[GS] Your 3 best and 3 worst things about Civ 6

[Atlas627]

For all that one might complain about the World Congress (and it is dim to have it meet before all Civs have met one another), I think it is rather better than the one in Civ V, where it is often hard to find a resolution that is actually useful. Also, some of the AI votes are predictable - the favoured district, for instance, is always the city centre.

I just had the favored district be the Encampment, but I agree it is almost always the City Center. I think the AI just checks how many of a district it has, but doesn't weigh how many *more than anyone else* it has enough. If I'm the only one with Campuses, other people won't gain as much.

On the other hand, if I already have all the Campuses, chances are I built the buildings already, so I should actually be voting for "no building construction"...but that will never ever win so I don't bother.

 

[criZp]

Also, some of the AI votes are predictable - the favoured district, for instance, is always the city centre.

Well that's a bad thing if they always choose the same. Might as well remove the other options then.

 

[trev1972]

I have the suspicion that fearing that players would feel frustrated if the AI does those kind of moves, they tried to remove all behaviors that the player cannot predict and prepare for. (I mean those that are not explicitly told in advance).

I thing they also limited the AI "will" to go to war after middle ages, to simulate the peaceful loving society that an advanced civilization should push for (sad puppy here). And also on the few times they actually try to expand militarly, I feel they made sure expansion stoped after one or two cities conquered, probably in order to not allow for AI snowballin,... and (miracle of miracles) a non competitive AI resulted in a boring enemy behaviour!.

I think the Interface is also trying to convey a board game feeling. FXS themselves said on more than one occasion that they wanted civ to feel like a boardgame... So if it feels gamey, I think the reason it is that it was designed to feel that way (...good job maybe?...).

It is a weird consolation to know that the game is mostly intentionally lame and not lame by accident.

Many of us wonder, how much of these eternal complaints will be actually addresed in the future content.

Probably none.

(Smily face, ...but sad on the inside).

Oh it annoyed me, but i lay in bed plotting my revenge so i was definitely immersed.

I still enjoy the game though and like districts (although specialists need to be better as it is daft to not want huge cities)

 

[oSiyeza]

I think it will be useful to make a small analisys as garph to count what are the most loved categories on the game. However,
I will probably wait to have more inputs, so I dont bias future opinions. Like this post if you think it will interesting to you if i do this.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I still enjoy the game though and like districts (although specialists need to be better as it is daft to not want huge cities)

It is not that large cities are bad, its is the cost of them is way too expensive for what you get. In civilization V it is pops and specalist that drive science, in civilization VI it is number of campuses and thus number of cities that drive science which make the game play out very differently. Also due to chopping you don't need good production to build stuff like a space port if you have a bunch of forest to chop down and also lead to cities that have a campus and like no tile improvements being pretty much optimal.

In all past civilization games I have played, 3 and up the value of infrastructure was based on population as they increase the yield that population bring in the city. However in civilization VI buildings give flat yields so population don't really matter for how valuable infrastructure is.

Also the buildings are very boring in most cases if you compare them to the district, like a campus yield is based on terrain while the campus buildings are just flat science, so playing to the terrain only really apply for the districts, not to their buildings.

 

[HSTorch]

3 best things:

1) Uniqueness - Unique civ abilities, city state bonuses and great people make the game experience more diverse.
2) Playing the map - Adjacencies, placement rules, fresh water and some civ abilities means the map matters more than in previous games, and I really enjoy that.
3) Loyalty - Good system, finally if I'm playing peaceful the AI can't just dump a city in the middle of my empire.

3 that could be better:

1) Wide vs. tall balance - I like playing small empires, and in this game that just can't compete.
2) Policy cards - I don't hate them, but I liked the social policy system in 5 much better. More impact, variety and more meaningful choices.
3) Warmonger vs peaceful balance - Playing warlike is so much easier, I wish this was more even.

 

[bite]

1) Civ Choice: When I load up a game with my friends there are a lot of different civs with different play styles that I like
2) World exploration
3) The presentation (art/music/etc)

1) The Food-Amenities-Housing intersection
2) The Cultural victory
3) End Game malaise

 

[Mahi]

I'm surprised not many are mentioning the great people system. Are people really content on how it works today? We need more direct interlink with cities' populations and their ability to produce great people points. I want the old system back damnit!

 

[Atlas627]

I'm surprised not many are mentioning the great people system. Are people really content on how it works today? We need more direct interlink with cities' populations and their ability to produce great people points. I want the old system back damnit!

Having unique great people is cool, and having some amount of interactivity over them is nice. However, since I am mostly filling up buckets, I don't visit that screen very often, so the fact they can get purchased out from under me and now I'm shooting for a different Great Person I didn't realize I was is irritating. Or I realized I should've purchased them out from someone else. Changing purchase costs is annoying because I already have to memorize them to play efficiently with any sort of haste...they really should just notify you when you have enough to buy someone, and also when the Great Person changes.

Anyway, I think this type of "everyone is fighting over the same global resources" would work much better as a Religion system, so you could influence each other's religions by taking global actions within your selected "tribe". So good idea, could be better. Neither the best nor the worst 3 things in this game.

 

[Usama84]

Top 10 worst things about Civ 6 (vanilla version)

I gave Civ 6 another chance. I am a Civ Fanatic who has played 2, 3 and 4 for thousands of hours. I skipped over 5 because of many of the same reasons that I do not like 6. (Note: I can not get past the industrial era that seems to start at the 1300s for some reason)

10. The music is repetitive. There is a really good track that comes on, a couple of ok ones... but the rest are just horrible. I loved the music in Civ 4, especially the classical ones.

