nta, but: >limited great prophets means you can get locked out, especially bad for civs like Spain >belief bonuses range from garbage to overpowered, can also lose the good ones >only 4 religious units >same 4 units all game >combat boils down to getting an apostle with debater and steamrolling everything >just spam spread religion bro
1. Scaling prices for religious units means there's a point where no one can win a religious victory anymore because everything is too expensive.
2. AI is coded to take specific combinations of beliefs and wonders in a way no sane player would do but still leads to everyone building the same religions every time.
3. Gurus are pointless.
4. Religion both spreads too quickly and too slowly. Missionaries and apostles can convert whole cities in a turn. Migration, occupation, and trade never does.
5. Religions have no personlity. I can choose Islam or Buddhism or whatever, but unlike a civ have no abilities or beliefs attached to them.
6. Too few religions. No equivalent of indigenous faiths, cults, or heresies either.
The result is that every religion ends up as this interfaith goysoup that becomes increasingly irrelevant as the game goes on. It's a symptom of the boomer-tier end-of-history historiography (The Reformation is a cultural tech you can't skip?) Civ suffers from in general.
Nevertheless I still love playing with religion and it's much better than Civ V, but bothering with it for any reason besides larp is a waste of resources.
Normal conquest also suffers from this problem just not as badly.
>1. Scaling prices for religious units means there's a point where no one can win a religious victory anymore because everything is too expensive.
You should be winning a religious victory well before this becomes a problem.
If you reach the Industrial Era when going for a religious win, you fricked up hard.
My point is that no other victory type is like this.
>1. Scaling prices for religious units means there's a point where no one can win a religious victory anymore because everything is too expensive.
You should be winning a religious victory well before this becomes a problem.
If you reach the Industrial Era when going for a religious win, you fricked up hard.
You can get postponed from religious victory early by not being able to cross the seas until cartography and meeting a snowballed civ who has converted a bunch other civs on their continent and as faith generation rushing out their ass. Although, AI is too moronic to properly micro their religious units so more religious units just means more opportunities to destroy them and flip their cities' relis. The grind is worse on larger maps, though, and the lack of any sort of stacking (besides the civilian/religious split, thank goodness) makes moving the units a pain
1. Scaling prices for religious units means there's a point where no one can win a religious victory anymore because everything is too expensive.
2. AI is coded to take specific combinations of beliefs and wonders in a way no sane player would do but still leads to everyone building the same religions every time.
3. Gurus are pointless.
4. Religion both spreads too quickly and too slowly. Missionaries and apostles can convert whole cities in a turn. Migration, occupation, and trade never does.
5. Religions have no personlity. I can choose Islam or Buddhism or whatever, but unlike a civ have no abilities or beliefs attached to them.
6. Too few religions. No equivalent of indigenous faiths, cults, or heresies either.
The result is that every religion ends up as this interfaith goysoup that becomes increasingly irrelevant as the game goes on. It's a symptom of the boomer-tier end-of-history historiography (The Reformation is a cultural tech you can't skip?) Civ suffers from in general.
Nevertheless I still love playing with religion and it's much better than Civ V, but bothering with it for any reason besides larp is a waste of resources.
>Gurus are pointless
I find they can keep an apostle deathball rolling with their heals, serve as bait, and provide a flanking bonus with minimum faith investment. Maybe not worth it if you're not going all in and saving faith for GP or Grand Master purchases > No equivalent of indigenous faiths, cults, or heresies either
Idk why Firaxis or some modder hasn't taken Crusader King's mechanic of taking an existing religion's beliefs and slightly modifying it for a new heresy, etc., then creating new events where these offshoots would pop up ie low loyalty cities, melting pot cities with multiple religions, or whatever. Seems like a missed opportunity
I also hate that it is generally kind of useless unless you’re going for religious victory. If you want to have any kind of religious play, you need a pretty early religious district, and it’s ultimately a game-defining choice (takes a slot out of your first / second city), that doesn’t bring much reward unless you want to win through it.
you sure?
Voidsinger society straight up gives you science/culture from faith in second promotion, any excess faith be can used to spam workers/settlers, Ethiopia with that bonus is just stupidly OP, Mali also benefits from faith thanks to their commercial hubs
religion also influences loyalty, combine it with shit like voidsinger doomsayers or france loyalty reduction through cultural works/spies and you can absorb empires
that being said I kind of agree that religious victory is really boring and most often I just disable it or try to win it in an unconventional way with the military, with Byzantines or Spain
>1. Scaling prices for religious units means there's a point where no one can win a religious victory anymore because everything is too expensive.
What turn are you trying to play to as religious? >No equivalent of indigenous faiths, cults, or heresies either.
???
Your indigenous faith is your starting pantheon.
You don't have cults and heresies for the same reason you don't start at 4000BC as Babylonian before becoming Roman, English, and then having American rebel from a distant city. Do you really want to found animism, before you get Judaism, before you get Islam or Christianity, before you get Orthodoxy/Catholicism, before you get Protestantism, before you get your le waaaacky Puritanism? Have you ever played a previous Civ? >this interfaith goysoup
You're expressly penalised for being multicult religion. >(The Reformation is a cultural tech you can't skip?)
If you want to be a Theocracy, yes.
If you don't, did you notice it's as "unskippable" as the merchant republic tech?
Oh myyyy goooood. frick you.
>settling in the snow next to a volcano >on an island >building districts all over this
Anon...
The older Civ games were made for gamers. 6 was made as a distraction for ADHD toddlers on their mom's ipad.
The stench of designed-by-committee slop pervades every aspect of the game's design, from its Chinese phone game art style to its awful tech quotes to its goofy cartoon slapping noises to its reddit pandering button for Scout units to pet their wolves.
>6 was made as a distraction for ADHD toddlers on their mom's ipad.
Civ always had this issue but you're right. It's ten times worse in this.
>way too many penalties for declaring war
You must playing a different game the penalties for war barely do anything. Also Casus belli, have you heard of them? Yeah? No?
Districts are great. Sean Bean is a wonderful narrator. The game modifiers like barbarian clans turning into city states, monopolies and heroes are all great. Some of the others are okay. Some of the civs are very creative ideas, like the Maya. No punishment for playing wide is great.
Bad stuff? Usual civ problems of difficulty scaling being more frustrating than difficult, mediocre to bad AI. Tile improvements should be reworked again, something more similar to old world would be nice. Take roads away from caravans, just let us build them.
Maya get sizeable bonuses to any city within 6 tiles of the capitol. So you try and fit as many cities as you can into that small area. They are penalized on any cities outside 6 tiles. They also get some nice adjacency bonuses for farms/plantations and observatories(campuses).
One complaint about improvements is that you build a worker and it has charges. Each improvement is built instantly and uses 1 charge. So you just plop down whatever and need to build another worker. Many people, including myself, prefer the older style 'it takes X turns to create improvement', with the worker being permanent.
>No punishment for playing wide is great.
If anything, this is a detriment
the deity/immortal "meta" is shitting as many cities as you can before turn 50, there's little tactics or consideration behind it, it's just a no-brainer kind of thing to do if you want an easy pre 220 turn win
compare that to civ 4, where you'll have to take into consideration the cost of the city, how well placed is it and how will its cultural borders interact with the neighbor >inb4 6 has all these considerations as well
no, you aren't punished for placing a bad city, it will always be a net gain for you because the amenity system works along the lines of small percentages and is highly inconsequential unless you're Maya
culture output/artists don't matter shit in terms of borders either, when you can magically shekel your way into buying tiles left and right
and gold is something you'll always have in abundance, even on deity, because luxuries and diplo favors can be sold easily and for a good value
>amenity system works along the lines of small percentages and is highly inconsequential
A 10%-20% bonus to ALL yields and 15%-30% population growth penalty is low amenities is everything but inconsequential. And the bigger your empire is the more it will bite you at your most powerful cities which are doing the heavy lifting of your game.
Also what are governors? What is loyalty? What is scaling district costs? What is scaling settler costs? What is scaling builder costs? Have you heard of them?
And if you think planning in civ6 doesn't matter than I do not know what alternate universe are you coming from.
>A 10%-20% bonus to ALL yields and 15%-30% population growth penalty is low amenities is everything but inconsequential.
Not in civ 6. Population and specialists don't matter much since worker efficiency and specialist yields have gone down the drain, and both have been supplanted with bonus cards and adjacencies.
No, the 10-20% bonus to non-food yields doesn't mean much because you have strong alternatives for yield magnifiers that require much less investment and micro-management than trying to keep on top of luxuries and amenities for all the cities in your empire, rather than just making an entertainment district in your tall capital. >Also what are governors? What is loyalty? What is scaling district costs? What is scaling settler costs? What is scaling builder costs? Have you heard of them?
NTA, but while those factor in, they detract from most of the game between players. It's a combination of numbers being too small, and mechanics being poorly conceived.
>Also what are governors?
you can still boost your powerhouse cities, what's even your point? The point I was making is that extra cities NEVER come to you as a detriment, they are always a net gain, with the exception of rare circumstances like playing Maya >What is loyalty?
literally a non issue, there's so many ways to mitigate it and so long your city isn't in the state of perpetual famine, you'll rarely have problems with it. It's 80% reliant on the age you're currently in anyway and by turn 100, you can easily churn out 10+ cities on a standard map using uncontested, empty land alone >What is scaling settler costs?
lol just buy them
by the time you hit 10-15 cities, your powerhouse cities will be able to churn them out in under 5 turns anyway
the fact that you even bring this up tells me you likely struggle with deity >scaling district costs >literally what is locking down district to lock the price
also buying districts lol
again, gold solves most of the issues and you can never have low amounts of it unless you're simply a bad player who isn't taking advantage of the AI diplomacy
>lol just buy them >by the time you hit 10-15 cities, your powerhouse cities will be able to churn them out in under 5 turns anyway >the fact that you even bring this up tells me you likely struggle with deityto you as a detriment, they are always a net gain,
So you would rather spend 350 production or 1400 gold on your 10th settler which could have gotten you 4 districts which actually matter. And then you have to spend 10+ turns to move that settler to its place and start growing your population building those districts from scratch instead, spending 20+ turns on each.
>with the exception of rare circumstances like playing Maya
What is Kongo?
>literally a non issue,
Somehow every game mechanic seems to be a non issue for you when loyalty is the core barrier to forward settling the AI right after fresh water. Then hitting a dark age when your neighbor AI hit a golden age forcing you to relocate your governors from the places they should be. But I guess you must be the best player in the universe and everyone else that doesn't settle -20 loyalty tiles is wrong.
>So you would rather spend 350 production or 1400 gold on your 10th settler >literally what is colonization policy >what is magnus
it's ok, civ is hard if you're a midwit >What is Kongo?
ok? your point? Like I said, specific circumstances lol >Somehow every game mechanic seems to be a non issue for you
uhhh, yes. like I said, loyalty will rarely be an issue for a good player - this is a fact. You can easily jumpstart new cities with chops and hell there's two policy cards bringing them online with a free worker and instant 4 pop lol >To lock down a district price you first needs to have the city settle blah blah blah
see above, it's ridiculously easy to jumpstart new cities mid game if you have remotely any idea as to what you're doing >You need to have Reyna or Moksha
you can easily pivot from magnus to reyna or ping to reyna, the time to blob is early renaissance
>The point I was making is that extra cities NEVER come to you as a detriment, they are always a net gain, with the exception of rare circumstances like playing Maya >the fact that you even bring this up tells me you likely struggle with deity
Correct me if I am wrong but your entire attitude tells me that you are a butthurt and loud Civ5 fanboy that doesn't like that Civ6 is better because it is NOT THE SAME. Civ6 gives you more freedom and only gives you soft limiters to your expansion instead of outright punishing you like in Civ5. While in Civ5 where you are literally punished for building more than 4-5 cities and then playing sim-city with them and leaving 50% of the whole map empty in a game about building a world spanning empire. Not mention conquering enemy cities punishing you even more with negative happiness and civic costs.
There is a difference between harshly punishing you for doing what you are logically supposed to do or simply scaling down the benefits you gain. Civ 5 does the former and Civ6 does the latter. Civ6 allows you more freedom to go either direction but makes micromanagement more tedious and your benefits lower making your game drag out longer.
