Where's the joy in civ6?

[planetfall]

Civ used to be an exciting and challenging game. I passed on civ5 because it was too new and too massive of a change and reviews were not exciting.

I've played several games of civ6 now and to be honest it's missing the hooks of civ3 and civ4. Those were keep you on the seat of your pants games.
Civ6 is just too boring with too many annoyances that can't be easily undone to make the game fun. Today's new annoyance was almost a game stopper. At the start of the atomic age and every couple of turns have to select future civic. Come on, can't there be a multiselect option. It is soo pointless to keep on selecting future.

The game designers are trying to hide the game flaws by distractions: barbs, unfinished relgion path (work around was to only make religion available to half of the civs and there is no value in state religion.), aggressive AI, GP, like an every era goody hut which you randomly get points for, and way way too many build options. This new happiness metric is just busy work and not fun gameplay. Navies were weak in civ3 and civ4, now they are a joke.

I"m going to try a few more tweaks to see if I can get an interesting game ouf of this, but my gut is saying it's a lost cause and hope civ7 is better, in the meantime go back to civ4 BTS, or as have been for a long time, go to other games.

I can't believe I'm the only one with this view, but I thought I might as well post and see if any "old timers" who have played civ3 or civ4 of if any "young bucks" who only know civ5 and/or civ6 have a perspective or insight I may have missed.

Note I am not saying all of civ6 is bad, it's just too frustrating at this time.

Good changes:
-- endless roads removed
-- graphics improved
-- policies are a fun improvement
-- hex tiles now work better than squares
-- another ring of workable city tiles
-- corruption is gone, yeah

Worst changes:
-- religion in civ4 was fun, here it is just annoying
-- workers/builders dying after 3 turns
-- playing as a builder instead of a warmonger is not fun
-- happiness too geared to unhappy cities
-- housing was a good idea, but too restrictive, just because want to push neighborhoods


Okay, okay, I'll stop and let you all respond.

 

[James_Champagne]

-- playing as a builder instead of a warmonger is not fun

Says who?

 

[Vandlys]

I dislike war, and I love cultivating my peaceful civilization by building and developing.

I also don't care for the religious aspect having become basically another theatre of war.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I can't believe I'm the only one with this view, but I thought I might as well post and see if any "old timers" who have played civ3 or civ4 of if any "young bucks" who only know civ5 and/or civ6 have a perspective or insight I may have missed.

There's loads of threads on this, some agreeing some disagreeing.

-- playing as a builder instead of a warmonger is not fun

Most people seem to feel the opposite, warmongering is generally regarded as too easy in Civ VI.

 

[Prester John 2]

I do not concur. Civ6 is overall the best game of the franchise though of course I see the shortcomings. Warring is too easy because the AI does not build enough units, and veteran units with the right policies/city state supports are almost unbeatable. This is done better in Civ5 vox populi. Gaming apart from warring has much improved, with so many things to do. I've been playing the game since early Civ2 and after the pinnacle of civ4 civ6 is the best. I enjoy 1upt warfare but I simultaneously think that the AI is not good enough at it. They especially lack the necessary diversification of their army and then the right choice of appropriate units in the battle. AI stacks were dumber but more suitable for the AI. In Civ4 you had to be on the watch till late the game or some AI might steamroll you with a giant stack.
Yes, the religion game could be better, I also enjoyed the Civ4 experience, especially in mods like realism invictus which is overall the best Civ4 mod (and best Civ mod) I ever encountered.

 

[Depravo]

I'm surprised the OP didn't mention the absolutely awful diplomacy system which contributes to the often remarked on ludicrously skewed play arc where you will either be dead in the first 50 turns or have an insuperable lead by the Renaissance.

I like that Civ 6 didn't try and punish wide play quite as much as 5 did but there is just no reason not to expand like a lunatic in this version - especially with so many civs having incredibly powerful terrain dependent abilities a human player can exploit to the moon.

 

[KayAU]

I think you missed out by skipping 5. With Vox Populi, it is the best current Civ experience in my opinion.

