Why Do You Like Civ 6?

[skshrews]

Why do I like Civ VI?

Map is beautiful. The best map of all the Civ games.

Building graphics are attractive. I like the video when you complete a wonder. Unit density through most of the game is better than prior Civ games. The army/corps concept allows consolidating units.

The diplomacy system makes more sense with "agendas". Still, there should be more options to interact with other Civ's.

UI is the best of all the Civ games. It's all there, somewhere, but all there.

City states are "fleshed out" even more, and it's interesting to fight over them with other civ's with envoys.

Problems?
AI as everyone notes. Sure, a high level AI might not be worth the effort for Firaxis, but I'm just asking for an AI that protects it's settlers and builders, mixes in ranged/air/naval units/in an attack,takes advantage of it's unique units, launches the occasional surprise attack late in the game.

Late game becomes a blizzard of units. As there is no limit on cities, just the traders alone start to fill up the map. And the distinct civilization personalities fade later in the game, all the civs seem very similar by the end. All Civ games seemed to have struggled with the late game . The Civ V ideology was a nice try, but they didn't push it enough (would have been interesting if each "bloc" had a leading civ that everyone had to follow).

Too easy to win. If you "hold back" and let other civ's survive , the game can offer you some late challenges, but no real "threats".

 

[InvisibleStalke]

I love the early game but hate the late game of civ6.

Early game I love
- AI can swamp you with a surprise attack that is big enough to mean something.
- Beautiful map to explore
- 1upt means that choke points and natural borders really matter
- Loads of choices in how you place cities and develop your empire - love th district system
- Lots of variety in the civ choices really personalizing each one
- Eurekas give some vairety in the tech path depending on your terrain
- Card choices are fun and strategic

Late game these things start to break down and it is dull
- AI doesnt fight well or constitute a military threat - no sense of fear
- Turns become tedious - too many AIs phoning in nonsense comments, trade routes to reassign, nothing really happening as you click through turns
- Lack of challenge in the late game - at a level where the early game is playable enough that you can experience most parts of the game then the late game is a cakewalk
- Diplomacy becomes meaningless - by then most Ais hate you and I generally hate them by then too. In earlier civs I gained friends that I liked - the civ6 AIs are generally unlikeable brats that leave you with no desire to appease or help them.
- Tech path choices dont matter much late game - there is no sense of racing to a tech that offers a critical advantage
- Hate the strategic resource system - too easy to get but armies become ridiculous if you dont. Imagine ww2 Germany unable to build bombers because the dont have any aluminium. Maybe it would be better to have two units at each level - one empowered by the resource and one not.

 

[ToothedBomb]

1. The government and cards system - I like how it's flexible. You can always change cards to fit a new strategy or in response to some development in the game.
2. The civics tree - Science really shouldn't be as important as it has been in previous games. This seems like a pretty good solution. Even if some of the other game mechanics don't support it very well.
3. City states - They all have unique bonuses that are valuable to different players. You actually want to keep them around, instead of exploiting them for free workers and votes in congress.

 

[Liquid Egg Product]

I remember vanilla 5. It was the first time in the series I was bored by Civ. It took both expansions to equal the fun of the prior versions.

In 6, for its UI and AI problems, I have not found vanilla boring. The early game is fantastic.

• Barbarians are dangerous.
• How to handle the exploration race is a nice problem...you want to pop goody huts and get that first envoy for the city states.
• If you're aggressive, there's a race to take early cities before it's too easy for the AI to fend off archers.
• Inspirations and eurekas can provide nice puzzles.

The mid and late game is not as good, but that is usual, and a difficult issue to resolve.

Historically, Firaxis' expansions have done a very good job of improving the base game. Quite optimistic about what the future holds.

 

[TraderInvader]

1. Spy and trade systems.
2. The card system approach for government personalization
3. Civic/science tech tree and the potential for both to be expanded upon greatly in future expansions.
4. The graphics. While the change took a few games to get familiar with I now think the style fits the civ series quite well.
5. Districts/ wonders. Infrastructure having a greater importance satisfies my little engineer heart.

I feel this civ leaves plenty of room for the devs to have a bit of fun with development of the core features and the overall game. I can only hope they spend more time considering the possibilities of expanding their game than expanding the dlc lineup.

 

[darkpigraph]

What I've been enjoying a lot in the early game is that in order to be able to expand as much as you'd like you sort of have to have a conquest war or two early on. And the AI can be quite brazen in their forward settling which can make it quite rewarding to conquer some. And i love capturing settlers and workers at an early stage where it still makes a massive difference.