... Harvest them ALL. One big game of replacing all terrain with districts.

I can understand the appeal of make what I want over leverage what is there.... But, not for
me

I can agree that harvesting should be less powerful, and should have greater consequences later than we see currently.

 

[Kwami]

I suspect that bonus resources are harvestable in VI because otherwise they would get in the way of districts. Besides that, using them up all at once instead of over time is rather realistic. Civilizations did that all over the globe, often with disastrous long-term results. Perhaps a good model for those long-term consequences would cause players to pause before harvesting all of the bonus resources.

I don't harvest the animal ones, though. They're too cute. Even the stupid fish.

 

[nzcamel]

I suspect that bonus resources are harvestable in VI because otherwise they would get in the way of districts. Besides that, using them up all at once instead of over time is rather realistic. Civilizations did that all over the globe, often with disastrous long-term results. Perhaps a good model for those long-term consequences would cause players to pause before harvesting all of the bonus resources.

I don't harvest the animal ones, though. They're too cute. Even the stupid fish.

Nah, you can build a district right over the top of them I'm pretty sure. You'd just be a fool to without harvesting first.

 

[KayAU]

I suspect that bonus resources are harvestable in VI because otherwise they would get in the way of districts.

I don't mind harvestable resources so much, it makes sense both thematically and as a game mechanic where you essential choose between short or long term benefits.

The bit about resources blocking districts, however, is another example of something which seems underdeveloped. You can actually build on top of bonus resources, they'll just disappear without any further benefits. But luxuries and strategics do block districts. How many times has it happened that my city layouts have been ruined because I unlocked a tech, and now there's Niter where my +5 Industrial Zone was supposed to go? Of course, if I had placed the district before getting the tech, I will automatically get the resource. The same goes for wonders. The Pyramids can pump Oil in this game.

So what you're encouraged to do, is to delay techs which reveal resources, and to place down districts as soon as possible (also to lock production cost, IIRC). This has never seemed quite right to me, as it neither makes sense, nor is particularly fun.

 

[Kwami]

Nah, you can build a district right over the top of them I'm pretty sure. You'd just be a fool to without harvesting first.

You can build a district on top of them because they're harvestable. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to build the district. That's why you can't build on top of luxury and strategic resources. Therefore, my point stands.

 

[planetfall]

Ok, I've played enough civ6 games to figure out what I hate: It's impossilble, even at low difficulty levels, to build up a city with full Science, Industry, Banking, Military and Airports. Oh, you can do it, but it's like turn 350 to 400 and it's just too annoying. Other civ releases, you could build up a city about half way thru the game cycle, and then had time to play the delayed military game. Here it's too much one path or another. Don't know if it's modable to be fun or not. I'll try, but low low low hopes for salvation.

 

[InsidiousMage]

It's impossilble, even at low difficulty levels, to build up a city with full Science, Industry, Banking, Military and Airports. Oh, you can do it, but it's like turn 350 to 400 and it's just too annoying.

Not really. I finish all of my games by turn 300 on Emperor difficulty and to get all of those districts you only need at 13 pop city. Its going to have to be an early city to do that but its totally possible to do if know what you are doing. The inspiration for Urbanization, an Industrial era civic, is to have a 15 pop city so its not an impossible thing to do by the late mid-game, ignoring the fact that airports are a late game tech. Build farm triangles in your cities and use internal trade routes to help grow your cities and its possible to do. But, you shouldn't need to do that anyway. Have a couple of cities dedicated to military unit production(Encampment, Industrial Zone, and Commercial Hub[if you want]) and then a couple of other cities focused on generating science, culture, and gold (Campus, Theater Square, and Commercial Hub/Harbor). All of your cities are not going to be able to everything and specializing is a totally valid thing to do.

 

[Depravo]

Not really. I finish all of my games by turn 300 on Emperor difficulty and to get all of those districts you only need at 13 pop city. Its going to have to be an early city to do that but its totally possible to do if know what you are doing. The inspiration for Urbanization, an Industrial era civic, is to have a 15 pop city so its not an impossible thing to do by the late mid-game, ignoring the fact that airports are a late game tech. Build farm triangles in your cities and use internal trade routes to help grow your cities and its possible to do. But, you shouldn't need to do that anyway. Have a couple of cities dedicated to military unit production(Encampment, Industrial Zone, and Commercial Hub[if you want]) and then a couple of other cities focused on generating science, culture, and gold (Campus, Theater Square, and Commercial Hub/Harbor). All of your cities are not going to be able to everything and specializing is a totally valid thing to do.

Yeah, there is nothing wrong with having to make sacrificial choices when you develop a city. Compares favourably to Civ 4 / 5 when you would automatically build almost everything in every city, and the only question was what order to do it in.

But I don't understand why the game ran with this idea, then devised other parts of the game (like civ unique attributes and the policies system) to favour specific types of district to the point that you're going to either want to spam that type in every city or barely build it at all.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Why was it fun in Civ4?