>that you are a butthurt and loud Civ5 fanboy blah blah blah
not an argument. I barely played civ 5 ngl, I'm a 4 guy, not particularly good at it either but I can beat immortal reliably. Deity in 6 is laughable in comparison. I don't care about the 5 vs 6 comparison either.
>literally what is locking down district to lock the price >also buying districts lol >again, gold solves most of the issues and you can never have low amounts of it unless you're simply a bad player who isn't taking advantage of the AI diplomacy.
Abusing the the poor AI diplomacy for gold is a fair argument but that is not about any of the core game mechanics.
To lock down a district price you first needs to have the city settle and have the population up to 1-4-7-10 etc. Meaning settling a city will give you one district of with the cost production and gold which scales over time, you can lock down a district's price for one district. So you got a newly settled city with low population, no tile improvements, no claimed territory needing 20-30+ turns to build up one district you can lock down. Even more if you have low amenities giving you -10% to ALL yields and -15% population growth.
You can do it yes if you have got so much free time with nothing to spend on over which could have likely already won the entire game.
>also buying districts lol
You need to have Reyna or Moksha leveled up to Tier 4 promotions to buy districts for which you need to reach at least late classical ear if you want to have it in the earliest. And if you do that what are you spending 4 early game governor title to stuff you do not need when they would be needed the most for Magz, Amani or Ping.
>The point I was making is that extra cities NEVER come to you as a detriment, they are always a net gain, with the exception of rare circumstances like playing Maya >the fact that you even bring this up tells me you likely struggle with deity
Correct me if I am wrong but your entire attitude tells me that you are a butthurt and loud Civ5 fanboy that doesn't like that Civ6 is better because it is NOT THE SAME. Civ6 gives you more freedom and only gives you soft limiters to your expansion instead of outright punishing you like in Civ5. While in Civ5 where you are literally punished for building more than 4-5 cities and then playing sim-city with them and leaving 50% of the whole map empty in a game about building a world spanning empire. Not mention conquering enemy cities punishing you even more with negative happiness and civic costs.
There is a difference between harshly punishing you for doing what you are logically supposed to do or simply scaling down the benefits you gain. Civ 5 does the former and Civ6 does the latter. Civ6 allows you more freedom to go either direction but makes micromanagement more tedious and your benefits lower making your game drag out longer.
>Civ6 gives you more freedom and only gives you soft limiters to your expansion instead of outright punishing you like in Civ5.
You couldn't even negotiate your way through the happiness mechanic, but you feel like talking?
I will take wide being encouraged with tall being an option over 5's tall is the only way to play anytime. Inca are really good, as are the newest China leader's bonus for tall as well as a few others like Maya and the religious farm/river civ I forget the name of.
The maps are, apart from a few types like seven seas, small/crowded enough that city spam is not an issue, you will run into natural borders and other civs long before it becomes an issue. A good city can become a powerhouse, spammed cities can only produce the basic amount of resource their district provides. Spammed cities only really matter on cultural games, as you need more theater districts to hold great works(which are hard-capped by the game).
Past a certain point in the game new cities are worthless except to grab resources, it takes too long to build them up to start paying back the investment, as settlers, like workers, have a scaling cost.
They designed the game around civs, and civs around the way the average player plays. >"I picked the 'Science-and-faith' civ. I'm going to do nothing but make science and faith buildings the whole way through because that's FUN! The only unit I'll make will be my favorite option and the civ's UU because that's FUN! I'll give the AI a head-start and wait for them to throw units into my intricately-constructed meatgrinder because that's what's FUN! Now that I've gotten the Science victory as the Science-and-faith civ, I'll do a game with the 'Navy-and-Gold' civ!"
Civ 5 had much better gameplay and civ design, but the average player can't recognize this.
>The game should be designed for people who burn all theire time to find ways to abuse its mechanics and afterwards complain that they were successfull with it
Yeah, good idea. How stupid would it be to make a game for people who enjoy it in a normal way?
I played Civ since Civ1 was released. And each version has its pros and cons. Just enjoy them for what they are and stop hating companies for making financially smart decissions and players for enjoying thing you dislike. Grow up.
>The game modifiers like barbarian clans turning into city states, monopolies and heroes are all great.
only problem with these is the AI is entirely unprepared for them, so it shits the bed if any of them are turned on.
Sean Bean is a great narrator but most of the quotes they chose for when you unlock technology are some of the gaygiest most saccharine garbage I've ever heard and endlessly get on my nerves
This. They use anti war quotes for military tech, comedians saying Ricky Gervais tier jigs at religion for religious civics >Unlock mining civic
"Who deserves more credit than the wife of a coal miner?"
I always hated the Hagia Sophia quote. >Yes Christians you need to share your holy building that was captured and turned into a shrine for another religion with the people who stole it from you
The Tsingay find quote is so obnoxious that I almost turned the game off first time I heard. These would be be bearable if people of some merit actually said them instead of some dipshit bloggers or fricking Thomas Carlyle.
>white man is a silly caricature >brown woman is a generic cute cartoon girl >the chink just looks like a handsome realistic asian
Lack of consistent art style.
Why is Tamar brown??
I want to know who unironically played as this civ
> No Sudan > No Swahili > But this b***h
Normally I don't buy into chudtier conspiracy theories but there's no way they added this woman without intending to upset someone. Similar problem to how we don't have a proper Ireland or Celts but we have Scotland.
Sean Bean is a great narrator but most of the quotes they chose for when you unlock technology are some of the gaygiest most saccharine garbage I've ever heard and endlessly get on my nerves
This. They use anti war quotes for military tech, comedians saying Ricky Gervais tier jigs at religion for religious civics >Unlock mining civic
"Who deserves more credit than the wife of a coal miner?"
This is one of the most obnoxious
I always hated the Hagia Sophia quote. >Yes Christians you need to share your holy building that was captured and turned into a shrine for another religion with the people who stole it from you
For me its the fact they literally quoted Percy Jackson. If Civ 5 had W. Morgan Sheppard quote Harry Potter my eyes would've rolled into the back of my head.
Kilimanjaro
“As it turns out, Mount Kilimanjaro is not wi-fi enabled, so I had to spend two weeks in Tanzania talking to the people on my trip.”
Completely ruins the experience of finding the Wonder.
Mining 1
"Who deserves more credit than the wife of a coal miner?”
The Coal miner.
Engineering 2
“Normal people … believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Engineers believe that if it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet.”
Funny but another one of those, wow you discovered Engineering SHAME ITS STUPID quotes
Banking 2
“I saw a bank that said ’24-Hour Banking,’ but I didn’t have that much time.”
??????????
Astronomy 2
“Astronomy’s much more fun when you’re not an astronomer.”
ANOTHER wtf does this mean quote
Scientific Theory 2
“If facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”
HEY GUYS DID YOU KNOW ALBERT EINSTEIN MADE A FUNNY
Advanced Flight 1
“Sure, jets are fast and economical, but, oh my, what fun we’ve lost and what leisure we’ve sacrificed in the race for efficiency.”
+1 more frick your tech quote
Computers 1
“To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer.”
+2
There is likely more but you get the point.
Whoever was in charge of the quotes LOVES Winston Churchill he has 8 quotes
>“Sure, jets are fast and economical, but, oh my, what fun we’ve lost and what leisure we’ve sacrificed in the race for efficiency.”
This doesn't even make sense. Propeller planes weren't more fun or leisurely, in fact they sucked as a mode of transport.
>Half of the complains are various genuine gripes of the game >The other half is "muh graphics"
Yet another showcase that 5 was mistake by attracting children, zoomers and moros
The weird part is that the remaining "10%" is what makes the game near unplayable and hard to bear, yet it's all blanketed by "muh graphics", rendering any discussion about what and why is broken with the game impossible.
Civ 1 is one of those "why even bother, when X" exists experiences. In this case - Civ 2 everything that made Civ 1 work without all the shit bits.
>le strawman maymay
I implore you to check what "strawman" and "maymay" stand for. Using words that you have no grasp of makes you look twice as moronic as you really are.
Good >the city spam issue has finally been solved by making the terrain have an even greater effect on the plausibility of city growth, making fresh water and good district locations valuable >districts ultimately make city planning more interesting
Bad >diplo AI sucks ass >the leader agendas are ”road to hell is paved with good intentions” tier, sounds good on paper but makes leaders feel like schizos in reality >war is still just as shit as it was in V >splitting tech tree into 2 makes each side feel too linear and barren
>the leader agendas are ”road to hell is paved with good intentions” tier, sounds good on paper but makes leaders feel like schizos in reality
This is honestly the worst of it. Stuff like "Viking declares war against you, a land locked country, because you have no navy" is moronic.
They would be fine if they were better at recognizing context. For example I'd vastly prefer it if you could satisfy agendas by either reaching a minimum threshold or being above like the bottom 25% out of all civs and they didn't trigger unless you had the capacity for whatever they want in the first place. If you have no cities that can produce ships, like you said they're immensely frustrating.
Or they could just include only agendas that are always achievable, but then they become a kind of lottery system where you either get lucky and spawn next to civs that like you doing stuff you wanted to do regardless, like spawning next to someone who likes you having lots of tech, or you spawn next to someone who wants something you only want in super specific cases, like someone wanting you to spam faith. I admit, I like the basic premise of leaders who have more diverse interests driving diplomacy but in practice agendas just don't work. Maybe tying it to government types or policy cards would be more effective.
Ah the 2 tech trees reminds me, better if they just made one big tech tree but then kept ideological stuff in some separate tree. Policy cards are amazing, definitely one of 6's best features. Governments could be more unique and better though.
>>the leader agendas are ”road to hell is paved with good intentions” tier, sounds good on paper but makes leaders feel like schizos in reality
Isn't there literally a quote from a former Civ dev for why this is a bad idea lol.
I’d argue that diplo is even worse than it used to be, at least in IV you got something that remotely resembled proper alloance blocks even if it still was shallow as frick
moronic AI is what made me lose interest in the game, it outweighed any positive feature for me. Fricker AI just had to build cities next to mine for no reason, every game, even on the largest maps the game was capable of handling. Also in my opinions the game was too fricking fast, AI rushed technologies and I never had time to enjoy eras before immediately having to skip to the next one to avoid having a technological disadvantage with the AI.
>it outweighed any positive feature
... there are any?
Genuinely asking. 6 is pretty much collection of everything that DIDN'T work in 3, 4 and 5, with few new things added to the mix for variety, so they can claim they've added new stuff (that also doesn't work)
Yeah brain hurt when me not unga bunga build all buildings in city center for me too!
I mean, from all I can tell the graphics are the only difference compared to Civ 5. And they're objectively inferior.
Then you've never played it and thus cannot comment, it is much improved.
my main issue with this game is the lategame is a tremendous slog. i don't even know how you would fix it in future installments, every game feels like a slow death march once you get to the modern era
this is literally every single 4x ever.
going from merchant republic to communist to libertarian corporatocracy
Districts are fun. Could use refinement, and the AI is notoriously dogshit at them, but it's a fun way to make city planning more interesting.
said, I liked the concept of districts, they made the cities feel more alive and complex, I just wish certain districts were able to build stuff in parallel with the city center, allowing for example to build a military unit in the camp while you were building something else in the city center.
Also I really enjoyed the government mechanic and policy cards.
>Wrong
Some aspects of the graphics (like the forest tiles) didn't look that good
Eras went by too fast, and the tech tree had some weirdly placed techs, ruining the pace of unit upgrades.
The world congress didn't feel as impactful as it did in 5, and i often ended up not bothering with espionage.
Didn't like the changes to unit movement.
I feel like i had to invest way too much to get my flying units.
Governors not being specific to your civ still triggers me. >Right
Districts are cool
Religion is way better
I liked how they made gold a lot better and more useful
Music changes through the ages was nice, though i missed the war version on the nations' themes
End game was generally more fun and interesting than in 5
City loyalty is good, and i like the more dynamic barbarians.
Also like the stockpile angle of strategic resources.
