Why are the civs' abilities so underwhelming?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In Civ 5 Egypt, you get a flat bonus towards ALL wonders. In Civ 6 Egypt, it only applies to those built on flood planes. Well what if I don't have flood plains?

Egypt has one of the highest start biases towards flood plains. Most of the time you will be good.

in Civ 5 England, you get a movement increase for ALL naval units. In Civ 6 England, for Victoria at lest, your museums hold more artifacts. Well what if I can't get artifacts?

What if you spawn in the middle of a landmass and can't get naval units in Civ 5?
At least in Civ 6 you have the option of building an archaeological museum and finding artifacts.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

Also OP why are you ignoring Leader ability? It is just as much as part of a gameplay as Civilization ability.

Most are nearly indistinguishable from policy cards that I barely notice them.
I also get the sense that the Civ 6 developers probably meant to have many more leaders and leader abilities per civilization as was evident in France, England, and Greece but for whatever reason that just sort of fell through.

I thought the OP was going to bring up the valid point of original civs in 6 having underwhelming abilities (lolfrance), but no, it was just...this.

I never played vanilla. Probably because I didn't rush to get it when I didn't see it as much of an improvement over Civ 5 Brave New World with mods. So yeah of course I'm biased here.

The abilities in 6, especially the latter additions like Mali or the Maya, are much more engaging and open than most of the roster in 5 unless you're using some mod like Vox Populi.

I tried a game of Vox Populi. I think it adds a bit too many features but it does improve some civilizations like the fairly lackluster Songhai, and Spain, from what I've seen. I might start it up again.
https://civ-5-cbp.fandom.com/wiki/Civilizations
Just a casual reading of these descriptions make them sound less reliant on city planning and placement and more on having an inherent strength. Like Venice or Austria simply being able to take over a city state if they have enough points towards great mechants or gold respectivelly.

Well I would say that by your assessment that Civ VI does MORE of what you want. For instance Egypt means you need to find and capitalize on all the flood plains possible (you may have some due to start bias, but maybe you need to seek more out). And yes there are many that deal with city placement but that in itself leads to more planning that you said you were interested in (Espcially a German or Japanese civ roll).

Now maybe you just don't like Civ VI, that is fine. If you are really enjoying Civ V and not so much on Civ VI then rock V til the cows come home (it is a wonderful game). However, I feel like you are simply not being as open to the mechanics in VI. The planning from the onset and specialization you state you love it all there, of course not a 1-1 relationship but very present. You want to plan out a city from day 1? Try Germany or Japan. You want an active bonus try Greece or Mongolia.

I am referring more to gameplay synergy than district planning, when I'm talking about planning strategy. going back to the Aztecs again, faith from kills leads to building jaguar units > seeking out and attacking barbarians > picking Honor tree policies which reveal new barbarian camps > completing city state missions requiring me to kill barbarians > becoming the city state ally > having more diplomatic votes > etc. There's also the consideration that barbarian camps spawn far more frequently in Civ 5 than 6 despite the barbarian units themselves not being as aggressive.

You're forgetting about the maps in 6. They matter now. The features, the CS you meet and the Civs you meet also.

I think the bigger difference between V and VI is not so much leader and civ abilities being underwhelming but that the map dictates my strategy as much if not more than the civ I'm playing. Indeed, it does create problems if you're playing Mali or Egypt say and the start bias lets you down, but most civs can adapt to a variety of maps in different ways. And for sure you can't make your strategy based on reading the abilities on the loading screen alone.

Civ 6 is much more reliant on having the proper terrain features in order to get your unique abilities up and running to begin with, e.g. district placement.
In Civ 5 the Inca could travel over ANY hills from the beginning with no penalty.
In Civ 6 the Inca have to build a portal "improvement" which ONLY works on mountains.
That is a noticeable difference.

What if you spawn in the middle of a landmass and can't get naval units in Civ 5?
At least in Civ 6 you have the option of building an archaeological museum and finding artifacts.