As for Civ 6...I have written so much about it already, I don't want to repeat myself too much. Suffice to say, I think it has a lot of good ideas, but a lot of lackluster implementations. I think districts are the biggest innovation over Civ 5, and I think they work very well in the early game...not so much in the late game. The mid to late game in general is a bit of a problem for Civ 6. It always is in 4X games, but Civ 6 is worse than most, due to the amount of micro management and busywork combined with a lack of automation and new things to focus on in the late game.

I'm definitely an "old timer" in this context by the way, as I have been playing since Civ 1. On the Amiga.

 

[LzPrst]

Returning from a years long hibernation. Felt like civ-ing a bit a while ago, grabbed an expansion for Civ6 and ran a few games. They were fun at first, but something made me lose interest.
Here are a few points:

1. CPU. Civ6 makes my fan attempt to lower the earth's temperature by three degrees, only way to avoid this is playing in strategic mode. Meh.
2. Government. At first I loved the options available, but as the game progresses the options become flummoxing and I can't be bothered to do the calculations towards what is beneficial and whats not.
3. The "gamey-ness". I don't think manually controlling caravans and spy missions add anything to the game aside from management, especially in the late game.
4. Districts feel very limiting. Can't build wonders cause the land in my city isn't flat or hilly... Really? Weird choice.
5. Diminishing returns. GP production is dependent on what other civs do, it's a race rather than a development of my civ. Stupid choice. Same with districts/settlers/workers becoming more and more costly. That's a game mechanic to hinder development, which I feel is really stupid and breaking of immersion.
5. Game choice vs realism. Civ games traditionally used abstraction to represent historical development. Trade routes, health limiting city size, corruption etc. I think Civ 6 has too many specific minor things to manage, civics every 5 turns, spies, trade routes, district placement, unit shuffling, religious wars, building maintenance costs, amenities, and so on.

I could go on, but I think I've wasted enough time on Civ 6. I went back to Civ 4 BTS and the game is still fun. Optimizing, making choices, and doing cool things in war is fun. Last game I played Celts and used my gallic warriors to ambush an Ethiopian city by fast moving over a hill in their territory. Civ 4 still has weaknesses, but playing it I know what's in it. I know the wonders, I know the strategies. In Civ 6 there are umpteen wonders that I can't keep track of, leaders that give very specific and limiting play styles, endless civics that may or may not add anything, and a game that can't be played to finish without a supercomputer. Meh.

 

[LastSword]

Apparently tiles' yields were supposed to trigger "joy". In civ5 times, Petra's yields' screenshoots were quite popular and it kind of defined civ6 theme. It turned out quite successful comercially.

I completely agree on key word "distractions". The gameplay is naked. Fundamentals are poorly set.

The issue is not that civ6 turned series into builder genre, the issue is that it is not good builder game. Decisions are bland, rules lack consequence. AI does not seem to plan in future.
I have limited multiplayer experience, but it truely felt that starting locations are a bit too impactful. Not a fan of "play the map" concept as it means that "map plays you".

Anyway, I would say look for a chill rather than joy. Listen to those repetitive tunes (no war themes allowed!) and don't look at what AI is doing.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

Partially agree. I come from only playing a small amount of IV, putting 2k+ hours into V, and then ~1k so far into VI.

