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

My biggest fear with the micromanagement for me is that they didn't change the Domination victory back to being based on capturing tiles versus capturing capitals. Which means that like in Civ V, to actually finish a Dom game you're forced to drag units huge distances, versus in Civ IV where you could take the fight closer to where your units are and conflict would be happening everywhere, with you trying to guess where the enemy units are and are not located. In Civ V I often quit the game long before taking the final capital, because it just got so tedious dragging everyone from London to Moscow, literally.

The micro of cities worries me much less this time around since Builders no longer take forever.
 
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 :eek:

What do you think ?

Thx

Perhaps I use the world in a slightly different meaning here as you meant, but there is no such thing as too much micromanagement in a Civ game
Civ V had disturbingly small room for strategic micro
And I would go as far as to say that "the fact that a solid and winning empire could be based on few cities only" was in the top 3 biggest design mistakes of the entire franchise
 
Perhaps I use the world in a slightly different meaning here as you meant, but there is no such thing as too much micromanagement in a Civ game
Civ V had disturbingly small room for strategic micro
And I would go as far as to say that "the fact that a solid and winning empire could be based on few cities only" was in the top 3 biggest design mistakes of the entire franchise

See, you and I are very opposite players then, as I don't finish 95% of my civ games (be it with 2, 3, 4 or 5). After a point, it just gets tedious to play forward and the modern age can't really bring any new change as you still have to do the busy work from before (i.e. build an aqueduct).

The time a turn takes (counted in clicks or minutes) just gets so agonizing that I mostly quit. Not because I consciously want to, but because my allotted time-slot for playing is up (= I'm tired). And the next time I get to play the game a few days or weeks later, starting a new game just looks so much more enticing than loading up the old one. You can try out new ideas whereas the old game is probably pretty much set up.

You can just feel the progress in the first turns so much more. And that's why I also hope that the game will get a decent "advanced start" option so that I will get to play the later eras as well.

I do have good intentions for this game, but most probably if the game cannot reduce the number of decisions in the late game OR make a UI that allows for quickly looking into the game for 15 minutes or so each day, I will abandon games like I have in the previous ones. And I do love civ :) but the devs will simply not manage to serve both group of players (I do fear for you that my type is more numerous, but of course, micromanagers are way more fanatic :))
 
I finish maybe one out of 10 or 15 games that I start... I don't see any problem with it. But then I don't really play to 'win', but to experience the history of that particular game, as it unfolds around me (and as I direct it, ofc). To me, getting to a dominant position is already enough of a 'win' that I can move on to the next beginning. Ofc it would be better if the late game was improved and made less tedious, but I doubt it'd have a huge effect on my rate of finished vs. started games. It's just inherently more exciting to play when the whole world is still unknown and anything could happen (and on TSL maps, when you don't yet know who the top dogs will be, even though you do know what the map looks like).
 
Perhaps I use the world in a slightly different meaning here as you meant, but there is no such thing as too much micromanagement in a Civ game
Civ V had disturbingly small room for strategic micro
And I would go as far as to say that "the fact that a solid and winning empire could be based on few cities only" was in the top 3 biggest design mistakes of the entire franchise

You are definitely using the term differently than common if you refer to "strategic micro"

Micromanagement is not strategic... it is click this button to get 0.1 extra point.. there is never a benefit to clicking button A v. button B.. A is always better and you have to push it 1 time per city/unit/ per turn.

Examples:
Setting production focus and locking down food tiles..each time a new citizen is produced
Selling your resources to a civ by checking 1 gold at a time if they accept the deal, to get the absolute maximum they will accept. (and doing that with every civ)

No gameplay downside, just tedious
 
Top Bottom