9. Sean Bean's quotes... I always just escape them. Leonard Nemoy's quotes in Civ 4 were great and offered wisdom. Bean's are cheesy and dull and a weak attempt at humor.

8. Lack of events: the game is so boring. Civ 4 had random events which made the game interesting. Civ 3 had revolutions and keeping your cities happy was very important. Why did they remove happiness and health? Hospitals provide housing and food? This makes no sense!

7. The other leaders spam you. I have disabled animations, used the mod for less trade offers but still. I get denounced every other turn for doing the same thing they do!

6. The cartoon graphics are just horrible. There is a mod that does improve it significantly, mainly the color contrast. But without the Mod, it looks like clash of clans. Civ 5 looked the best in terms of graphics.

5. World wonders look beautiful, but they are pretty useless for the most part. Same applies to great people. They don't seem to matter too much.

4. Religion seems pretty useless. I acknowledge it was always an issue in this game, but instead of improving on it, it seems to have gotten much worse though there are some improvements (ie. more options with apostles).

3. Lack of logistics (roads, trains and transport ships). The decision to allow units to transform into ships was honestly one of the worst decisions ever made (the worst one is #1).

2. Too much micromanaging, especially in the mid to late game. While I love the districts, there are too many build options and most of them make little sense to have. The lack of automation options really makes trading and espionage painful and tedious as well.

1. Carpets of doom clutter the map, cause traffic jams, and make moving armies around a real pain. I understand the concerns about stacks of doom, but why not allow a limit based on terrain type, or unit type? This game punishes you for having a large number of units.

There are a few nice improvements in this game. Districts are great, ranged attacks was brought back from Civ 3 and the expanded policies are good. But this is simply not enough to keep me interested in this game.

 

[kaspergm]

Having unique great people is cool, and having some amount of interactivity over them is nice. However, since I am mostly filling up buckets, I don't visit that screen very often, so the fact they can get purchased out from under me and now I'm shooting for a different Great Person I didn't realize I was is irritating. Or I realized I should've purchased them out from someone else. Changing purchase costs is annoying because I already have to memorize them to play efficiently with any sort of haste...they really should just notify you when you have enough to buy someone, and also when the Great Person changes.

I think the Great Person system in Civ6 is one of the best parts of the game, but I agree the lack of help in interface is annoying to no end. I often find I have to reload several turns back because I intend to buy a certain great person when I can afford it, then forget it, only to find out several turns later that an AI bought it instead and now some useless crappy person is up for taking.

 

[Atlas627]

I think the Great Person system in Civ6 is one of the best parts of the game, but I agree the lack of help in interface is annoying to no end. I often find I have to reload several turns back because I intend to buy a certain great person when I can afford it, then forget it, only to find out several turns later that an AI bought it instead and now some useless crappy person is up for taking.

I agree it is overall a good idea, and I think all of the problems with it as-is could be fixed with better UI and prompting. That being said, I still think Religion is a better theme for this system, and it would be annoying to have 2 of the same system (*cough* religious vs normal combat *cough*) unless they intertwine in some cool way. Also, I am generally meh about the Religion system as-is, and since I think the GP system would work much better for that, it leaves me feeling incredibly disappointed about it overall...

But yes you're right, the GP system is quite good and a marked improvement over previous games.

 

[Mahi]

I just don't agree with you there (not surprisingly). In my opinion the system is over simplified compared to what the system offered before VI. I strongly belive the GP points should be impacted by dedicated citizens in a city instead of just boring points from building/wonders. In V you also got the choice to buy GP with faith later in the game, so I think V covered the GP system much broader and better. I don't have anything against a system that allows you to buy GP in front of the noise of a competitor (that part I like). I just want to be able to focus more on GP without necessarily having to spam new cities.
I guess it's just because science/culture/GP hoarding really was one of my favourite things to do in IV and V. I loved building heavy food productive cities that could dedicate many citizens into the buildings. But I see how it's countering the VI system since buliding tall is not encouraged. Just a shame in my opinion.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I just don't agree with you there (not surprisingly). In my opinion the system is over simplified compared to what the system offered before VI. I strongly belive the GP points should be impacted by dedicated citizens in a city instead of just boring points from building/wonders. In V you also got the choice to buy GP with faith later in the game, so I think V covered the GP system much broader and better. I don't have anything against a system that allows you to buy GP in front of the noise of a competitor (that part I like). I just want to be able to focus more on GP without necessarily having to spam new cities.
I guess it's just because science/culture/GP hoarding really was one of my favourite things to do in IV and V. I loved building heavy food productive cities that could dedicate many citizens into the buildings. But I see how it's countering the VI system since buliding tall is not encouraged. Just a shame in my opinion.

Agree on all accounts. Also, GP Tile Improvements absolutely need to come back (and should be tied to districts imho, like improving specialist "building" by two for example. There should be a reason to actually work district tiles, since you have to give up a tile!), because currently some GP are just 99% useless, which hurts the game so much. Prophets need to be changed so they appear after Religions are gone. Specialist Management tied to pop must be a thing. GP being tied to eras weirdly makes the pace of the game totally jagged. Cost escalation is also a problem.

Just an example out of my current games: I finish most of my science games so early that every single Great Scientist giving me a Eurakah for Industrial / Modern era comes after I already have all the Eurekahs. All of them. Do you know how frustrating that is? How weird is it that all GS aside from Einstein are actually utterly useless in my science games, while Einstein is completely overpowered?