Unless someone is strange enough to pick some desert map and decide to start as England, this was never a problem for me. Considering that trade routes out of coastal cities were so much more advantageous over land trade routes, there was basically no reason not to have at least one city on the coast.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Most are nearly indistinguishable from policy cards that I barely notice them.
I also get the sense that the Civ 6 developers probably meant to have many more leaders and leader abilities per civilization as was evident in France, England, and Greece but for whatever reason that just sort of fell through.

From the very beginning they never planned on having an abundance of alternate leaders to choose from. They did however make a template for modders to create their own.

And Kupe's leader ability is nowhere near policy card level.
Do you only play with base game rules or expansion rules? Because that might make a difference because expansion civs abilities are way more complex than the base game ones.

Civ 6 is much more reliant on having the proper terrain features in order to get your unique abilities up and running to begin with, e.g. district placement.
In Civ 5 the Inca could travel over ANY hills from the beginning with no penalty.
In Civ 6 the Inca have to build a portal "improvement" which ONLY works on mountains.
That is a noticeable difference.

You still need a certain terrain, which is hills, to even use the Inca's abilities in Civ 5, so I still don't see the point you are trying to make?
Going back to your original post how is being able to work mountain tiles and traveling between them more underwhelming than just enhanced hill movement?

 

[8housesofelixir]

I think enKage's post is the best answer of your question about "ability" and "strategy".

 

[Deadly Dog]

Civ 6 is much more reliant on having the proper terrain features in order to get your unique abilities up and running to begin with, e.g. district placement.
In Civ 5 the Inca could travel over ANY hills from the beginning with no penalty.
In Civ 6 the Inca have to build a portal "improvement" which ONLY works on mountains.
That is a noticeable difference.

Yes that is my point your map will make your experiences vary. For some it's extreme like Mali or the Inca. An Inca start without mountains sucks its true. But on a map that comes only 1/2 way to their TSL in terms of contiguous mountains they are awesome. You're comparing the two movement bonuses only, not looking at how both in civ 5 and 6 Inca got boosts to trade/upkeep, terrace farms, and a ranged unit. But in Civ6 each of these benefits requires research and investment, whereas in Civ5 the one you lament is the free hills movement from day1. Furthermore, in CIv 6 you get an extra ability, and in this case its working mountains themselves which no other civ can do. A well developed Incan civ has a truly unique feel and ability, I found, though not easy to direct and I didn't even have a chance at Macchu Picchu

Gran Colombia has a +2 movement perk from turn 1, you might like that one. Myself I find that one very powerful but underwhelming in the sense that I didn't have to do anything for it.

In any case Civ6 has made a trade off with some civs giving you powerful tools to build with that depend on terrain. The restart button is your friend in this case. I find if I don't set expectations sky high I rarely need to use it more than once on a given setup.

Also where are these policy cards that give me free tiles or culture bombs or a second unique unit? Early armadas and armies plz? I would sure like to use some of them!

 

[IvoryPavane]

I’ve played both myself and Civ VI abilities are significantly more impactful in my opinion, and I think Civ V abilities are similarly terrains dependant. Celts need Woods, Carthage needs water, Dutch need Marsh etc etc.

It just sounds like you ... don’t like Civ Vi? And that’s fine but I don’t think Civ design is the reason!

 

[Horizons]

Hey, I tried playing a game as Vikings. Underwhelming isn't even the right word lol.

Tried placing encampments early to booster military and get generals. Got out-teched so fast that I lost the game by the Renaissance era.

Seems like my theory about Civ6 strategy is about right: Build lots of campuses early or lose.

 

[Horizons]

The restart button is your friend in this case

I think anyone who restarts a map can't be an expert at the game, because their entire strategy depends on getting lots of free stuff at the start.

If they don't get the right start, they can't win.

Hence they aren't an expert and should be playing at a lower difficulty until they learn how to master all situations at that level

 

[8housesofelixir]

Hey, I tried playing a game as Vikings. Underwhelming isn't even the right word lol.