The one thing that made Religion more fun in Civ4 than in Civ6 was that it was a much bigger factor in your society pre-Renaissance. The "conflict" between State & Non-State religions, both internally and externally, was actually fun to manage. In all other areas, though, Civ4 religion is inferior to the Religion systems of Civ5 & Civ6. If they brought back the ability to make a religion a State Religion, then Civ6's religion system would be almost PERFECT.

 

[Depravo]

The one thing that made Religion more fun in Civ4 than in Civ6 was that it was a much bigger factor in your society pre-Renaissance. The "conflict" between State & Non-State religions, both internally and externally, was actually fun to manage. In all other areas, though, Civ4 religion is inferior to the Religion systems of Civ5 & Civ6. If they brought back the ability to make a religion a State Religion, then Civ6's religion system would be almost PERFECT.

They missed that opportunity when they made the decision that religion was a path you could either follow from turn 1 or thereabouts, or ignore. All religions are indelibly identified from the moment they're founded with a single civ that alone gains vast benefits from that religion that it alone defines. In Civ 6, you've either got a religion of your own, or you're indifferent to it except if another civ looks like it's in line to win a RV.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Yeah, there is nothing wrong with having to make sacrificial choices when you develop a city. Compares favourably to Civ 4 / 5 when you would automatically build almost everything in every city, and the only question was what order to do it in.

But this was NOT the case in Civ4. Every city got a granary, true, to speed up the grow-back after whipping. But one city would be the primary unit producer, with settled Great Generals. Another city would be your Great Person farm, with certain wonders. Still another city would be your commercial Hub, with Wall Street and corporations, if your game got that far. The best Civ4 players (over in their forums) explicitly discourage constructing all the buildings in all the cities. Starting great Wonders -- that you don't intend to finish, just for the fail gold -- is an effective strategy.

 

[Time Tested]

Fortunately, this problem could be fixed to some extent by mods.
I used mods to reduce the HP of cities and defenses, increase the movement of units, and give AI units an anti-district combat bonus.
Additionally, increased the number of civilizations on the map to twice the normal number, making the map more overcrowded.
As a result, AI civilizations frequently went to war, conquered and retook many cities, and even led to the complete destruction of some civilizations by the end of the game.

Which mods did you use for this?

 

[universecreep]

I remember when Shogun: Total War 1, the first Total War game, was released, and Electronic Arts - that odd marketing aberration that you won't find a single who claims to anything but loathe the company, but it's always one of the biggest market contenders in the computer gaming market - made ads, in it's hyper-aggressive, counter-culture-youth-driven, motto-ridden marketspeak, that not only had they declared the Total War series in the 4x turf (which it wasn't), but that it was a, "Civ-killer." It's almost laughable to remember that, now...

I've heard the claims of other games being "civ-killers" in the past. So far, none have come close. Call to Power I and II were probably the takes on the genre.

Humankind was the latest one. It wasn't the Devs claiming this though; it was the community. Obviously, that game didn't do anything to harm Civ or Firaxis.

I get irritated from time to time by Firaxis but they always do a great job with their Civ games. They're the only ones who will kill Civ.

I don't even want a game to "kill" Civ. I love the genre and want more games like this - competition is a good thing.

 

[planetfall]

Navies can be fun IF you build the Venetian Arsenal and then get 2 units for price of one. The navy pieces have no bearing on winning or losing, they are just different pieces to move around. But it's amusing to have a stealth bomber launch off a carrier. Even an old B-52 couldn't do that.

 

[Chiss5618]

Navies can be fun IF you build the Venetian Arsenal and then get 2 units for price of one. The navy pieces have no bearing on winning or losing, they are just different pieces to move around. But it's amusing to have a stealth bomber launch off a carrier. Even an old B-52 couldn't do that.

I think one of the major problems with navies (besides map gen not having a ton of water) is that all the reasons they exist in the real world aren't there in civ.

Yields from trade are instant and non-critical, and traders serve no purpose besides establishing trading posts and being pillaged (which isn't too much of a problem). In order to make navies useful for protecting/blockading trade (like they are in the real world), traders shouldn't provide constant yields and instead provide a large amount on completion of a route. They could also be needed to transport luxuries/strategics to other civs/cities. Granted, that could be a bit of a nightmare to manage if not implemented properly.

Land units can easily embark, so navies aren't really needed for transportation/logistics. Land units should either require a ship in order to embark, or only have 1 movement when embarked unless they are being escorted. You also don't need to support your troops over long distances; you can capture a city and start buying units instantly, not to mention that supply lines are not a concept that exists in 6. Also, we ironically have a tech named combined arms, despite the implementation of combined arms being nearly non-existent.

The AI also absolutely sucks managing navies. Most leaders, even Hardrada, barely build large navies, and almost never build venetian. From what I've seen, the AI doesn't even group ships into fleets like it did in 5 and prefers to just mass ships off its coast.

The cost of a navy seems to be based on their real-world usefulness, but everything else about them is lacking and disappointing and basically requires Venetian to be viable.