Oh yeah, religion needs a complete overhaul. Religious combat sucks, there are too many units, it takes too much time and is not satisfying. Make preacher, mystics, missionaries, whatever, and make them spread religion by being adjacent to a city. To counter them, make anti-religion buildings or place your own preachers adjacent to the city. Relics are very cool, keep them.
I really wish religion wasn't a zero sum game. In IV you could have multiple religions in a city, but now it's basically "if you aren't the majority religion at all times in a city, then frick you". It's not very fun. I'm not suggesting it go the other direction and make being a majority in a city worthless, but let me put it this way: if you are not in the religion fight, then being fought over should still benefit you and you should be able to encourage or outright make others compete for your real estate.
The shittiest thing about religion imo is the lack of faith upkeep on units
The amount of religious units that can be on the map can balloon to moronic proportions and just make the whole thing so involved and such a chore to deal with
Making towns more than 1 tile was a good move, im not entirely sold on the execution of it, I feel they should be more fluid and dynamic, changing as the game goes on, at least until the industrial age where they start to be more static. The inability to move districts, and the need to just sometimes place them somewhere shitty just because you can't afford to wait to get the tiles you need so often sucks.
But mainly the AI is just so fricking trash. And my biggest gripe is that the AI bonuses have to be so front loaded to the early game so the early eras are such bullshit and the game just becomes progressively easier
end game micro management scales out of control which has been a problem in previous games but honestly needs to be addressed at some point for the long term sustainability of the series
It plays like an untested, overambitious Civ 5 mod made by an autist with no playtesters.
So much NEW STUFF to build but the turn economy is still the same, meaning its always stressful, nothing's quite the right choice, and you always feel behind.
Civ 5 was already bad enough with how specific you had to be with your city positions and how strongly deterministic the terrain was. It was not uncommon for players who really knew the game to regen maps ~20 times to find something that felt good, because you had to plan for the ENTIRE game, from granaries to windmills to hydro plants and solar panels. In order to place a city correctly, you had to think 250+ turns in the future.
Civ 6 is the same but even worse because there are so many more things to pre-plan for. Sucks if you do, sucks if you don't.
It should have eschewed more things from previous titles to achieve truly cohesive gameplay. Right now it is not cohesive at all.
The ecology stuff was a good introduction but was implemented haphazardly. Infantry with bolt-action cause more Co2 emissions than airplanes or cargo ships?
They designed the game around civs, and civs around the way the average player plays. >"I picked the 'Science-and-faith' civ. I'm going to do nothing but make science and faith buildings the whole way through because that's FUN! The only unit I'll make will be my favorite option and the civ's UU because that's FUN! I'll give the AI a head-start and wait for them to throw units into my intricately-constructed meatgrinder because that's what's FUN! Now that I've gotten the Science victory as the Science-and-faith civ, I'll do a game with the 'Navy-and-Gold' civ!"
Civ 5 had much better gameplay and civ design, but the average player can't recognize this.
>white man is a silly caricature >brown woman is a generic cute cartoon girl >the chink just looks like a handsome realistic asian
Lack of consistent art style.
NTA.
He was bor on the Iberic peninsula, but his father is from the italic peninsula, and according to Dio Cassius, if you trace his bloodline even further he is actually thracian.
my main issue with this game is the lategame is a tremendous slog. i don't even know how you would fix it in future installments, every game feels like a slow death march once you get to the modern era
Ditching 1upt combat and giving more tools for city automation would be great, even though I know that the latter is hard to do properly (especially in VI where you have districts leading to extreme specialization) and even the idea of greater automation options brings tons of >why even play the game then
complaints from turbo optimizers.
But then again, it’s not just Civ’s problem, the 4X endgame curse applies to basically every game like this.
Better diplomacy and AI that presents a lategame threat. The midgame should be about regional conquest with alliances, the lategame should be about world wars that feel meaningfully different. Emergencies aren't a bad start, but they don't do enough. Personally, I'd like to see a return of the ideological wars that popped up in 5 but in a more deliberate way.
Alliances should be able to turn into coalitions or pacts in the lategame that tie nations together militarily in meaningful ways. Off the top of my head, some ideas would be a type of pact that lets your support units help other members military and gives them extra movement, so you can focus on empowering an ally on the frontline. Another one that gives coalition members the ability to very slowly produce units in allied cities at gold per turn cost, letting you help out even if you're a continent away. And another that allows you to hurry allied production or designate a few newly produced units to appear under their control in their cities, letting you bankroll their wars. Prop up this system with a joint city capture mechanic. If you or someone else in your pact takes a city it gets put under governor control until the end of the war. Then pact members can claim cities based on their war contribution through an auction type system, or you can convert your contribution into gold/science/faith/etc. Depending on the war type certain payouts would be better, so if you go crusading you could opt to force religions in all the cities but claim none for example.
Finally, nations that lose wars should get a lingering small bonus, and each city lost should give a small temporary military bump to make it harder to kill enemies off in one fight. And to simulate a lack of interest in conquest very late, make the cost of keeping cities scale upwards per era while the other benefits increase instead.
>Wrong
Poodonarative pissonance with the UN and casus beli which end up being just stupid boondogles that hardly matter and loose any feeling of significance in the immergant story of your world
District connection bonuses are a bit too autistic
Loosing ideologies is lame
Ecology mechanic does frick all and is basically a meme
Production focus still OP >What went right
Ultimately districts are cool
Government types and policies are a better system than civics
Best polish of the series
Districts are a good idea that do add a lot of depth to city development, but all of that is frontloaded in a really annoying way. Like before I ever place down my first district I'll spend an hour slowly planning out my districts and expansions for the entire rest of the game for optimal yields, and then the next several hours are largely just following a flowchart for completing that plan. I don't know, it just isn't fun in the same way older civ games were and sometimes I genuinely dread playing it because I don't want to play city planning simulator for the first 20 turns.
Good: Removed a lot of the shit that was wrong with civ 5, like global happiness.
Districts are a really cool thing and make war much more interesting and less tied to taking the one tile on which a city sits.
I like the worker changes.
Combat is better with removal of city defense shot once you break the walls, and addition of the siege mechanic.
Bad: Still over value science production, there should be more rubber-banding for civs that fall behind in the tech race to keep things competitive.
Can't manually place roads. Yeah it makes sense to tie it to trade routes but I wish I could alter the tiles they covered for border defense / barb evasion purposes.
Trade micro can get tedious.
Loyalty from rise and fall feels like a whole mechanic they made just to prevent forward settling.
Weird scaling choices, like district costs scaling with tech so if you settle new cities late game they'll never catch up.
> you will not settle > you will not expand through conquest > you will accept the 3 city strategy.
In 6 you can and should blob out early when there's land to take, but the real limiter is being able to make enough workers to make your new land actually productive vs making districts in the cities you have.
i realized that if i treat this game as a puzzle game rather than a strategy game i have a lot more fun, i don't reroll maps and random everything now and try to play to my outs. makes the game a lot more interesting to me
wrong: fundamentally no overarching synergy between win strategies, you must always pick one and only one, it feels futile to play a "neutral" civ or to play one with an adjacent win condition to the one it was designed for
because each win path is so stilted and organized if you get an unfavorable initial condition set or fail to make a milestone that is typically irrecoverable and there is no reason to play any further than recognizing that mistake, particularly in culture and religion victory modes. most games are completely solved problems by renaissance with no possible way to upset the way the game is going, only your will to actually see the victory screen matters
the ai is still incapable of trade balancing and easily over/undervalues critical things
the corps system is the worst yet attempt to balance between stacks and 1upt
science is still too powerful in general, a strong technological advantage is always superior to any amount of battle shaping, and it is something the AI consistently struggles to understand that the player is going for
right: districts were kind of a fun idea when the game launched and before it bloated to shit, I guess?
the separate culture tech tree is a good idea. whether it was ultimately fun or not varied from patch to patch and from civ to civ, but the card system is worth salvaging for future installments
I appreciate the attempt to tell players why an AI is making a choice or has an attitude. more information is always better when it comes to interacting with bots
two major wrongs i haven't seen mentioned yet; 1. movement needs to scale to game time. On online speed moving 1 tile takes 1/250th of the total game time, on heroic it's 1/750th of the game, meaning movement based victories like religion and military are much harder to achieve on the same map size because you have less time. an invading army can be completely outdated by the time they reach cities because it took them 500 years of online speed to get there instead of 100.
2. Map generation, which couples with the AI. a big reason the AI struggles so often is because they're not spawned in terrains that match their bonuses. i regularly find russia in the middle of a jungle or korea on the flattest plains on the map. they should create maps with civ specific start areas, like alternate TSLs, that would help the AI grow more naturally without just having units handed to them. make the terrain around their spawn perfect for one civ with a few good spots for districts and 2nd/3rd cities and place them there every time. another way they could do this, which i don't like as much, is give every civ a starting plate of three rings of tiles that would match your bonuses with terrain and provide appropriate resources, then generate the rest of the map around those.
The game speed issue is really regrettable. The fastest speeds make different eras of warfare just fly by and like you said, units can get outdated comically fast, but on the other hand, slower speeds excerbate the typical 4X problem of late game waiting and it is so goddamn boring to deal with slow late game turns when nothing exciting happens.
>The fastest speeds make different eras of warfare just fly by and like you said, units can get outdated comically fast,
This is my main issue with the game >Finally, my unique unit. Time to unleash the strat based on it's gimmick that I've been developing all game >Oh never mind it got blown up by a fighter jet
>Dude unit stacks are so stupid and unrealistic that's not how wars work but placing one unit of archers on the land equavalent of Belgium and them being impassable is totally better and realistic
I like unit stacking too, but I still find 6's method to be not enough to prevent pathing from getting fricked, which was much less of a problem in 4 due to infinite stacking.
The Leader portraits.
That's all Civ 5 piss babies cry about even as their game ages so quickly that if you look at a Civ 5 leader on a 4k screen it looks as if they are in witness protection.
>wrong
volcanoes
DLC bloat, you are not a fricking Paradox game
single wrong line in code was copypasted resulting in every civ going only for religion for over a year
base civ music is pretty boring(Germany, France, England...)
babylon/gauls spawning early swordsmen/musketmen
baffling leader choices >right
great musical score for DLC civs, main theme is fantastic
more mechanical complexity, districts, synergies, choosing which wonders to rush
settlement location matters a lot more, early flood plain settlement might be terrible but around medieval/industrial era it is fantastic
resources matter more, forcing you to settle near them
being able to punish forward settling enemy civs without war
A.I is ruthless on higher difficulties and will spam unique units and archers >the half assed
environmental meter is pointless, even if you burn coal in 20 odd cities the effects are hardly noticeable or matter little
you still cannot brake alliance early if your "friend" goes ape shit and starts conquering city states or converting your cities
still need mods for traders laying down rails or doing quick trade deals
barbarian bias is ridiculous, they will waddle half of continent worth of city states just to burn your one farm
>babylon/gauls spawning early swordsmen/musketmen
Barbs only spawn higher-level units when at least half of the civs in that game have unlocked them. So, unless you're the only other civ, they can't force higher units to spawn by themselves. >environmental meter is pointless, even if you burn coal in 20 odd cities the effects are hardly noticeable or matter little
This depends pretty heavily on the other civs, if they're actually building industrial zones they can easily frick up the world. Usually they don't, which is another problem.
>half of civs
no, I checked it multiple times even went and tried it with low difficulties where A.I is few eras behind me, only one civ needs to unlock higher unit for a chance to spawn your highest unlocked unit
my guess is whenever barbarian camp spawns it can ape your current technological level or other civs(possibly city states too)
Yeah the environment shit is done really badly like. > One ironclad produces enough C02 to get everyone to hate you in 1910. > Encouraged to clearcut jungle and there are no adverse effects.
What made me drop it immediately was the change in moving system. Makes shit soooooooooooooooo much slower than in civ v.
Apart from that gotta give them props for trying new things but implementation is very meh.
