acluewithout
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 3,467
Looks like Civ VI development is over, and Firaxis are moving into new projects. Fair enough - the game has had multiple years of support, has tonnes of content, and, you know, has Trebuchets. At some point, Firaxis have to move on because of diminishing returns, need to develop new IP, or just creative exhaustion.
But I think Firaxis are quitting Civ VI to early. Civ VI needs one more (small) expansion before its really complete.
I don't really think FXS are going to change their mind because of anything I say. And I certainly don't suppose everyone agrees with me or wants more content for Civ VI rather than moving on to Civ 7. But, you know, I'm just going to get this off my chest.
Civ VI is basically Civ V 2.0. Sure, Civ V was somewhat about moving to hexes and 1UPT and a bunch of other tweaks. But Civ V was more fundamentally about "playing the map" and leaning into the board game elements of Civ V. I'm not going to rehash all the history of it, but I think ultimately Civ V had a bit of difficult launch and the developers hits some limitations later in the game's life, meaning the game never quite reached its potential. Good game in many people's opinion, but with limitations. But the point is, when FXS came to Civ VI, it seems like the goal was to iterate on Civ V, specifically the “play the map” and board game elements, with the goal of 1. including all of Civ V’s mechanics, but more polished (eg Religion, Great People, World Congress, Tourism, Spies), 2. further developing and expanding those mechanics and doubling down on “play the map” (districts, Eurekas, separating out the civics tree, loyalty), and 3. bringing back mechanics and designs from previous Civ games and modernising them (eg switching governments from Civ IV, corporations).
I think there’s room to debate how well Civ VI does all that. To my mind, it does it pretty well. Yes, it is very board-gamey. But love it or hate it, that was clearly the intention, and personally I love it. But the thing is, pretty much everything that’s in Civ V is in Civ VI, and so is pretty much all the best stuff from previous versions of the game.
You know, pretty much everything from Civ B made it into Civ VI. Except for one massive, massive gap - the end game.
A key element of Civ V was Social Policies and Ideological Tenets. Basically, you earned Culture, and used this to buy Social Policies / Tenets from ability trees, which in turn gave you empire wide bonuses, new units and Wonders, and ultimately impacted Ideological Pressure (essentially loyalty tied to tourism, government and happiness).
Civ VI remixed this a lot. First, it brought back Civ IV style governments that you could switch between based on situational needs. More than that, it also gave you specific policy cards you could switch between as a function of your government (governments being able to swap different amounts of certain types of cards, eg military, economic, and later on some cards being limited to only specific government types). Ideological Pressure sort of got turned into loyalty, which while still tied to happiness, is less linked to government or ideology (outside of policy cards).
Civ V Social Policies basically became Governors and Governor Titles - Magnus / Freedom, Liang / Tradition, Victor / Honour, Pingala / Rationalism and Aesthetics, Moksha / Piety, Reyna / Mercantilism and Amani / Patronage. Governors don’t have empire wide effects like Social Policies do, and don’t unlock unique Wonders or Units. However, you still unlock abilities via Culture, Governors have that “permanent choice” / “opportunity cost” element and they do enable you to specialise cities and, to an extent, also specialise your empire as a result.
But what’s missing between Civ VI and Civ V is that, while Governors are basically equivalent to Social Policies, we don’t have any equivalent to Civ V Ideological Tenets. Civ VI really needed to have sort of another layer of Governors, eg unlocked via late game Governments or Civics, that focused on late game mechanics like Colonial Cities, World Congress and Idealogical Governments.
It’s the lack of “late game” Governors which I think really hurts when you compare Civ VI and Civ V. First, because Civ VI therefore misses out on the added depth of late game choices like you had with Civ V Ideological Tenets. And second, because it makes Governors quite boring because you just have the same 7 Governors from turn 1, every game, and by the mid-game onward there isn’t even any opportunity cost because you have more Governor titles than you can spend anyway.
But it’s more than that. Compared to Civ V, the whole end game is really under developed. Civ VI doesn’t really have the equivalent of things like Ideological Pressure (as I said, loyalty doesn’t link to government choice) or units / wonders linked to Ideology, plus it’s also missing a few other late game flourishes like Reformation Beliefs, Spies flipping to Ambassadors, Stealth Bombers etc.. I think that is the source of a lot of the poor comparisons not Civ V v Civ VI. Sure, there are other things people can compare between the two, but I really do think that’s the most fundamental difference between Civ V and Civ VI.
Civ VI really feels like it was intended to be iterative of Civ V - keeping everything from Civ V but making it all work better (eg Religion), expanding on Civ V’s “play the map” philosophy with Districts and Eurekas, and then adding into the game some content from previous versions particularly Civ IV (eg switching governments, natural disasters). And to be fair, there is a tonne of stuff from Civ V that made it into Civ VI.
But inexplicably, FXS have left out some of the best stuff from Civ V, which is the Ideology + Ideological Tenets + Ideological Pressure type mechanics. Leaving that stuff out just seem ... stupid, really. It makes the game feel half finished notwithstanding how much stuff actually is in the game.
I get not everyone is onboard with Civ VI’s board game approach or it’s take on various Civ V and Civ IV mechanics. And I can also understand people looking forward to Civ 7, which might take the game in a new fresh direction. And, yeah, Civ VI is still a pretty good game overall. But to me, I think Firaxis are quitting before the game could really be considered “complete”.