The biggest issue for me is the lack of "story" that VI elicits. I don't think that comes from a lack of warmongering bring supported (it's still the easiest/best way to win the game) but it comes from having to make a bunch of small-scale decisions like optimal district placement or which tiles to improve with your limited charges (Something I agree needs to be fixed in VII) that railroad the game on optimizing that over making meaningful diplomatic interactions and interacting with the greater "world" at large. In VI, I feel that unless I HAVE to, I just forgo any contact with the outside world and can turtle up and build more and more cities...which leads to more building to distract me further. And through it's many systems, the game rewards and incentivizes this style of gameplay! Well,unless you're trying from a CV maybe but even something like RV is so dependent on faith generation so you need a bunch of holy sites...which means more city building and micromanagement. But even during the midgame-when the game should be opening up-there is just no incentive (In amenities, gold, or much of anything besides curiosity) to discover other continents or players. I don't know about you but the Tonga, Chinese, and Spanish didn't explore for no reason-there were tangible benefits that are seemingly absent or unincentivized in VI. And of course, trading has been reduced to road building alongside coastal cities being almost always worse-off so there truly isn't a reason to explore the ocean and meet other players/continets that may shift your overall plans/story of the game. In over 1k hours I've never mounted a massive amphibious invasion of another continent (Unless I'm so far ahead and trying to be cheeky) and it's very common for me to forgo dealing with other continents altogether. Hell, I rarely deal with the AI unless a) I've been DOWed, b) I'm trying to exploit their programing when playing on higher difficulties, or, c) or there is truly no space for growth on our continent. c) is weirdly rare unless I add a bunch of more civs into th game. The options, despite being sooooo broad and allow for so much flexibility just feel hollow and transient...and the resulting games lack memorability IMO.

I will say that building can be the best it's ever been in VI and you can create some GORGEOUS cities that make going back to the simplistic designs of V and IV super tough. But...the lack of memorability and story building in VI is something that does grind on me after a few games admittedly and I still play MP with my friends in V over VI. Given that we're on the precipice of a new Civ game, that speaks volumes on which is actually more fun to play even years post launch.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

-- playing as a builder instead of a warmonger is not fun

EXCUSE ME?!!!! I love to build and I find wars in civ franchise boring as hell. I find wars in Age of Empires/Mythology games more fun than wars in civ franchise. I play civ to build.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Overall I prefer civ 6, even though it has some annoying issues that should have been ironed out (WC and diplomacy in general for instance).

But my biggest gripe with this game, which annoys me every damn game I play, is the absolutely atrocious pacing in this game, compared to it's predecessor civ 5.
I play on epic speed deity for the most part, and in a typical game I can spend the first 170-200 turns, slowly reaching the industrial era.
But once I reach that threshold that is the industrial era, I usually win within the next 30-40 turns.
On epic.

This shouldn't be, but it happens in every damn game I play.
I suddenly go from yields like 200 science/culture per turn, to suddenly rocket past 1000 culture and science per turn (and a few turns later, 2000 culture and science) within a short span of like 20 turns, as different bonuses just start interacting and snowballing completely out of control.
This completely ruins the late game for me for several reasons:
- I hardly get to experience the late game before the game is over.
- My closest AI competitors are usually still in the Renaissance era (early indistrual at best), and thus I do not get to experience late game (modern era +) warfare at all.

The civ devs, at least for civ 7, should seriously look into the power creep that has occured in civ 6.
I understand that the reddit crowd for instance loves to post their "insane yields (aka yield porn)" and that Firaxis probably caters quite a bit to that, but having yields go through the roof is not healthy for the game.
The effect that the rampant yields have, is that I can frequently 1- or 2-turn techs and civics from the industrial era onwards, and this on f***ing epic speed even!
Civ 5 at least had a late game to speak of, and the game was nowhere close to finished near the industrial era, and the year displayed somewhat matched actual scientific progress in that year (much more so than civ 6 at least).

 

[Kwami]

religion in civ4 was fun, here it is just annoying

Why was it fun in Civ4?

 

[newtociv6]

Worst changes:
-- religion in civ4 was fun, here it is just annoying
-- workers/builders dying after 3 turns
-- happiness too geared to unhappy cities
-- housing was a good idea, but too restrictive, just because want to push neighborhoods

with mods:
- 999 builder charges
- copies of luxury resource give amenity (like congress' on all of them)
- added today: double to triple effects for non-combat beliefs. Seems working well for AI civs.
- double housing from improvements. Vanila's setup is horrible when researches are slowed down and neighborhoods only pop at turn 300.

What's wrong with endless roads?