The good >a lot more options to play as compared to 5 >district systems makes you actually plan out a city instead of just settling on top/near a resource/shoreline >because of this having a landlocked empire is usually viable >city states unique bonuses that make you care more about certain city states than others >unique great people that can actually have an effect on your game play >loyalty stops the AI from spamming their cities to your borders >most leaders lend themselves to pretty fun and wacky strategies >game modes are usually pretty fun and game changing >the AI cannot betray you if you are declared friends >90% of the civilization themes clear civ v, the added detail of changing per era was pretty good
The bad >the AI only gets more aggressive on higher difficulties but not smarter >religion victory is domination victory but cheesier >the amount of leaders has brought a lot of power creep to the older leaders (i see you Mbemba and Frederick) >the end game can be a drag sometimes >the graphics are not everyone's cup of tea, i don't mind it personally
The debatable >the timeline, it can get annoying with all the cheering sounds >the environment, it shows it is too rng but at least you can benefit from it sometimes >barbarian scouts
Only because Germany itself is overpowered with the Hansa and the one extra free district per city, etc.You could put a guy with zero leader ability on germany and it would still be a top tier civ.
But Frederick's ability is 2 buffs: >+7 combat str against city state
Why would you attack city states when its infinitely better to be their suzerain?
so that leaves us with his second buff, the only one to consider, which is >+1 military policy slot
This is pretty cool I guess if you go full domination and pick communism so you have all benefits of fascism + all benefits of communism but its still kinda underwhelming. Military policies are good but you usually have more than enough slots for the ones you want, I rarely find myself wishing I had one more slot like I do with economical policies (which are much more valued).
Now compare this with Victoria (Age of Steam), one of the newest leaders: >+10% production in cities for EACH industrial building in a district >+2 prod for each strategic ressources
Imagine putting her in charge of Germany..
Or, if you think I'm cherry picking, just look at Basil for Byzantium, or Lincoln for America or ramses for Egypt, or Tokugawa for Japan
City-States almost always have a luxury and strategic resource. You only have so many envoys to claim CS with and if an AI sends all their envoys to one CS you probably wont get it without using all of yours, limiting you to 1.
No point comparing vic dlc mode to babr, compare her to vanilla vic, the difference is small.
And luxuries don't matter anywhere near enough in 6 that suzeranity isn't almost always better. And if you're playing right, which you have to in order to survive on high difficulties, you will always be able to secure suzerain of the 3-5 you want
And if your neighbouring city states aren’t one of those 3-5 you want, then you can bulldoze them to deny them from your opponents and get at least some use out of them. Don’t get me wrong, Barb’s combat bonus against city states is a bad, situational bonus, but there certainly are cases where you want to roll down city states that aren’t worth envoys.
don't tell me Frederick is more overpowered than Ludwig, the latter's bonuses actually function better with Germany because a lot of wonders are dependent on districts and being able to get more means more (unfinished) wonders to make use of and with the Hansa you can get insane production to keep those wonders and the bonuses
>tanky
trebuchet/bombards are in a good spot, they can down cities in reasonable time, beyond artillery, planes and death robots wreck shit
catapults are really bad >made out of wet paper, range 1
single archer inside the city can demolish catapults with ease
I suppose one could make an argument for a siege engineer/spy getting more stuff (sapping groundwork, digging under walls, spies sabotaging gates etc...)
Early game cities are too weak, before walls anyway. Big part of the problem with higher difficulty is the AI will just walk 5 warriors over and run you over if it wants to. Once ancient walls are up, balance is good, medieval walls start to obsolete ranged very quickly though, you really need trebs or a lot of crossbows. Renaissance walls mean you must have bombards or wall penetrating abilities.
I think lategame cities are also a problem, cause you need artillery or bombers, even though modern cities aren't really defensible in the traditional sense.
It's tricky to balance in the current way the game is done. Cities are insanely fragile if you're ahead in tech (you can ignore the need for anti-walls devices), grindy but possible if even in tech, and straight up death turrets if you're behind in tech.
I liked Districts, but I feel like having the upgrade buildings exclusively be found in them was a poor decision. There should still be the normal "+x resource building" that you can build in every city no matter what, i.e you can build a School for +2 Science per turn in any city center once you unlock the tech for it. However, you can only build a College/University in a city with a Campus district, giving that city an EXTRA +2 Science per turn AND a Great Scientist point per turn. I think the necessity of building the specific district to build any real upgrade to that specific resource or stat makes certain districts far too necessary and valuable. Districts should've been more about FOCUSING your city towards a specific line of value or concept. I also think there should be a bigger separation between production towards projects/buildings and production towards units, or at least combat units. Production is still too valuable 100% of the time, with Science being also exceedingly punishing if you ever get behind with it. Dropping a Cultural District or Entertainment Complex never feels as good or as impactful as dropping a Campus or Industrial Zone, unless you're a Civ/leader who gets a particular benefit from either of them, like Basil.
That said I like a lot of other aspects of the game they added. Eurekas/Inspos are pretty cool, I just think there should've been multiple for each, with each giving a smaller bonus (I.E. 3 Eurekas per tech, each giving 20% boost instead of 1 giving 40%). Governers, Heroes, Corps/Industries, all pretty fun features. With each I just think the balancing is kind of fricked, but whatever. Gold gets way too plentiful and Trade Routes are too OP, plus I hate that that's how you build roads pre-trains. Builders are fine but should exist alongside Workers. In my eyes. Honestly I like a lot of Civ 6's additions in concept, just not in execution. I'd like to see them brought forward and improved and not just thrown out wholesale.
Those just become mandatory. Everyone wants production and science so every city isn't a city until it builds them. Civ 5 did this and it was not a good thing.
>looking for historical civilizations and leaders mods to add to the game >80% of leaders on steam workshop are animal girls from some weeb shit
So annoying.
>filter for assets >filter for wonders >filter for something specific by searching for fort or something >still get weeb shit leaders in results
That's what makes it great. The real issue is that half of them break the game and 75% are in Chinese.
You can just grab Gedemo's stuff if you don't want to bother sifting, though. He's got like fifty forgotten jungle tribe mods.
Why is this roll possible?
Probably so rare they didn't think to check for it. Alternatively,
never
I think you could get out of it by expanding your borders out, building an encampment, and spawning units on that to go conquer something. Obviously torturous for no benefit, but it might be possible.
I'd have to assume woman moment. How hard can it be to code that you will NEVER start inside any pocket of mountains smaller than say 20-30 tiles? Obviously it doesn't really matter since you instantly re-roll, but yeah. I guess maybe it was kept possible because they thought it would be funny?
Isn't it just starvation in this case? No workable tiles = no food.
That or maybe it's like, normally when sieging am mountain adjacent to the city would be ignored, so if you were surrounded by 3 mountains a single unit could siege, so the game is coded to read 6 mountains as automatically sieged?
While she's good coombait, Poland really needed another leader before they stopped adding shit. As it is, they lost their already niche uses to Byzantium and the new Kongo leader.
While she's good coombait, Poland really needed another leader before they stopped adding shit. As it is, they lost their already niche uses to Byzantium and the new Kongo leader.
leader's agenda is a dumb mechanic. some leaders will hate for playing normally (frick you pedro) and some will hate you for stuff that are out of your control (frick you catherine)
I feel like a recent update in the past has made the ai go full moron. They can't fight wars for shit. Not even against each other. They'll insist on killing all the units first without getting rid of the city defenses mowing them down. While also only going for the enemy capital getting killed every time along the way. The borders in two games now just stay completely frozen starting in the medieval era.
Just try it out and decide for yourself.
The DLCs add a ton of new mechanics, which can make the game kind of tedious and may be overwhelming if you're playing for the first time.
what's the point of the humble sale when it's on sale on steam at the same time
just buying the VI Anthology off steam is probably cheaper than the bundle + new frontiers with the coupon
>went wrong
1 UPT
AI can't play the game effectively
Too much DLC
Irrelevent leaders
Religion is kinda annoying (and why can I only found 1?)
Weird movement rules >right
Pretty much everything else, I liked Civ VI mechanics and the
Ditto. There was something about the 2D map that allowed them to have a greater variety of tiles
I can't to back to 1UPT after trying civ4.
Glad to hear it.
I've been saying for years that 1UPT is a perfectly fine system for a tactical wargame, but it completely inappropriate for a game like Civ.
>Good
Two tech trees
Distric system.
Goverment system.
Barbarians being a little more complicated.
Music is great.
Leader agendas were a good idea, but poorly implemented
Combat is... whatever
>Wrong
Literally everything else. Special mentions:
Shit leader artstyle. They look like badly made Pixar characters.
UI is pure mobile trash.
Trash second DLC that actively makes the game more of a chore to play.
Game basically abandoned (with a shitton of flaws and bug) for some Season Pass shit with awful content to milk the playerbase. Wich basically means Civ VII will be even worse.
The older Civ games were made for gamers. 6 was made as a distraction for ADHD toddlers on their mom's ipad.
The stench of designed-by-committee slop pervades every aspect of the game's design, from its Chinese phone game art style to its awful tech quotes to its goofy cartoon slapping noises to its reddit pandering button for Scout units to pet their wolves.
I use mods. Only thing that hasn't been covered by them are alternative leader still-portraits >b-but your heckin animationrinos!11!
Played civ games and mods w/o them.
>choose random civ since I always end up picking Rome or "other" Rome >game rolls dice on random civ >it's always china somehow >and it's the shit leader with some project bonus
seriously what the frick is point of "projects"? Early game you don't have the production to spare, late game shit is mostly pointless
I saw this game on sale but it has endless DLC,/expasions passes and packages to the point there's no way to be sure you are buying a complete edition.
What's up with that?
i like it a lot, feels like a marriage of Civilization and Colonization - worker placement, specialization, re-implemented as districts. founding fathers, now as great people. tribes as city states. combat is fun, with flanking and ranged units. corps/armies being a nice middle ground between 1upt and doomstacks. flexible political and religious systems. loyalty system reminiscent of Master of Magic. diplomatic victory like it's Master of Orion. environmental frickery like it's Alpha Centauri.
Just city spamming and plopping down districts that dont matter while being embroiled in basically the most convoluted piece of strategy dogshit ever released. >Disney China graphics
idc about this so much but the game feels like spam more than strategy. Also war weariness is moronic but not as moronic as the fricking card system. Holy shit what a bad game.
I'm not even going to type the other problems I have, I literally can't play the game because of the graphics. It make me feel like its made for 12 years old.
No joke. There are some mods to fill put the trees and for civ v textures but it's fort of like uncanny civ v. That said I have trouble going back without districts and policies.
>try the new monthly challenge thing >expansions are disabled
I mean I get it, they don't want to lock out people who don't have them but still I don't like having half the features I'm used to locked away
GOOD:
Districts is a cool idea and expanding out from the city is neat
Wonders being tied to locations
Barbarians evolving over time
Traders building roads *
More complicated city-state interactions **
Good narration ***
Religion is finally a win con ****
Holy God Giant Death Robots are cool as shit now
Natural disasters
Cults with the DLC
Larger unit variety
BAD:
Base yields are ass and improving them isn't much better
*You can't build road until super late on
**City-states are now more imbalanced and its harder to take good ones away from others
***Half of the narrations are stupid now. Quirky jokes and one liners aren't funny at hour one hundred.
**** Religion interacts separately from most of the game making it harder to work WITH your Civ.
3 CHARGE WORKERS???
Governors, mostly because they're so few and so imbalanced. Why does every city not get one?
Great People being unique is great for depth but awful for gameplay.
Believes in man-made climate change as if we live in 1990 so the sea levels rise by 50 feet and ruin everything immediately and we introduced mechanics to counteract this and then had to make them bad because it made us aware that we could also just do that in real life and it made us (the devs) uncomfortable.
Air units are trash
Policies are somehow worse than Vanilla Civ V (lekmod only bb)
Movement is nigh unworkable.
One turn razing of cities wtf???
Promotions are now super niche, bad for both SP AND MP
Housing is a cute concept but its another hindrance to gameplay by trying to make it 'more realistic'
The sad part is I could probably think of more given time.
The biggest problem with Civ VI is it has LOADS of good ideas but the basic gameplay gets in the fricking way.
GOOD:
Music is INCREDIBLE... at the main menu.
Fighting animations are crisp.
AI interactions are fleshed out so that warring is more complex and politics more easy to track.