Tried placing encampments early to booster military and get generals. Got out-teched so fast that I lost the game by the Renaissance era.

Seems like my theory about Civ6 strategy is about right: Build lots of campuses early or lose.

If you are playing most of the other VI civs I might agree with that conclusion.

However, if doing costal raids when playing as Norway, the raids and pillages would yield science and culture. A typical Norway game in VI is basically evolved around constant pillaging and snowballing from there.

Edit: I am also not sure about the idea of focusing on Encampments when playing a Norway game. Why focusing on a land unit District early when you are playing a naval civ?

 

[nzcamel]

Hey, I tried playing a game as Vikings. Underwhelming isn't even the right word lol.

Tried placing encampments early to booster military and get generals. Got out-teched so fast that I lost the game by the Renaissance era.

Seems like my theory about Civ6 strategy is about right: Build lots of campuses early or lose.

This can happen, even at lower levels in the game. Certainly there are ways to mitigate if one isn't playing a science heavy game (often because they've gone early HS over campuses); but it is something I think needs better balance in Civ 7 if districts still drive what buildings can be built. Another option you now have though, which is impactful, is the leader picker. You will probably find that in any game where the era's got driven really fast and you were way behind, that there was a Korea or a Babylon speeding that up. You can now remove them to reduce that as an issue.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

I am referring more to gameplay synergy than district planning, when I'm talking about planning strategy. going back to the Aztecs again, faith from kills leads to building jaguar units > seeking out and attacking barbarians > picking Honor tree policies which reveal new barbarian camps > completing city state missions requiring me to kill barbarians > becoming the city state ally > having more diplomatic votes > etc. There's also the consideration that barbarian camps spawn far more frequently in Civ 5 than 6 despite the barbarian units themselves not being as aggressive.

Then I would still say Civ VI does what you are looking for even more so. Taking your England example they "just hold more artifacts" well if you want to optimize that you can from T1. Holding more artifacts requires both the space and the artifacts themselves so you force battles in your land or neutral lands to seed artifact drops > rush theater districts to boost culture to unlock museums faster > rushing spies and leveling them in preparation for great work theft > building a army/economy to take/buy artifacts from other civs (now you are roleplaying some England!) > setting up cities to be able to build museums quickly to house all your treasures, etc.

And for those civs that are more focused on adjacency bonuses, those are typically related to gameplay in so much as the planning process to maximize those tends to lead to many different gameplay decisions, from what to tech into, where to build, to rush armies or build infrastructure, etc. But again few are every big enough to shoehorn you into only doing one thing with any particular civ, but most will reward you for taking them down their desired pathway.

 

[Deadly Dog]

I think anyone who restarts a map can't be an expert at the game, because their entire strategy depends on getting lots of free stuff at the start.

If they don't get the right start, they can't win.

Hence they aren't an expert and should be playing at a lower difficulty until they learn how to master all situations at that level

If I don't want to play a start as the Inca on a map with no mountains I'm not an expert? Please don't quote me out of context!

There are plenty of better reasons why I'm not an "expert". For one, I don't play to win, necessarily. And just about any emperor level game gets dull for me by about the Renaissance so I play higher levels and stack the deck in my favor so I can still try sub-optimal strategies. Like I said, usually just one reroll will confirm a civ's start bias if that's what you're looking for.

But I sure as heck understand the mechanics of the game and know the difference between making a civ shine and limping along on the back of a Mt. Roraima start.

 

[Equilin]

I don't think you are being fair. You said CIv6 Aztec ability is not a strategy? How are you gonna get the builders to use it (which gets more expensive the more you build them) without a specific strategy planned?
For example: Playing Civ6 Aztecs I would build a few Eagles early and try to war someone for builders, all the while heading for Agoge policy so I can get +50% towards Eagles and build more of them and capture more builders, which will then go into my expensive districts (while the cheaper districts are regularly built). I might even build more Eagles than necessary so I can merge them into Corps and Armies and continue using them later, and they get a small strength boosts from luxuries which scales through the game allowing me to do that without getting 1-shotted.