 

[KayAU]

EXCUSE ME?!!!! I love to build and I find wars in civ franchise boring as hell. I find wars in Age of Empires/Mythology games more fun than wars in civ franchise. I play civ to build.

I hear you, brother. I also generally prefer a peaceful builder playstyle to be the most enjoyable in civ, which is why I really like the early district placement game in Civ 6. That said, I do find some enjoyment in the military side of things when it is done better...such as in Vox Populi, which has better AI, balance and promotion trees. Other examples for me are Fallen Enchantress, Age of Wonders and Stellaris. War in Civ 6 feels like I'm taking advantage of someone's disability...for the purpose of acquiring more micro management.

 

[Patine]

I think you missed out by skipping 5. With Vox Populi, it is the best current Civ experience in my opinion.

As for Civ 6...I have written so much about it already, I don't want to repeat myself too much. Suffice to say, I think it has a lot of good ideas, but a lot of lackluster implementations. I think districts are the biggest innovation over Civ 5, and I think they work very well in the early game...not so much in the late game. The mid to late game in general is a bit of a problem for Civ 6. It always is in 4X games, but Civ 6 is worse than most, due to the amount of micro management and busywork combined with a lack of automation and new things to focus on in the late game.

I'm definitely an "old timer" in this context by the way, as I have been playing since Civ 1. On the Amiga.

I believe Civ2 was the one in the series I enjoyed most by. Plus, it is, by far, the most easy to make custom scenarios and mods with, many of which embrace radical scifi, fantasy, or other genres, or can even practically become completely different games.

 

[vorlon_mi]

In Civ3, adding a road (or railroad) to a tile increased the base commerce. Commerce was filtered through your sliders to become beakers/research, gold, or happiness. Thus, players had an incentive to build roads *everywhere*, on every tile being worked by a citizen. Endless roads didn't look pretty, but made your economy sing. In Civ4, adding roads was a mixed benefit: roads were needed to connect resources, while cottages improved commerce. Roads provided the basis for trade routes, but did not increase base commerce. Many players built a lot of roads to speed movement of their military. Unlike Civ5 or BERT, roads did not cost maintenance.

tl;dr Commerce outweighed aesthetics

 

[KayAU]

What's wrong with endless roads?

I guess he's talking about the older civ games (4 and older), where roads cost nothing to maintain, meaning that the map would eventually end up entirely covered in roads, which I personally think looks a bit silly. Civ 5 already got rid of this by adding a maintenance cost, while rewarding city connections. This means you wanted to build sensible, effective transportation networks. I liked this approach better than Civ 6's roads, which are created by caravans. I'm annoyed that I don't get to decide where roads go, and I don't like having to use my trade units for this task, switching to sub-optimal routes to make my road network and having to wait many turns for the routes to finish. If we are to have automatic roads, I actually prefer the way Amplitude games does it, where roads between points of interest just appear automatically when you research the required tech.

 

[KayAU]

I believe Civ2 was the one in the series I enjoyed most by. Plus, it is, by far, the most easy to make custom scenarios and mods with, many of which embrace radical scifi, fantasy, or other genres, or can even practically become completely different games.

I played a lot of that one back in the day. I can still hear the intense drums from the menu screens when setting up the game. Good times.

 

[Patine]

In Civ3, adding a road (or railroad) to a tile increased the base commerce. Commerce was filtered through your sliders to become beakers/research, gold, or happiness. Thus, players had an incentive to build roads *everywhere*, on every tile being worked by a citizen. Endless roads didn't look pretty, but made your economy sing. In Civ4, adding roads was a mixed benefit: roads were needed to connect resources, while cottages improved commerce. Roads provided the basis for trade routes, but did not increase base commerce. Many players built a lot of roads to speed movement of their military. Unlike Civ5 or BERT, roads did not cost maintenance.

tl;dr Commerce outweighed aesthetics

Civ2 has the same scheme there as Civ3 (in fact, Civ3 got it from Civ2, which got it from Civ1 - funny how that works ).