BAD:
Trying to find information in this game is insanely hard. In V you could stumble across more and more info that was interesting but in VI you can't even find basic info. So many resources are also split up into other resources that then add to other resources which you then have to search through multiple menus to even track.
Exiting tile management in your city is really unintuitive, making it a chore to do.
I'm mentioning Workers AGAIN because early game you're just not doing anything when you can't plan out tile management and development. You spend a lot of time just pressing next turn just to find something to do.
Half the new game modes made the game experience worse. Which is a shame.
I usually don't comment on Singleplayer AI cause I think all AI is underwhelming but VI AI is really trash. Its the easiest of the series by far and if you decide to War you'll just win the game effortlessly.
The SINGLE LARGEST problem Civ VI has, is it sacrifices Gameplay for Realism or interesting ideas over and over AND OVER.
I genuinely think I could ignore 90% of the issues I have with the game if Workers didn't have a Charge system.
I felt governors were garbage. They have one or two good skills and a bunch of trash. Also, there were not that many.
There was a workshop mod that added a ton of governors, each with very specific roles. However, I felt that they were each a bit too strong.
>What went right
With the civ 5 environment skin mod this game actually looks great.
Animated time of day is neat
Leader abilities are generally better
Different leaders for the same civ offer different ways to play without having to include literally who civs like Venice or something
Jadwiga's hips
Wonders and districts are fun
Cleopatra's breasts
About 3 or 4 themes are excellent and the change of instruments through the ages are a cool touch
Dommy mummy Tomyris
>The bad
AI. This is about 70% of the problem with the game. Civs will not work tiles, over invest in a single victory type (300 culture Mali with 80 science in Atom age, 40 missionary Jadwiga), will build wonders while you siege their city. Aside from that the AI blatantly cheats as a crutch, or has an 'aggressive' ai package which just means they will attack you for no reason and you've just got to accept it and they will suffer no penalties
Personally not a fan of Sean Bean, I preferred the comfy civ 5 guy
Climate. I'm really not sure how they expected us to care about climate, and its clear the AI doesn't give a shit either. You suffer natural disasters and shit, but to counter it you do a 10 turn city project once in your empire and you'll end up lowering global temp by about 3 degrees which does nothing except give you credit toward building your army and burning coal. What lol??
Hammurabi, Cyrus, Mbanza, a lot of the vanilla civs that are just plain boring and uninspired like Vikings
I forget what it was in civ 5 but picrel. Vaguely remember how it worked, but in civ 5 ideology seemed to mean a lot more than it does in civ 6 and was more fun
The game feels way too easy at times, and can drag on for long. It's a lot more slow paced than AoE2, like playing chess. I wanted to play as Mali, and while they can have a slow start, their gold bonus gives them a snowball effect alongside purchasing Suguba (Unique Malian Commercial Hub) buildings with faith.
It's intriguing how the Mali in Civ 6 and Aoe2 have a bonus towards gold, but CIV 6 appears to give a slower bonus at the start that becomes better as the game goes on, while it is somewhat the opposite for Aoe2
Culture victory was very easy to achieve with the Mali, especially when you get the ability to purchase campus and theatre districts with faith and cheaper gold.
I play CIV exclusively as a war game, usually between Emperor and Deity settings. >A few observations
1. I like naval warfare, and certain civs are overpowered in this respect - Norse, English, etc. But the Maori are almost too good. You can build quadriremes and galleys right away and conquer any coastal city in basically the first 200 turns. I've won domination victories on large maps in the Medieval era that way.
2. That aside, conquering cities is harder in the early game because the AI starts off with so many units and typically builds walls faster than I do. It gets easier as I go and becomes a cakewalk by the time artillery and planes get in the mix because the AI doesn't seem to know how to defend against those. So the modern military game can be pretty boring, even if the giant robots are cool.
3. Perhaps my favorite game experience in CIV 6 is the Viking scenario (Traders, Raiders, Thieves) because it's so military-centric AND no one progresses past late Middle Ages tech/units. It's the right balance of speed, challenge and "realism," and I kind of wish the whole game played more like that. >A few suggestions
1. Just as you can configure games to start in a certain era, you should be able to make them stop at a certain era.
2. Would love it if CIV had a map-builder feature, but they make money off new maps in expansion packs, so...
3. It would be nice if they could check the opposing civs, city states, and barbs' progress so you don't end up facing, say, cavalry and field cannons in the early medieval era. I can turbocharge science and get those units too, but don't like the anachronism of it.
Also, I echo other anons' enthusiasm for sexy Jadwiga.
I'm genuinely curious.
Does anyone here play multiplayer Civ at all?
I personally prefer Civ VI because the other victory types are more fun with the district system, it's more easily moddable with (slightly) better netcode than the rest of the series. Don't get me wrong, Civ IV is definitely one of my favorites for single player, I can't deny the improvements to the game for the casual multiplayer board-game night that I play Civ for. It's a digital Ticket-To-Ride for the drunk history autist and their schizo friends.
Frick me, just got off graveyard, this is incomprehensible.
I like that the other victory types are more balanced than before, because it always rubbed me the wrong way that it was always spam science, flood military, destroy. That is often still the best opportunity, but I like having different goals to build towards. Plus, there's always mods to tune your 'tism, and the other options like corporations and such getting economic tourism was a fun idea too.
Also, I always turn off global warming. CO2 shouldn't cause meteor strikes, how stupid were those devs?
>Does anyone here play multiplayer Civ at all?
no because multiplayer games go like this
>wait half an hour so everyone show up >start game >2 out of 4 disconnects >restart again, no dc >2 people concedes defeat because their starting area sucks >remake game >1 person dc >remake game new map >1 person complains their start position is unplayable >remake game >no complaints, play game >2 people dc >load game wait for game to catch up >finally play game >servers desync from players >reload game wait for all to load >1 person dcs >another person dcs >realize that 4 hours have passed already and you had like 1 hour of actual playtime at most.
barbarian clans are obnoxious and war penalties are anti fun, and diplomacy is completely broken. npc leaders are unhinged and interacting with them is pointless.
the characters are all big round gay blobs
Cartoony graphics
Railroading.
*Ugly
Religion system was complete shit
way too many penalties for declaring war
>Religion system was complete shit
why?
nta, but:
>limited great prophets means you can get locked out, especially bad for civs like Spain
>belief bonuses range from garbage to overpowered, can also lose the good ones
>only 4 religious units
>same 4 units all game
>combat boils down to getting an apostle with debater and steamrolling everything
>just spam spread religion bro
1. Scaling prices for religious units means there's a point where no one can win a religious victory anymore because everything is too expensive.
2. AI is coded to take specific combinations of beliefs and wonders in a way no sane player would do but still leads to everyone building the same religions every time.
3. Gurus are pointless.
4. Religion both spreads too quickly and too slowly. Missionaries and apostles can convert whole cities in a turn. Migration, occupation, and trade never does.
5. Religions have no personlity. I can choose Islam or Buddhism or whatever, but unlike a civ have no abilities or beliefs attached to them.
6. Too few religions. No equivalent of indigenous faiths, cults, or heresies either.
The result is that every religion ends up as this interfaith goysoup that becomes increasingly irrelevant as the game goes on. It's a symptom of the boomer-tier end-of-history historiography (The Reformation is a cultural tech you can't skip?) Civ suffers from in general.
Nevertheless I still love playing with religion and it's much better than Civ V, but bothering with it for any reason besides larp is a waste of resources.
IMO it can just be shortened to this
>it feels like a conquest victory, but with less variety between units
Basically, it’s just pick right beliefs and spam, spam, spam, no strategy, just spam more. Feels really laborous in a very shitty way.
Normal conquest also suffers from this problem just not as badly.
My point is that no other victory type is like this.
>1. Scaling prices for religious units means there's a point where no one can win a religious victory anymore because everything is too expensive.
You should be winning a religious victory well before this becomes a problem.
If you reach the Industrial Era when going for a religious win, you fricked up hard.
You can get postponed from religious victory early by not being able to cross the seas until cartography and meeting a snowballed civ who has converted a bunch other civs on their continent and as faith generation rushing out their ass. Although, AI is too moronic to properly micro their religious units so more religious units just means more opportunities to destroy them and flip their cities' relis. The grind is worse on larger maps, though, and the lack of any sort of stacking (besides the civilian/religious split, thank goodness) makes moving the units a pain
>Gurus are pointless
I find they can keep an apostle deathball rolling with their heals, serve as bait, and provide a flanking bonus with minimum faith investment. Maybe not worth it if you're not going all in and saving faith for GP or Grand Master purchases
> No equivalent of indigenous faiths, cults, or heresies either
Idk why Firaxis or some modder hasn't taken Crusader King's mechanic of taking an existing religion's beliefs and slightly modifying it for a new heresy, etc., then creating new events where these offshoots would pop up ie low loyalty cities, melting pot cities with multiple religions, or whatever. Seems like a missed opportunity
I also hate that it is generally kind of useless unless you’re going for religious victory. If you want to have any kind of religious play, you need a pretty early religious district, and it’s ultimately a game-defining choice (takes a slot out of your first / second city), that doesn’t bring much reward unless you want to win through it.
you sure?
Voidsinger society straight up gives you science/culture from faith in second promotion, any excess faith be can used to spam workers/settlers, Ethiopia with that bonus is just stupidly OP, Mali also benefits from faith thanks to their commercial hubs
religion also influences loyalty, combine it with shit like voidsinger doomsayers or france loyalty reduction through cultural works/spies and you can absorb empires
that being said I kind of agree that religious victory is really boring and most often I just disable it or try to win it in an unconventional way with the military, with Byzantines or Spain
>1. Scaling prices for religious units means there's a point where no one can win a religious victory anymore because everything is too expensive.
What turn are you trying to play to as religious?
>No equivalent of indigenous faiths, cults, or heresies either.
???
Your indigenous faith is your starting pantheon.
You don't have cults and heresies for the same reason you don't start at 4000BC as Babylonian before becoming Roman, English, and then having American rebel from a distant city. Do you really want to found animism, before you get Judaism, before you get Islam or Christianity, before you get Orthodoxy/Catholicism, before you get Protestantism, before you get your le waaaacky Puritanism? Have you ever played a previous Civ?
>this interfaith goysoup
You're expressly penalised for being multicult religion.
>(The Reformation is a cultural tech you can't skip?)
If you want to be a Theocracy, yes.
If you don't, did you notice it's as "unskippable" as the merchant republic tech?
>settling in the snow next to a volcano
>on an island
>building districts all over this
Anon...
>6 was made as a distraction for ADHD toddlers on their mom's ipad.
Civ always had this issue but you're right. It's ten times worse in this.
>way too many penalties for declaring war
You must playing a different game the penalties for war barely do anything. Also Casus belli, have you heard of them? Yeah? No?
This anon is the ultimate mouthbreather, how is it even possible to come up with something as dumb as this
>wrong
It was made
>right
nothing
Districts are great. Sean Bean is a wonderful narrator. The game modifiers like barbarian clans turning into city states, monopolies and heroes are all great. Some of the others are okay. Some of the civs are very creative ideas, like the Maya. No punishment for playing wide is great.
Bad stuff? Usual civ problems of difficulty scaling being more frustrating than difficult, mediocre to bad AI. Tile improvements should be reworked again, something more similar to old world would be nice. Take roads away from caravans, just let us build them.
I haven't played CIV 6, what are the Maya like in it? And what do you mean about the tile improvements?
Maya get sizeable bonuses to any city within 6 tiles of the capitol. So you try and fit as many cities as you can into that small area. They are penalized on any cities outside 6 tiles. They also get some nice adjacency bonuses for farms/plantations and observatories(campuses).
One complaint about improvements is that you build a worker and it has charges. Each improvement is built instantly and uses 1 charge. So you just plop down whatever and need to build another worker. Many people, including myself, prefer the older style 'it takes X turns to create improvement', with the worker being permanent.
>No punishment for playing wide is great.