Hey, I tried playing a game as Vikings. Underwhelming isn't even the right word lol.

Tried placing encampments early to booster military and get generals. Got out-teched so fast that I lost the game by the Renaissance era.

Seems like my theory about Civ6 strategy is about right: Build lots of campuses early or lose.

Out of all the civs you flopped with, you flopped with the one that can actually get away with fewer campuses?
Civ6 Norway get free science and culture for pillaging, which they get the bonuses to do by sea. They also get stronger ship to do it. That's 3 bonuses to do something different and still works.

I think anyone who restarts a map can't be an expert at the game, because their entire strategy depends on getting lots of free stuff at the start.

If they don't get the right start, they can't win.

Hence they aren't an expert and should be playing at a lower difficulty until they learn how to master all situations at that level

Imagine calling someone else non-expert while cannot playing a civ to its strength (rerolls not needed because it's the same every time), because their entire strategy depends on calling other players worse .

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I think anyone who restarts a map can't be an expert at the game, because their entire strategy depends on getting lots of free stuff at the start.

If they don't get the right start, they can't win.

Hence they aren't an expert and should be playing at a lower difficulty until they learn how to master all situations at that level

I feel this way, too. If you have to restart then I don't think you're a "good" player.
I would not call myself a particularly "good" player either for that very reason. I think that being a good player means dealing with the hand you are dealt.

so to those who say "well try this Civ if you don't like that Civ" that doesn't really speak to me because I always play random Civ because that's how I grew up with previous Civ games (4 and 5). So perhaps another 5-10 years will set me straight with Civ 6.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I think anyone who restarts a map can't be an expert at the game, because their entire strategy depends on getting lots of free stuff at the start.

If they don't get the right start, they can't win.

Hence they aren't an expert and should be playing at a lower difficulty until they learn how to master all situations at that level

No offense meant, my friend, but this is a flimsy and hole-filled argument that can be easily disproved. By your logic and wording of said logic, if Potato McWhiskey or Game Mechanic ever restart a map, that means they are no experts at the game. Inquisitive Otter was able to play a Mali game with a start on a snow island with literally no Food or Production to speak of whatsoever, but if he ever restarts a map, he is not an expert and that game was just a fluke. Do you see how this logic doesn't hold water?

Hey, I tried playing a game as Vikings. Underwhelming isn't even the right word lol.

Tried placing encampments early to booster military and get generals. Got out-teched so fast that I lost the game by the Renaissance era.

Seems like my theory about Civ6 strategy is about right: Build lots of campuses early or lose.

As others have said, you are focusing too much on a land-based military when Norway's strengths are in its navy. They are the pillage and raid Civ that benefits from being the only ones able to gain Culture and Science from Pillaging Improvements, and since their Naval Melee Units are able to Coastal Raid, you can send them to bring you the necessary Yields to prosper. They are one of the only Civs that need to build fewer Campuses, besides Ethiopia.

 

[nzcamel]

I think anyone who restarts a map can't be an expert at the game, because their entire strategy depends on getting lots of free stuff at the start.

If they don't get the right start, they can't win.

Hence they aren't an expert and should be playing at a lower difficulty until they learn how to master all situations at that level

No offense meant, my friend, but this is a flimsy and hole-filled argument that can be easily disproved. By your logic and wording of said logic, if Potato McWhiskey or Game Mechanic ever restart a map, that means they are no experts at the game. Inquisitive Otter was able to play a Mali game with a start on a snow island with literally no Food or Production to speak of whatsoever, but if he ever restarts a map, he is not an expert and that game was just a fluke. Do you see how this logic doesn't hold water?

