Which ones of the mechanics implemented by Firaxis was bad ?

[Naokaukodem]

Another thing that tones down my happiness when playing Civ6, is the Eurekas and Inspirations : especially when I end up to have none, and that happens quite often, and when it comes to choose to research a new tech. I'm freezing all suddenly when I see everything would be suboptimal. It truly hurts my heart. And I can't quite do a whole lot about it, at least I feel I can't. Because when it comes to choose among all those techs, I always choose the ones that are already boosted, because I think the time that i research all the boosted techs, I may have boosted others, and everything is fine.

Plus some boosts are very (too much) situational, to the point you can't have them all even if you are a pro player. For example : Masonry. You do need some stone nearby, and it can happen quite often that you have none. It itches me. It really tones down the happiness I have playing Civ6. I vastly prefer Civ5 on that part, when you don't have to play a pecky mini-game to choose what you will research next.

I do believe the idea behind Eurekas and Inspirations is that you can develop faster according to your environment. If you are near water, you can research sailing faster; etc. but that's really the only example I can find and that is relevant for that goal. Even to embark units faster, you have to build 2 galleys no matter how useful or useless they will be to you. And nearly every boost is alike.

When I play a game of Civ6, I would like to feel less entraved.

*

Another thing that makes me feel entraved is how slowly we progress. For example, if I play on Settler difficulty (yes, I did beat the AI once lately on Deity, with Scythia and it wasn't a domination but a science one), for the sole purpose of trying to build every wonders (the sound another one has been built is game over), I feel like I should be able to start like the AI on Deity, it is to say with 3 settlers, builders and bonus units. I even feel you should start alike in any difficulty level, to speed up the beginning. I know, I can set the game speed on Fast or even Online, but I don't do it, because it disadvantages the player when it comes to wars, and the AI in Deity seems even more invincible, because I'm weak, because I drag the paw, because I'm pathetic. One thing that could be done however, is the ability to build cities within 5 tiles of any other already existing city. That way, you wouldn't have to spend time to move your settler, and the growth of your civ would become more organical. The loyalty pressure would become obsolete. Maybe you could still build settlers, but they would be suboptimal, take time to travel, to protect, and wouldn't be wanted at start of the game. One more thing : the ability to upgrade your units anywhere. Now, that could make Online Speed quite interesting, and fair to be honest.

*

I might come with other revendications later, when I will find a way to formulate them.

 

[Kamino]

Picking only one would be hard as there are so many flawed mechanics in the game.

By decreasing order of pain:

1) AI has no clue how to play the game, strategically (in my last game, Gengis has bankrupted and disappeared) or tactically (1UPT).

2) Strict 1UPT is a nightmare for the PLAYER just to move units.

3) Illogical mechanics that make the game counter-intuitive and kill immersion (scaling cost for builders, settlers and districts; useless luxuries after the first one as amenities; capturing ennemy settlers and cities and using them like they were yours).

4) Wide play >> tall play. War >> Peace. And the more efficient way to wide play is to build armies (no-scaling costs, no limits) to capture ennemy assets (no drawback, using the AI stupidy) instead of buinlding yourself (hello again the scaling cost of builders, settlers...).

5) Loyalty system.

6) Governors = heavy micromanagement, anti-immersion (the same 7 for all civs, really?), stupid bonus.

Bottom line: nice sandbox, poor strategic game. I was happy to help Fireaxis to test all those concepts, now I am waiting for the game.

 

[Naokaukodem]

1) AI has no clue how to play the game, strategically (in my last game, Gengis has bankrupted and disappeared) or tactically (1UPT).

I've beaten Deity only once lately so I wouldn't make it my top complaint. I think AI do well especially with the science typo, it's easy to fall too behind quickly so that attacking the most backwarded AI is impossible especially when they have flight and you don't. (Yes, Deity AIs build planes) I've also seen some kind of smart moves from barbarians, when switching two units positions in order to protect an archer and in the same time fire with it and kill your unit. I never saw an AI to disappear due to bankrupcy nor even been in bankrupcy, or not often, as to me it can happen to struggle with gold income for some time, needing to build economic districts in urgence to not go bankrupt. (I don't even know what happens in such a case)
So I would say that in Deity the AI (obviously with all its bonuses) can pause quite a challenge if, like me, the player doesn't pay too much attention to what's going around for a long series of turns.

2) Strict 1UPT is a nightmare for the PLAYER just to move units.

I wouldn't say it's a nightmare in VI, maybe i got accustomated or something but it was more a nightmare in V to me.

3) Illogical mechanics that make the game counter-intuitive and kill immersion (scaling cost for builders, settlers and districts; useless luxuries after the first one as amenities; capturing ennemy settlers and cities and using them like they were yours).

I must say that it is an enexpected way found by Firaxis to avoid the simple settler spam from late young cities in Civ2. But, I don't even remember how such a thing was possible, so I would say meh too.

4) Wide play >> tall play. War >> Peace. And the more efficient way to wide play is to build armies (no-scaling costs, no limits) to capture ennemy assets (no drawback, using the AI stupidy) instead of buinlding yourself (hello again the scaling cost of builders, settlers...).

I would say it's a 4X, so it's fine. Only problem with my last game was that I started away from anybody and took eons to colonize my lands, and when I considered to conquer some cities of Scythia that was settling in my living space, it was too late. I don't know what went wrong with that game, maybe not paying attention to my surroundings enough as I said. (scouts ARE important)

5) Loyalty system.

... That can be shorcuted with governors and policies, and more conquest in some time. Bad design.

6) Governors = heavy micromanagement, anti-immersion (the same 7 for all civs, really?), stupid bonus.

It's heavy micromangment only if you pay attention to them, which I don't. (by the way the only legit version I got is the free EGS release, so no governors, no loyalty, for good & bad : good because offensively I don't have to take care of silly loyalty, don't have to worry about pecky governors, for bad defensively when I'm forward-settled and don't have, say, iron or niter)

So I would add another complain without looking for too far : strategic resources are a real pain in the ass. Totally useless, you can't conquer a city with iron and a civ with swordmen when you need iron and only have warriors. Again, doesn't seem to pause problems to many players, so I imagine it's just me.

Thx for the reply, I agree with it globally.