If anything, this is a detriment
the deity/immortal "meta" is shitting as many cities as you can before turn 50, there's little tactics or consideration behind it, it's just a no-brainer kind of thing to do if you want an easy pre 220 turn win
compare that to civ 4, where you'll have to take into consideration the cost of the city, how well placed is it and how will its cultural borders interact with the neighbor
>inb4 6 has all these considerations as well
no, you aren't punished for placing a bad city, it will always be a net gain for you because the amenity system works along the lines of small percentages and is highly inconsequential unless you're Maya
culture output/artists don't matter shit in terms of borders either, when you can magically shekel your way into buying tiles left and right
and gold is something you'll always have in abundance, even on deity, because luxuries and diplo favors can be sold easily and for a good value
>amenity system works along the lines of small percentages and is highly inconsequential
A 10%-20% bonus to ALL yields and 15%-30% population growth penalty is low amenities is everything but inconsequential. And the bigger your empire is the more it will bite you at your most powerful cities which are doing the heavy lifting of your game.
Also what are governors? What is loyalty? What is scaling district costs? What is scaling settler costs? What is scaling builder costs? Have you heard of them?
And if you think planning in civ6 doesn't matter than I do not know what alternate universe are you coming from.
>A 10%-20% bonus to ALL yields and 15%-30% population growth penalty is low amenities is everything but inconsequential.
Not in civ 6. Population and specialists don't matter much since worker efficiency and specialist yields have gone down the drain, and both have been supplanted with bonus cards and adjacencies.
No, the 10-20% bonus to non-food yields doesn't mean much because you have strong alternatives for yield magnifiers that require much less investment and micro-management than trying to keep on top of luxuries and amenities for all the cities in your empire, rather than just making an entertainment district in your tall capital.
>Also what are governors? What is loyalty? What is scaling district costs? What is scaling settler costs? What is scaling builder costs? Have you heard of them?
NTA, but while those factor in, they detract from most of the game between players. It's a combination of numbers being too small, and mechanics being poorly conceived.
>Also what are governors?
you can still boost your powerhouse cities, what's even your point? The point I was making is that extra cities NEVER come to you as a detriment, they are always a net gain, with the exception of rare circumstances like playing Maya
>What is loyalty?
literally a non issue, there's so many ways to mitigate it and so long your city isn't in the state of perpetual famine, you'll rarely have problems with it. It's 80% reliant on the age you're currently in anyway and by turn 100, you can easily churn out 10+ cities on a standard map using uncontested, empty land alone
>What is scaling settler costs?
lol just buy them
by the time you hit 10-15 cities, your powerhouse cities will be able to churn them out in under 5 turns anyway
the fact that you even bring this up tells me you likely struggle with deity
>scaling district costs
>literally what is locking down district to lock the price
also buying districts lol
again, gold solves most of the issues and you can never have low amounts of it unless you're simply a bad player who isn't taking advantage of the AI diplomacy
>lol just buy them
>by the time you hit 10-15 cities, your powerhouse cities will be able to churn them out in under 5 turns anyway
>the fact that you even bring this up tells me you likely struggle with deityto you as a detriment, they are always a net gain,
So you would rather spend 350 production or 1400 gold on your 10th settler which could have gotten you 4 districts which actually matter. And then you have to spend 10+ turns to move that settler to its place and start growing your population building those districts from scratch instead, spending 20+ turns on each.
>with the exception of rare circumstances like playing Maya
What is Kongo?
>literally a non issue,
Somehow every game mechanic seems to be a non issue for you when loyalty is the core barrier to forward settling the AI right after fresh water. Then hitting a dark age when your neighbor AI hit a golden age forcing you to relocate your governors from the places they should be. But I guess you must be the best player in the universe and everyone else that doesn't settle -20 loyalty tiles is wrong.
>So you would rather spend 350 production or 1400 gold on your 10th settler
>literally what is colonization policy
>what is magnus
it's ok, civ is hard if you're a midwit
>What is Kongo?
ok? your point? Like I said, specific circumstances lol
>Somehow every game mechanic seems to be a non issue for you
uhhh, yes. like I said, loyalty will rarely be an issue for a good player - this is a fact. You can easily jumpstart new cities with chops and hell there's two policy cards bringing them online with a free worker and instant 4 pop lol
>To lock down a district price you first needs to have the city settle blah blah blah
see above, it's ridiculously easy to jumpstart new cities mid game if you have remotely any idea as to what you're doing
>You need to have Reyna or Moksha
you can easily pivot from magnus to reyna or ping to reyna, the time to blob is early renaissance
>that you are a butthurt and loud Civ5 fanboy blah blah blah
not an argument. I barely played civ 5 ngl, I'm a 4 guy, not particularly good at it either but I can beat immortal reliably. Deity in 6 is laughable in comparison. I don't care about the 5 vs 6 comparison either.
>literally what is locking down district to lock the price
>also buying districts lol
>again, gold solves most of the issues and you can never have low amounts of it unless you're simply a bad player who isn't taking advantage of the AI diplomacy.
Abusing the the poor AI diplomacy for gold is a fair argument but that is not about any of the core game mechanics.
To lock down a district price you first needs to have the city settle and have the population up to 1-4-7-10 etc. Meaning settling a city will give you one district of with the cost production and gold which scales over time, you can lock down a district's price for one district. So you got a newly settled city with low population, no tile improvements, no claimed territory needing 20-30+ turns to build up one district you can lock down. Even more if you have low amenities giving you -10% to ALL yields and -15% population growth.
You can do it yes if you have got so much free time with nothing to spend on over which could have likely already won the entire game.
>also buying districts lol
You need to have Reyna or Moksha leveled up to Tier 4 promotions to buy districts for which you need to reach at least late classical ear if you want to have it in the earliest. And if you do that what are you spending 4 early game governor title to stuff you do not need when they would be needed the most for Magz, Amani or Ping.
>The point I was making is that extra cities NEVER come to you as a detriment, they are always a net gain, with the exception of rare circumstances like playing Maya
>the fact that you even bring this up tells me you likely struggle with deity
Correct me if I am wrong but your entire attitude tells me that you are a butthurt and loud Civ5 fanboy that doesn't like that Civ6 is better because it is NOT THE SAME. Civ6 gives you more freedom and only gives you soft limiters to your expansion instead of outright punishing you like in Civ5. While in Civ5 where you are literally punished for building more than 4-5 cities and then playing sim-city with them and leaving 50% of the whole map empty in a game about building a world spanning empire. Not mention conquering enemy cities punishing you even more with negative happiness and civic costs.
There is a difference between harshly punishing you for doing what you are logically supposed to do or simply scaling down the benefits you gain. Civ 5 does the former and Civ6 does the latter. Civ6 allows you more freedom to go either direction but makes micromanagement more tedious and your benefits lower making your game drag out longer.
>Civ6 gives you more freedom and only gives you soft limiters to your expansion instead of outright punishing you like in Civ5.
You couldn't even negotiate your way through the happiness mechanic, but you feel like talking?
I will take wide being encouraged with tall being an option over 5's tall is the only way to play anytime. Inca are really good, as are the newest China leader's bonus for tall as well as a few others like Maya and the religious farm/river civ I forget the name of.
The maps are, apart from a few types like seven seas, small/crowded enough that city spam is not an issue, you will run into natural borders and other civs long before it becomes an issue. A good city can become a powerhouse, spammed cities can only produce the basic amount of resource their district provides. Spammed cities only really matter on cultural games, as you need more theater districts to hold great works(which are hard-capped by the game).
Past a certain point in the game new cities are worthless except to grab resources, it takes too long to build them up to start paying back the investment, as settlers, like workers, have a scaling cost.
>The game should be designed for people who burn all theire time to find ways to abuse its mechanics and afterwards complain that they were successfull with it
Yeah, good idea. How stupid would it be to make a game for people who enjoy it in a normal way?
I played Civ since Civ1 was released. And each version has its pros and cons. Just enjoy them for what they are and stop hating companies for making financially smart decissions and players for enjoying thing you dislike. Grow up.
>No punishment for playing wide is great.
This is exactly why I hate Civ 6 summed up in one sentence. Tall > wide every day of the week.
The option to play whichever you prefer is superior to being forced into one.
Not when one is objectively better than the other.
I subjectively disagree
>The game modifiers like barbarian clans turning into city states, monopolies and heroes are all great.
only problem with these is the AI is entirely unprepared for them, so it shits the bed if any of them are turned on.
Sean Bean is a great narrator but most of the quotes they chose for when you unlock technology are some of the gaygiest most saccharine garbage I've ever heard and endlessly get on my nerves
This. They use anti war quotes for military tech, comedians saying Ricky Gervais tier jigs at religion for religious civics
>Unlock mining civic
"Who deserves more credit than the wife of a coal miner?"
This is one of the most obnoxious
I always hated the Hagia Sophia quote.
>Yes Christians you need to share your holy building that was captured and turned into a shrine for another religion with the people who stole it from you
The Tsingay find quote is so obnoxious that I almost turned the game off first time I heard. These would be be bearable if people of some merit actually said them instead of some dipshit bloggers or fricking Thomas Carlyle.
Why is Tamar brown??
> No Sudan
> No Swahili
> But this b***h
Normally I don't buy into chudtier conspiracy theories but there's no way they added this woman without intending to upset someone. Similar problem to how we don't have a proper Ireland or Celts but we have Scotland.
>instead of some dipshit bloggers or fricking Thomas Carlyle.
why is thomas carlyle on the same tier as "some dipshit blogger"?
For me its the fact they literally quoted Percy Jackson. If Civ 5 had W. Morgan Sheppard quote Harry Potter my eyes would've rolled into the back of my head.
For me it's Monty Python. More specific Holy Grail quote for Divine Right civic.
That's actually funny though.
Kilimanjaro
“As it turns out, Mount Kilimanjaro is not wi-fi enabled, so I had to spend two weeks in Tanzania talking to the people on my trip.”
Completely ruins the experience of finding the Wonder.
Mining 1
"Who deserves more credit than the wife of a coal miner?”
The Coal miner.
Engineering 2
“Normal people … believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Engineers believe that if it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet.”
Funny but another one of those, wow you discovered Engineering SHAME ITS STUPID quotes
Banking 2
“I saw a bank that said ’24-Hour Banking,’ but I didn’t have that much time.”
??????????
Astronomy 2
“Astronomy’s much more fun when you’re not an astronomer.”
ANOTHER wtf does this mean quote
Scientific Theory 2
“If facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”
HEY GUYS DID YOU KNOW ALBERT EINSTEIN MADE A FUNNY
Advanced Flight 1
“Sure, jets are fast and economical, but, oh my, what fun we’ve lost and what leisure we’ve sacrificed in the race for efficiency.”
+1 more frick your tech quote
Computers 1
“To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer.”
+2
There is likely more but you get the point.
Whoever was in charge of the quotes LOVES Winston Churchill he has 8 quotes
The engineering is cool tbh, the rest is garbage.
V had several Will Rogers quotes, but I actually like him.
>“I saw a bank that said ’24-Hour Banking,’ but I didn’t have that much time.”
>??????????
Well, 1-Hour Photos only take an hour, so...
>“Sure, jets are fast and economical, but, oh my, what fun we’ve lost and what leisure we’ve sacrificed in the race for efficiency.”
This doesn't even make sense. Propeller planes weren't more fun or leisurely, in fact they sucked as a mode of transport.
The graphics we're a refreshing change
>what went right
They gave it away for free.
>Half of the complains are various genuine gripes of the game
>The other half is "muh graphics"
Yet another showcase that 5 was mistake by attracting children, zoomers and moros
6 with mods that make certain tiles look like they're from 5 is my favourite, visually
90% of 6 complaints are graphics and 'muh leaders look bad'. They are easily discarded.
The weird part is that the remaining "10%" is what makes the game near unplayable and hard to bear, yet it's all blanketed by "muh graphics", rendering any discussion about what and why is broken with the game impossible.
It's something done for enjoyment. If I don't enjoy the leaders looking like pixar designed them, then I won't play it. Simple as.
>I play strategy games for how they look
... what are you even doing in this genre, then?
Playing Civ 1, perhaps...?
Civ 1 is one of those "why even bother, when X" exists experiences. In this case - Civ 2 everything that made Civ 1 work without all the shit bits.
I implore you to check what "strawman" and "maymay" stand for. Using words that you have no grasp of makes you look twice as moronic as you really are.