Change it to "I think anyone who often restarts a map can't be an expert at the game"; and I agree with it completely. Also I get that the streamers will often restart to find the kind of start they want to showcase; but I doubt the ones who are very good at the game do it much when they play for their own sake.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Change it to "I think anyone who often restarts a map can't be an expert at the game"; and I agree with it completely. Also I get that the streamers will often restart to find the kind of start they want to showcase; but I doubt the ones who are very good at the game do it much when they play for their own sake.

Very true. I agree with you on this. I don't consider myself to be a very skilled gamer myself. I was addressing his lacking argument in terms of logic and defensability. It was the wording of it I found unstable in terms of a foundation.

 

[Wellfooled]

I think anyone who restarts a map can't be an expert at the game, because their entire strategy depends on getting lots of free stuff at the start.

If they don't get the right start, they can't win.

Hence they aren't an expert and should be playing at a lower difficulty until they learn how to master all situations at that level

I feel this way, too. If you have to restart then I don't think you're a "good" player.

Change it to "I think anyone who often restarts a map can't be an expert at the game"; and I agree with it completely. Also I get that the streamers will often restart to find the kind of start they want to showcase; but I doubt the ones who are very good at the game do it much when they play for their own sake.

It's great if you like to roll with whatever start you get, that's a fun way to play for sure, but--

It's a logical fallacy to conclude that someone who is looking for a particular kind of start is unskilled at the game. There are so many exceptions that it is beyond counting. For example, a very skilled player may have not gotten a coastal start for several games and want to change it up, have they suddenly lost their abilities if they go through a restart spree looking for an ocean start? A player may restart, because the start bias system didn't work and their Civ's abilities wouldn't be applicable in that location--Is someone unskilled for wanting to be able to get some benefits out of the Civ they selected? If someone is playing a multiplayer game and would prefer to start near the other human, are they not an expert because they want more easier interaction with the othe human player? They may even get a worse start in their restart quest to find a location nearer to each other. Some players restart looking for a more difficult start, not an easier one, because they want the extra challenge. On the other hand, the game occasionally hands out absolutely miserable starts. Is someone unskilled, because they don't want an additional handicap? Would a professional basketball player be unskilled if they said "no thank you" to a game where their legs were tied together?

Even if a skilled player is deliberately looking for an easier start in a game and restarts to find it, it still would have no bearing on whether they're an "expert" or not. An NFL player doesn't magically become an amateur if he plays pick up games at the park too. Sometimes an "expert" just wants to play a casual game.

Sometimes your first start is an incredibly good location. Are you no longer an "expert" if you KEEP that location? After all, wouldn't an "expert" want the challenge and restart deliberately to find that challenge?

You all seem to think that because someone is skilled and can play any start that they should or even must play any start, but that isn't the case.

Just imagine all of the terrible ways this logic could be abused if we applied it to other situations. Would saying, "I think anyone who often picks their Civ instead of going random can't be an expert at the game" or "I think anyone who picks their map type can't be an expert at the game" be reasonable? It would quickly get even more out of hand if we start applying it to life instead of video games.

But what's more, why even try to define what an "expert" Civ player is? It seems like an imaginary concept to me just opening yourselves up to idioms about throwing stones in glass houses. I mean, Horizons preceded his comment about map restarting by saying he can't figure out how to play the Norwegian Civilization and that he can't win if he doesn't build campuses. Shouldn't an "expert" be able to overcome those problems? But restarting to get a different map takes away this imaginary status from someone? Are we going to parade around the forums calling out people, because of how they choose to play a game for entertainment? Regardless of what is or isn't an "expert", what possible benefit is there in the topic?

By all means, let's play whatever start we get. I like the fun of that sometimes too, but let's not put ourselves up on a pedestal and others in the gutter if that's how we like to play.