TL;DR. Like it or not, FXS are probably done with Civ VI. And I guess that’s ok. But I really think Civ VI needed one more modest expansion to finish off the end game, particularly focusing on Governors, Ideology and the end game.
Thoughts?
But I think Firaxis are quitting Civ VI to early. Civ VI needs one more (small) expansion before its really complete.
I don't really think FXS are going to change their mind because of anything I say. And I certainly don't suppose everyone agrees with me or wants more content for Civ VI rather than moving on to Civ 7. But, you know, I'm just going to get this off my chest.
Civ VI is basically Civ V 2.0. Sure, Civ V was somewhat about moving to hexes and 1UPT and a bunch of other tweaks. But Civ V was more fundamentally about "playing the map" and leaning into the board game elements of Civ V. I'm not going to rehash all the history of it, but I think ultimately Civ V had a bit of difficult launch and the developers hits some limitations later in the game's life, meaning the game never quite reached its potential. Good game in many people's opinion, but with limitations. But the point is, when FXS came to Civ VI, it seems like the goal was to iterate on Civ V, specifically the “play the map” and board game elements, with the goal of 1. including all of Civ V’s mechanics, but more polished (eg Religion, Great People, World Congress, Tourism, Spies), 2. further developing and expanding those mechanics and doubling down on “play the map” (districts, Eurekas, separating out the civics tree, loyalty), and 3. bringing back mechanics and designs from previous Civ games and modernising them (eg switching governments from Civ IV, corporations).
I think there’s room to debate how well Civ VI does all that. To my mind, it does it pretty well. Yes, it is very board-gamey. But love it or hate it, that was clearly the intention, and personally I love it. But the thing is, pretty much everything that’s in Civ V is in Civ VI, and so is pretty much all the best stuff from previous versions of the game.
You know, pretty much everything from Civ B made it into Civ VI. Except for one massive, massive gap - the end game.
A key element of Civ V was Social Policies and Ideological Tenets. Basically, you earned Culture, and used this to buy Social Policies / Tenets from ability trees, which in turn gave you empire wide bonuses, new units and Wonders, and ultimately impacted Ideological Pressure (essentially loyalty tied to tourism, government and happiness).
Civ VI remixed this a lot. First, it brought back Civ IV style governments that you could switch between based on situational needs. More than that, it also gave you specific policy cards you could switch between as a function of your government (governments being able to swap different amounts of certain types of cards, eg military, economic, and later on some cards being limited to only specific government types). Ideological Pressure sort of got turned into loyalty, which while still tied to happiness, is less linked to government or ideology (outside of policy cards).
Civ V Social Policies basically became Governors and Governor Titles - Magnus / Freedom, Liang / Tradition, Victor / Honour, Pingala / Rationalism and Aesthetics, Moksha / Piety, Reyna / Mercantilism and Amani / Patronage. Governors don’t have empire wide effects like Social Policies do, and don’t unlock unique Wonders or Units. However, you still unlock abilities via Culture, Governors have that “permanent choice” / “opportunity cost” element and they do enable you to specialise cities and, to an extent, also specialise your empire as a result.
But what’s missing between Civ VI and Civ V is that, while Governors are basically equivalent to Social Policies, we don’t have any equivalent to Civ V Ideological Tenets. Civ VI really needed to have sort of another layer of Governors, eg unlocked via late game Governments or Civics, that focused on late game mechanics like Colonial Cities, World Congress and Idealogical Governments.
It’s the lack of “late game” Governors which I think really hurts when you compare Civ VI and Civ V. First, because Civ VI therefore misses out on the added depth of late game choices like you had with Civ V Ideological Tenets. And second, because it makes Governors quite boring because you just have the same 7 Governors from turn 1, every game, and by the mid-game onward there isn’t even any opportunity cost because you have more Governor titles than you can spend anyway.
But it’s more than that. Compared to Civ V, the whole end game is really under developed. Civ VI doesn’t really have the equivalent of things like Ideological Pressure (as I said, loyalty doesn’t link to government choice) or units / wonders linked to Ideology, plus it’s also missing a few other late game flourishes like Reformation Beliefs, Spies flipping to Ambassadors, Stealth Bombers etc.. I think that is the source of a lot of the poor comparisons not Civ V v Civ VI. Sure, there are other things people can compare between the two, but I really do think that’s the most fundamental difference between Civ V and Civ VI.
Civ VI really feels like it was intended to be iterative of Civ V - keeping everything from Civ V but making it all work better (eg Religion), expanding on Civ V’s “play the map” philosophy with Districts and Eurekas, and then adding into the game some content from previous versions particularly Civ IV (eg switching governments, natural disasters). And to be fair, there is a tonne of stuff from Civ V that made it into Civ VI.
But inexplicably, FXS have left out some of the best stuff from Civ V, which is the Ideology + Ideological Tenets + Ideological Pressure type mechanics. Leaving that stuff out just seem ... stupid, really. It makes the game feel half finished notwithstanding how much stuff actually is in the game.
I get not everyone is onboard with Civ VI’s board game approach or it’s take on various Civ V and Civ IV mechanics. And I can also understand people looking forward to Civ 7, which might take the game in a new fresh direction. And, yeah, Civ VI is still a pretty good game overall. But to me, I think Firaxis are quitting before the game could really be considered “complete”.
TL;DR. Like it or not, FXS are probably done with Civ VI. And I guess that’s ok. But I really think Civ VI needed one more modest expansion to finish off the end game, particularly focusing on Governors, Ideology and the end game.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