>le strawman maymay
Plenty of strategy games get carried by aesthetics. Battlefleet Gothic is a prime example of it.
There is gameplay and it is fun, but the aesthetics and "feel" are a huge part of it.
theres nothing wrong with pixar design at all u closet homosexual gay
Today I will remind them
bigger
I don't mind the leaders, to me the in game artstyle was a dealbreaker. It looked muddy and lower res than civ 5.
Good
>the city spam issue has finally been solved by making the terrain have an even greater effect on the plausibility of city growth, making fresh water and good district locations valuable
>districts ultimately make city planning more interesting
Bad
>diplo AI sucks ass
>the leader agendas are ”road to hell is paved with good intentions” tier, sounds good on paper but makes leaders feel like schizos in reality
>war is still just as shit as it was in V
>splitting tech tree into 2 makes each side feel too linear and barren
>the leader agendas are ”road to hell is paved with good intentions” tier, sounds good on paper but makes leaders feel like schizos in reality
This is honestly the worst of it. Stuff like "Viking declares war against you, a land locked country, because you have no navy" is moronic.
Saladyn
>likes leaders with strong air force
They would be fine if they were better at recognizing context. For example I'd vastly prefer it if you could satisfy agendas by either reaching a minimum threshold or being above like the bottom 25% out of all civs and they didn't trigger unless you had the capacity for whatever they want in the first place. If you have no cities that can produce ships, like you said they're immensely frustrating.
Or they could just include only agendas that are always achievable, but then they become a kind of lottery system where you either get lucky and spawn next to civs that like you doing stuff you wanted to do regardless, like spawning next to someone who likes you having lots of tech, or you spawn next to someone who wants something you only want in super specific cases, like someone wanting you to spam faith. I admit, I like the basic premise of leaders who have more diverse interests driving diplomacy but in practice agendas just don't work. Maybe tying it to government types or policy cards would be more effective.
The civ leaders shouldn't have simple conditions for liking you. They should just like the fact that you're out of the way and a non-threat.
Ah the 2 tech trees reminds me, better if they just made one big tech tree but then kept ideological stuff in some separate tree. Policy cards are amazing, definitely one of 6's best features. Governments could be more unique and better though.
>>the leader agendas are ”road to hell is paved with good intentions” tier, sounds good on paper but makes leaders feel like schizos in reality
Isn't there literally a quote from a former Civ dev for why this is a bad idea lol.
>city spam issue has finally been solved
that shit has been solved already in civ4
moronic AI and diplomacy as always
I’d argue that diplo is even worse than it used to be, at least in IV you got something that remotely resembled proper alloance blocks even if it still was shallow as frick
moronic AI is what made me lose interest in the game, it outweighed any positive feature for me. Fricker AI just had to build cities next to mine for no reason, every game, even on the largest maps the game was capable of handling. Also in my opinions the game was too fricking fast, AI rushed technologies and I never had time to enjoy eras before immediately having to skip to the next one to avoid having a technological disadvantage with the AI.
>it outweighed any positive feature
... there are any?
Genuinely asking. 6 is pretty much collection of everything that DIDN'T work in 3, 4 and 5, with few new things added to the mix for variety, so they can claim they've added new stuff (that also doesn't work)
Districts are fun. Could use refinement, and the AI is notoriously dogshit at them, but it's a fun way to make city planning more interesting.
>Districts are fun
I hardly find them anything else than annoyance, but still: if you didn't try it yet, give Endless Legend a try
Yeah brain hurt when me not unga bunga build all buildings in city center for me too!
Then you've never played it and thus cannot comment, it is much improved.
this is literally every single 4x ever.
Novogord>USSR>Russia
It happens.
>there are any?
What
said, I liked the concept of districts, they made the cities feel more alive and complex, I just wish certain districts were able to build stuff in parallel with the city center, allowing for example to build a military unit in the camp while you were building something else in the city center.
Also I really enjoyed the government mechanic and policy cards.
>Wrong
Some aspects of the graphics (like the forest tiles) didn't look that good
Eras went by too fast, and the tech tree had some weirdly placed techs, ruining the pace of unit upgrades.
The world congress didn't feel as impactful as it did in 5, and i often ended up not bothering with espionage.
Didn't like the changes to unit movement.
I feel like i had to invest way too much to get my flying units.
Governors not being specific to your civ still triggers me.
>Right
Districts are cool
Religion is way better
I liked how they made gold a lot better and more useful
Music changes through the ages was nice, though i missed the war version on the nations' themes
End game was generally more fun and interesting than in 5
City loyalty is good, and i like the more dynamic barbarians.
Also like the stockpile angle of strategic resources.
Oh yeah, religion needs a complete overhaul. Religious combat sucks, there are too many units, it takes too much time and is not satisfying. Make preacher, mystics, missionaries, whatever, and make them spread religion by being adjacent to a city. To counter them, make anti-religion buildings or place your own preachers adjacent to the city. Relics are very cool, keep them.
I really wish religion wasn't a zero sum game. In IV you could have multiple religions in a city, but now it's basically "if you aren't the majority religion at all times in a city, then frick you". It's not very fun. I'm not suggesting it go the other direction and make being a majority in a city worthless, but let me put it this way: if you are not in the religion fight, then being fought over should still benefit you and you should be able to encourage or outright make others compete for your real estate.
The shittiest thing about religion imo is the lack of faith upkeep on units
The amount of religious units that can be on the map can balloon to moronic proportions and just make the whole thing so involved and such a chore to deal with
Unit “stacking” is moronic and bad.
this isn't about IV
he could be talking about battalions/armies thing
*better than your game
Image SMAC/SMAX without it.
Making towns more than 1 tile was a good move, im not entirely sold on the execution of it, I feel they should be more fluid and dynamic, changing as the game goes on, at least until the industrial age where they start to be more static. The inability to move districts, and the need to just sometimes place them somewhere shitty just because you can't afford to wait to get the tiles you need so often sucks.
But mainly the AI is just so fricking trash. And my biggest gripe is that the AI bonuses have to be so front loaded to the early game so the early eras are such bullshit and the game just becomes progressively easier
end game micro management scales out of control which has been a problem in previous games but honestly needs to be addressed at some point for the long term sustainability of the series
It plays like an untested, overambitious Civ 5 mod made by an autist with no playtesters.
So much NEW STUFF to build but the turn economy is still the same, meaning its always stressful, nothing's quite the right choice, and you always feel behind.
Civ 5 was already bad enough with how specific you had to be with your city positions and how strongly deterministic the terrain was. It was not uncommon for players who really knew the game to regen maps ~20 times to find something that felt good, because you had to plan for the ENTIRE game, from granaries to windmills to hydro plants and solar panels. In order to place a city correctly, you had to think 250+ turns in the future.
Civ 6 is the same but even worse because there are so many more things to pre-plan for. Sucks if you do, sucks if you don't.
It should have eschewed more things from previous titles to achieve truly cohesive gameplay. Right now it is not cohesive at all.
Too much to list
Every time i come back to it i end up just not having fun while whenever i come back to 4 or 5 i have lots of fun.
The ecology stuff was a good introduction but was implemented haphazardly. Infantry with bolt-action cause more Co2 emissions than airplanes or cargo ships?
They designed the game around civs, and civs around the way the average player plays.
>"I picked the 'Science-and-faith' civ. I'm going to do nothing but make science and faith buildings the whole way through because that's FUN! The only unit I'll make will be my favorite option and the civ's UU because that's FUN! I'll give the AI a head-start and wait for them to throw units into my intricately-constructed meatgrinder because that's what's FUN! Now that I've gotten the Science victory as the Science-and-faith civ, I'll do a game with the 'Navy-and-Gold' civ!"
Civ 5 had much better gameplay and civ design, but the average player can't recognize this.
It's called metagaming and yeah it SUCKS.
It's not metagaming at all. It's just players sticking to the one thing they know.
>white man is a silly caricature
>brown woman is a generic cute cartoon girl
>the chink just looks like a handsome realistic asian
Lack of consistent art style.
All of those are silly caricatures.
>Muh GRAPHICS!
Plus what the other anon said: all three are caricatures
I mean, from all I can tell the graphics are the only difference compared to Civ 5. And they're objectively inferior.
>from all I can tell the graphics are the only difference compared to Civ 5.
So you didn't play 5 or 6?
>italian
>white
Trajan was spanish.
NTA.
He was bor on the Iberic peninsula, but his father is from the italic peninsula, and according to Dio Cassius, if you trace his bloodline even further he is actually thracian.
my main issue with this game is the lategame is a tremendous slog. i don't even know how you would fix it in future installments, every game feels like a slow death march once you get to the modern era
Ditching 1upt combat and giving more tools for city automation would be great, even though I know that the latter is hard to do properly (especially in VI where you have districts leading to extreme specialization) and even the idea of greater automation options brings tons of
>why even play the game then
complaints from turbo optimizers.
But then again, it’s not just Civ’s problem, the 4X endgame curse applies to basically every game like this.
Better diplomacy and AI that presents a lategame threat. The midgame should be about regional conquest with alliances, the lategame should be about world wars that feel meaningfully different. Emergencies aren't a bad start, but they don't do enough. Personally, I'd like to see a return of the ideological wars that popped up in 5 but in a more deliberate way.
Alliances should be able to turn into coalitions or pacts in the lategame that tie nations together militarily in meaningful ways. Off the top of my head, some ideas would be a type of pact that lets your support units help other members military and gives them extra movement, so you can focus on empowering an ally on the frontline. Another one that gives coalition members the ability to very slowly produce units in allied cities at gold per turn cost, letting you help out even if you're a continent away. And another that allows you to hurry allied production or designate a few newly produced units to appear under their control in their cities, letting you bankroll their wars. Prop up this system with a joint city capture mechanic. If you or someone else in your pact takes a city it gets put under governor control until the end of the war. Then pact members can claim cities based on their war contribution through an auction type system, or you can convert your contribution into gold/science/faith/etc. Depending on the war type certain payouts would be better, so if you go crusading you could opt to force religions in all the cities but claim none for example.
Finally, nations that lose wars should get a lingering small bonus, and each city lost should give a small temporary military bump to make it harder to kill enemies off in one fight. And to simulate a lack of interest in conquest very late, make the cost of keeping cities scale upwards per era while the other benefits increase instead.
very high pc requirements compared to what the game has to offer 🙁
Godawful dogshit UI that looks like a cheap mobile game with art style all over the fricking place
I'd say that the UI is one of its strongest points. It looks neat
>Wrong
Poodonarative pissonance with the UN and casus beli which end up being just stupid boondogles that hardly matter and loose any feeling of significance in the immergant story of your world
District connection bonuses are a bit too autistic
Loosing ideologies is lame
Ecology mechanic does frick all and is basically a meme
Production focus still OP
>What went right
Ultimately districts are cool
Government types and policies are a better system than civics
Best polish of the series
Districts were just copied from Endless Legend, they already had government types in a previous game, and the game sure as hell is not polished.
Would it kill them to make a serious design like in SMAC?
going from merchant republic to communist to libertarian corporatocracy
Districts are a good idea that do add a lot of depth to city development, but all of that is frontloaded in a really annoying way. Like before I ever place down my first district I'll spend an hour slowly planning out my districts and expansions for the entire rest of the game for optimal yields, and then the next several hours are largely just following a flowchart for completing that plan. I don't know, it just isn't fun in the same way older civ games were and sometimes I genuinely dread playing it because I don't want to play city planning simulator for the first 20 turns.
i liked it
i really really hated it on release at first, but i eventually liked it
Good: Removed a lot of the shit that was wrong with civ 5, like global happiness.
Districts are a really cool thing and make war much more interesting and less tied to taking the one tile on which a city sits.
I like the worker changes.
Combat is better with removal of city defense shot once you break the walls, and addition of the siege mechanic.
Bad: Still over value science production, there should be more rubber-banding for civs that fall behind in the tech race to keep things competitive.
Can't manually place roads. Yeah it makes sense to tie it to trade routes but I wish I could alter the tiles they covered for border defense / barb evasion purposes.
Trade micro can get tedious.
Loyalty from rise and fall feels like a whole mechanic they made just to prevent forward settling.