 

[nzcamel]

It's great if you like to roll with whatever start you get, that's a fun way to play for sure, but--

It's a logical fallacy to conclude that someone who is looking for a particular kind of start is unskilled at the game. There are so many exceptions that it is beyond counting. For example, a very skilled player may have not gotten a coastal start for several games and want to change it up, have they suddenly lost their abilities if they go through a restart spree looking for an ocean start? A player may restart, because the start bias system didn't work and their Civ's abilities wouldn't be applicable in that location--Is someone unskilled for wanting to be able to get some benefits out of the Civ they selected? If someone is playing a multiplayer game and would prefer to start near the other human, are they not an expert because they want more easier interaction with the othe human player? They may even get a worse start in their restart quest to find a location nearer to each other. Some players restart looking for a more difficult start, not an easier one, because they want the extra challenge. On the other hand, the game occasionally hands out absolutely miserable starts. Is someone unskilled, because they don't want an additional handicap? Would a professional basketball player be unskilled if they said "no thank you" to a game where their legs were tied together?

Even if a skilled player is deliberately looking for an easier start in a game and restarts to find it, it still would have no bearing on whether they're an "expert" or not. An NFL player doesn't magically become an amateur if he plays pick up games at the park too. Sometimes an "expert" just wants to play a casual game.

Sometimes your first start is an incredibly good location. Are you no longer an "expert" if you KEEP that location? After all, wouldn't an "expert" want the challenge and restart deliberately to find that challenge?

You all seem to think that because someone is skilled and can play any start that they should or even must play any start, but that isn't the case.

Just imagine all of the terrible ways this logic could be abused if we applied it to other situations. Would saying, "I think anyone who often picks their Civ instead of going random can't be an expert at the game" or "I think anyone who picks their map type can't be an expert at the game" be reasonable? It would quickly get even more out of hand if we start applying it to life instead of video games.

But what's more, why even try to define what an "expert" Civ player is? It seems like an imaginary concept to me just opening yourselves up to idioms about throwing stones in glass houses. I mean, Horizons preceded his comment about map restarting by saying he can't figure out how to play the Norwegian Civilization and that he can't win if he doesn't build campuses. Shouldn't an "expert" be able to overcome those problems? But restarting to get a different map takes away this imaginary status from someone? Are we going to parade around the forums calling out people, because of how they choose to play a game for entertainment? Regardless of what is or isn't an "expert", what possible benefit is there in the topic?

By all means, let's play whatever start we get. I like the fun of that sometimes too, but let's not put ourselves up on a pedestal and others in the gutter if that's how we like to play.

Some of them will be very skilled at the game, especially if they're playing on a high level. I don't doubt that. But the only way to know for sure is if they mostly play games where they accept the hand they're dealt.

I'm not saying good players never have a reason for restarting. I am saying that most good players get that way in part by not restarting most games.

In terms of "putting people in the gutter" that isn't what is happening here. This is just the basics of how almost any player improves no matter what level they're playing at. It's certainly not a criticism of people who are happy taking all the help they can get.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

The only civs that I feel are effectively underwhelming and don't drive your strategy are Rome and Pericles' Greece, because their bonuses are very simple, straightforward and usable in any circumstances.

But saying that no civ in Civ VI can drive your strategy is simply bad faith.

When I play Scotland, I'm always already thinking about how I will organize my cities to make them the happiest, looking for luxuries and planning carefully my EC.
When I play Sweden, I'm looking at different lands to take the maximum of my open-air museum.
When I play Netherlands, it's the quest for Polders spots, and with Hungary it's for river curves.
When I play Poland, I'm eager for relics or a religion, and same as Kongo, which both are driven by it.
That's just some examples of what you can do and how your strategy will be driven by your abilities.

I think what you're disliking, is that you can't already have absolutely everything planned before even starting the game, like you did with Aztecs. You seem to want to be able to have already everything planned out even before the loading screen ended. But isn't that a little sad as a way to play?

Tell me, what kind of special strategy did you planned with the +1 movement on hills of Incas? With the "Each city produce +3 culture until Steam Power" France? With the +1 movement for english naval units? I mean, those bonuses are so bland and generic that I don't plan a strategy out of it.