Will 20+ cities, disctricts, builders, terrain, lead to too much micromanagement ?

[Jabulani]

One of my favourite Civ V feature was the fact that a solid and winning empire could be based on few cities only, I also appreciated the automation of workers, city management etc..

Civ VI is going into the very opposite direction, your empire may sustain 20+ cities, builders can't be automated anymore, you have to take care about each single aspect of 20+ cities management with no sign even of a single task automation.

I think that will lead straight into too much micromanagement

What do you think ?

Thx

 

[WiseGreen]

I think it'll need more planning of what and where to build each district/improvement, but not a significantly greater turn-by-turn micro (changing tiles worked by pops every turn and such). I think we need to get our hands in the game to know for sure how it stands against Civ5, but surely it won't be on the same level as CIv4 or - God forbid - Civ3.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Large amount of cities never lead to too much micromanagement itself. Building things takes significant amount of turns, so only few cities build something each turn. Things which lead to micromanagement are:
- Nonfunctional governor system like in Civ5, so of you need focus other than default one, you have to control each tile manually.
- Defects in city yield calculation system, so rearranging tile could lead to significant advantages (i.e. if overflow production is lost, it may be worth reassigning citizens from production at the last turn).

 

[Sprenk]

Since I usually, after a few early games to learn the ropes, end up playing mostly OCC's (One City Challenges), my reply to this thread is "Micromanagement? Give me more, please!"

 

[cazaderonus]

Well i m on board with the devs on the automation of workers. It made no sense at for the simple reason that they mostly made bad choices of improvements, and that you shouldnt be able to automate one of the most important part of the game, though it easily became boring and dull as it mostly considered in building farms.

So, the change toward builder hits two birds in one stone. First, you cannot automate. But, as the builders have charges, you wont have a full army of builder to manage each turn. You'll only build one when you need it so you'll already have an idea of what to do with it.

As for districts, it's not micro management at all. It's another layer of gameplay on dealing with the map. Once you set a district, you dont have to manage it, it's done. And as it takes a tile, it also removes some of the builder work.

So i think micromanagement isnt a good way to put it.

 

[Stilgar08]

nope.
To me this is almost more about of what you want from the game.
I want to be involved in important decisions. Worker/builder-tasks is one of them, trade is another one. Concerning city management: Except for the building queue you can have them on autopilot concerning tiles to work most of the time, IF YOU SO WISH (at least until emperor).

Autoexplore never made sense to me until the very end of theexploration phase where only a few arctic tiles were missing and it was tedious to move your units there manually.
Maybe building orders might be helpful to you although I rarely use them...

 

[Ryika]

Not sure what you exactly mean by "micromanagement". Is choosing what building to construct micromanagement? Is choosing where to put a district micromanagement? Choosing where to build your Improvements?

If so, then Civ VI is probably (thankfully) not the game for you. Because that's not "micromanagement"... that's Empire Management. And the game has lots of it.

If however you mean "real" micro management, such as micro-managing Population, then I have no doubt that the game will do a decent enough job at that so you don't have to manage it yourself. Improvements will probably also require less actions than they did in Civ 5, but choosing where to put them may require more attention.

Overall the amount of stuff to do seems alright to me. But if you want to rush through the game without having to think about anything, then it may not be the game for you. Although I guess randomly placing districts would still do a semi-decent job for lower difficulties, but at that point... what are you really playing for? If thinking about how to place districts doesn't sound like fun gameplay for you then it's probably not a game you like.

If you think 5 Cities are a good number for an empire then stick with Civ 5.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If you think 5 Cities are a good number for an empire then stick with Civ 5.

Another option is smaller maps. Usually with faster speed.

 

[Xur]

I was planning on running a 240x150 Earth map... I really hope there aren't any hard caps on map size considering we got 64bit now. Dunno if turntimes will kill me, but I gotta try at least.

 

[dturtle1]

Not really, Especially with Districts and Wonders taking up tiles, you now have less tiles you need to improve and you just do them in batches anyway. I manually set workers, population and Specialists in Civ 5 and never found it overly burdensome. Military units will require less micro with the corps and armies as well. To me,(apart from worker management) that was the biggest part of micro in Civ 5 anyway, just trying to conduct a war in a relatively expedient fashion.

There maybe Empire size limitations in the rising costs of settlers, builders and Districts but there is nothing i can see that will reward small/tall empires, i feel if you wanna only manage 5 odd cities you will have to play on smaller maps. One source of Micro i feel could possibly be in trade Route management. 20 cities could theoretically have over 40 Trade routes. It might get tiring after awhile selecting Previous route...Previous route etc every bloody turn ... maybe... idk

I tell you one thing... i gotta feeling there is going to many more important decisions to make compared to previous Civilisation games and the game itself will be quite organic and active rather than managing yields, hitting production deadlines and implementing build orders. I think the terrain and more importantly the Civs in game are going to help define your play experience rather than just your own objectives

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I am also worried about that, but I see a few things that might help

1. Limits on district number...the increasing cost of districts will limit how many you have
2. Districts limit building options
3. Limited improvement options...no trade post, unless you have a UI, there seems to be only 1 improvement option per terrain (except resort?)
4. Early access projects

 

[Ryika]

I'm sure there will be an "Auto-renew"-option for trade routes. The mistake of having dozens of trade routes and no such button is one they already made with Beyond Earth, I'm sure they've learned from it.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I am not sure players will have 20 cities in civ6 but I do think they will have more than in civ5. For me, the biggest micromanagement problem in civ, is that the city build order gets very repetitive. The ideal build order is pretty constant so it just a matter of clicking the next thing on the list each time a city build queue becomes empty. It becomes pretty tedious and mindless. I am hoping that districts will alleviate this problem somewhat since they add a new dimension to what you want to build. Districts require some planning since they have terrain considerations, so the decision-making is not quite as mindless as with buildings.

 

[Alsark]

I didn't realize you couldn't automate workers anymore. Sometimes in Civ4/5 when I would be winning the game so thoroughly that it didn't even matter, I'd turn on automated workers just because I was mostly just interested in that "End turn" button. Although with workers having only a certain number of uses in Civ6, it does kind of make sense that they can't be automated.

 

[Ryika]

I'd assume the new version of automating near the end of the game is probably just to no longer spend resources constructing new workers.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I didn't realize you couldn't automate workers anymore. Sometimes in Civ4/5 when I would be winning the game so thoroughly that it didn't even matter, I'd turn on automated workers just because I was mostly just interested in that "End turn" button. Although with workers having only a certain number of uses in Civ6, it does kind of make sense that they can't be automated.

With the change from workers to builders, automation does not make sense anymore.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'd assume the new version of automating near the end of the game is probably just to no longer spend resources constructing new workers.

Exactly. When you no longer need to improve critical tiles, just stop building Builders.

 

[Makenshi]

Civ VI is going into the very opposite direction, your empire may sustain 20+ cities, builders can't be automated anymore, you have to take care about each single aspect of 20+ cities management with no sign even of a single task automation.

I for one love it, since that's what I already do in Civ 5 anyway. Did I already tell that in my on-going Rome domination game I have 50+ cities in the huge earth map?

 

[Krajzen]

Honestly yeah, I am afraid of too much micromanagment in civ6 for a long time. Civ never required that amount of micromanagment of every tile. Unstacking cities and all this stuff sounds like a great fun if you have 5 cities and nightmare if you have 20 of them.

 

[Acken]

If you re at 20cities, that adjacency bonus for a perfect district placement has very little effect on your empire. There s no reason to sweat over it unless you absolutely want the most perfect game.