Weird scaling choices, like district costs scaling with tech so if you settle new cities late game they'll never catch up.
Any good mods for it, by the way?
>Another peon filtered by the luxury tax
> you will not settle
> you will not expand through conquest
> you will accept the 3 city strategy.
In 6 you can and should blob out early when there's land to take, but the real limiter is being able to make enough workers to make your new land actually productive vs making districts in the cities you have.
Anon, please tell me how I, in my most recent Japan save, have 30 happiness with 7 tall cities and 2 puppets.
Just guess.
Gee 7 cities. I build that many before I leave the medieval era in every civ game besides 5.
And yet you couldn't manage it in 5.
i realized that if i treat this game as a puzzle game rather than a strategy game i have a lot more fun, i don't reroll maps and random everything now and try to play to my outs. makes the game a lot more interesting to me
I can't to back to 1UPT after trying civ4.
Yah 1UPT was a disaster for the series.
wrong: fundamentally no overarching synergy between win strategies, you must always pick one and only one, it feels futile to play a "neutral" civ or to play one with an adjacent win condition to the one it was designed for
because each win path is so stilted and organized if you get an unfavorable initial condition set or fail to make a milestone that is typically irrecoverable and there is no reason to play any further than recognizing that mistake, particularly in culture and religion victory modes. most games are completely solved problems by renaissance with no possible way to upset the way the game is going, only your will to actually see the victory screen matters
the ai is still incapable of trade balancing and easily over/undervalues critical things
the corps system is the worst yet attempt to balance between stacks and 1upt
science is still too powerful in general, a strong technological advantage is always superior to any amount of battle shaping, and it is something the AI consistently struggles to understand that the player is going for
right: districts were kind of a fun idea when the game launched and before it bloated to shit, I guess?
the separate culture tech tree is a good idea. whether it was ultimately fun or not varied from patch to patch and from civ to civ, but the card system is worth salvaging for future installments
I appreciate the attempt to tell players why an AI is making a choice or has an attitude. more information is always better when it comes to interacting with bots
Jon Shafer was hired by Firaxis
AI is still fricking broken.
Name two 4x which don't have this problem. Every civ has bad AI.
Nah mate SMAC is literally better than trash six. Don't get it twisted.
There is nothing special about SMAC AI, take off your rose-tinted goggles.
Except for SMAC which is the best civ game?
two major wrongs i haven't seen mentioned yet; 1. movement needs to scale to game time. On online speed moving 1 tile takes 1/250th of the total game time, on heroic it's 1/750th of the game, meaning movement based victories like religion and military are much harder to achieve on the same map size because you have less time. an invading army can be completely outdated by the time they reach cities because it took them 500 years of online speed to get there instead of 100.
2. Map generation, which couples with the AI. a big reason the AI struggles so often is because they're not spawned in terrains that match their bonuses. i regularly find russia in the middle of a jungle or korea on the flattest plains on the map. they should create maps with civ specific start areas, like alternate TSLs, that would help the AI grow more naturally without just having units handed to them. make the terrain around their spawn perfect for one civ with a few good spots for districts and 2nd/3rd cities and place them there every time. another way they could do this, which i don't like as much, is give every civ a starting plate of three rings of tiles that would match your bonuses with terrain and provide appropriate resources, then generate the rest of the map around those.
The game speed issue is really regrettable. The fastest speeds make different eras of warfare just fly by and like you said, units can get outdated comically fast, but on the other hand, slower speeds excerbate the typical 4X problem of late game waiting and it is so goddamn boring to deal with slow late game turns when nothing exciting happens.
>The fastest speeds make different eras of warfare just fly by and like you said, units can get outdated comically fast,
This is my main issue with the game
>Finally, my unique unit. Time to unleash the strat based on it's gimmick that I've been developing all game
>Oh never mind it got blown up by a fighter jet
Its strategy but for 6 year old kids.
>Dude unit stacks are so stupid and unrealistic that's not how wars work but placing one unit of archers on the land equavalent of Belgium and them being impassable is totally better and realistic
I like unit stacking. 4 was a bit too much to deal with but 6 has a nice balance between none at all and infinite stacking.
I like unit stacking too, but I still find 6's method to be not enough to prevent pathing from getting fricked, which was much less of a problem in 4 due to infinite stacking.
The Leader portraits.
That's all Civ 5 piss babies cry about even as their game ages so quickly that if you look at a Civ 5 leader on a 4k screen it looks as if they are in witness protection.
>wrong
volcanoes
DLC bloat, you are not a fricking Paradox game
single wrong line in code was copypasted resulting in every civ going only for religion for over a year
base civ music is pretty boring(Germany, France, England...)
babylon/gauls spawning early swordsmen/musketmen
baffling leader choices
>right
great musical score for DLC civs, main theme is fantastic
more mechanical complexity, districts, synergies, choosing which wonders to rush
settlement location matters a lot more, early flood plain settlement might be terrible but around medieval/industrial era it is fantastic
resources matter more, forcing you to settle near them
being able to punish forward settling enemy civs without war
A.I is ruthless on higher difficulties and will spam unique units and archers
>the half assed
environmental meter is pointless, even if you burn coal in 20 odd cities the effects are hardly noticeable or matter little
you still cannot brake alliance early if your "friend" goes ape shit and starts conquering city states or converting your cities
still need mods for traders laying down rails or doing quick trade deals
barbarian bias is ridiculous, they will waddle half of continent worth of city states just to burn your one farm
>babylon/gauls spawning early swordsmen/musketmen
Barbs only spawn higher-level units when at least half of the civs in that game have unlocked them. So, unless you're the only other civ, they can't force higher units to spawn by themselves.
>environmental meter is pointless, even if you burn coal in 20 odd cities the effects are hardly noticeable or matter little
This depends pretty heavily on the other civs, if they're actually building industrial zones they can easily frick up the world. Usually they don't, which is another problem.
>half of civs
no, I checked it multiple times even went and tried it with low difficulties where A.I is few eras behind me, only one civ needs to unlock higher unit for a chance to spawn your highest unlocked unit
my guess is whenever barbarian camp spawns it can ape your current technological level or other civs(possibly city states too)
Yeah the environment shit is done really badly like.
> One ironclad produces enough C02 to get everyone to hate you in 1910.
> Encouraged to clearcut jungle and there are no adverse effects.
>Pros
It's not civ 5
>Cons
It's not civ 4
What made me drop it immediately was the change in moving system. Makes shit soooooooooooooooo much slower than in civ v.
Apart from that gotta give them props for trying new things but implementation is very meh.
The good
>a lot more options to play as compared to 5
>district systems makes you actually plan out a city instead of just settling on top/near a resource/shoreline
>because of this having a landlocked empire is usually viable
>city states unique bonuses that make you care more about certain city states than others
>unique great people that can actually have an effect on your game play
>loyalty stops the AI from spamming their cities to your borders
>most leaders lend themselves to pretty fun and wacky strategies
>game modes are usually pretty fun and game changing
>the AI cannot betray you if you are declared friends
>90% of the civilization themes clear civ v, the added detail of changing per era was pretty good
The bad
>the AI only gets more aggressive on higher difficulties but not smarter
>religion victory is domination victory but cheesier
>the amount of leaders has brought a lot of power creep to the older leaders (i see you Mbemba and Frederick)
>the end game can be a drag sometimes
>the graphics are not everyone's cup of tea, i don't mind it personally
The debatable
>the timeline, it can get annoying with all the cheering sounds
>the environment, it shows it is too rng but at least you can benefit from it sometimes
>barbarian scouts
>and Frederick
He's still one of the most overpowered leaders in the game, what the hell are you talking about?
Only because Germany itself is overpowered with the Hansa and the one extra free district per city, etc.You could put a guy with zero leader ability on germany and it would still be a top tier civ.
But Frederick's ability is 2 buffs:
>+7 combat str against city state
Why would you attack city states when its infinitely better to be their suzerain?
so that leaves us with his second buff, the only one to consider, which is
>+1 military policy slot
This is pretty cool I guess if you go full domination and pick communism so you have all benefits of fascism + all benefits of communism but its still kinda underwhelming. Military policies are good but you usually have more than enough slots for the ones you want, I rarely find myself wishing I had one more slot like I do with economical policies (which are much more valued).
Now compare this with Victoria (Age of Steam), one of the newest leaders:
>+10% production in cities for EACH industrial building in a district
>+2 prod for each strategic ressources
Imagine putting her in charge of Germany..
Or, if you think I'm cherry picking, just look at Basil for Byzantium, or Lincoln for America or ramses for Egypt, or Tokugawa for Japan
City-States almost always have a luxury and strategic resource. You only have so many envoys to claim CS with and if an AI sends all their envoys to one CS you probably wont get it without using all of yours, limiting you to 1.
No point comparing vic dlc mode to babr, compare her to vanilla vic, the difference is small.
And luxuries don't matter anywhere near enough in 6 that suzeranity isn't almost always better. And if you're playing right, which you have to in order to survive on high difficulties, you will always be able to secure suzerain of the 3-5 you want
And if your neighbouring city states aren’t one of those 3-5 you want, then you can bulldoze them to deny them from your opponents and get at least some use out of them. Don’t get me wrong, Barb’s combat bonus against city states is a bad, situational bonus, but there certainly are cases where you want to roll down city states that aren’t worth envoys.
don't tell me Frederick is more overpowered than Ludwig, the latter's bonuses actually function better with Germany because a lot of wonders are dependent on districts and being able to get more means more (unfinished) wonders to make use of and with the Hansa you can get insane production to keep those wonders and the bonuses
I really enjoy building up my cities and so district system was a major upgrade for me. However something needs to be done to make cities less tanky.
>tanky
trebuchet/bombards are in a good spot, they can down cities in reasonable time, beyond artillery, planes and death robots wreck shit
catapults are really bad
>made out of wet paper, range 1
single archer inside the city can demolish catapults with ease
I suppose one could make an argument for a siege engineer/spy getting more stuff (sapping groundwork, digging under walls, spies sabotaging gates etc...)
Early game cities are too weak, before walls anyway. Big part of the problem with higher difficulty is the AI will just walk 5 warriors over and run you over if it wants to. Once ancient walls are up, balance is good, medieval walls start to obsolete ranged very quickly though, you really need trebs or a lot of crossbows. Renaissance walls mean you must have bombards or wall penetrating abilities.
I think lategame cities are also a problem, cause you need artillery or bombers, even though modern cities aren't really defensible in the traditional sense.
It's tricky to balance in the current way the game is done. Cities are insanely fragile if you're ahead in tech (you can ignore the need for anti-walls devices), grindy but possible if even in tech, and straight up death turrets if you're behind in tech.
Weren't they stronger in civ5?
I liked Districts, but I feel like having the upgrade buildings exclusively be found in them was a poor decision. There should still be the normal "+x resource building" that you can build in every city no matter what, i.e you can build a School for +2 Science per turn in any city center once you unlock the tech for it. However, you can only build a College/University in a city with a Campus district, giving that city an EXTRA +2 Science per turn AND a Great Scientist point per turn. I think the necessity of building the specific district to build any real upgrade to that specific resource or stat makes certain districts far too necessary and valuable. Districts should've been more about FOCUSING your city towards a specific line of value or concept. I also think there should be a bigger separation between production towards projects/buildings and production towards units, or at least combat units. Production is still too valuable 100% of the time, with Science being also exceedingly punishing if you ever get behind with it. Dropping a Cultural District or Entertainment Complex never feels as good or as impactful as dropping a Campus or Industrial Zone, unless you're a Civ/leader who gets a particular benefit from either of them, like Basil.
That said I like a lot of other aspects of the game they added. Eurekas/Inspos are pretty cool, I just think there should've been multiple for each, with each giving a smaller bonus (I.E. 3 Eurekas per tech, each giving 20% boost instead of 1 giving 40%). Governers, Heroes, Corps/Industries, all pretty fun features. With each I just think the balancing is kind of fricked, but whatever. Gold gets way too plentiful and Trade Routes are too OP, plus I hate that that's how you build roads pre-trains. Builders are fine but should exist alongside Workers. In my eyes. Honestly I like a lot of Civ 6's additions in concept, just not in execution. I'd like to see them brought forward and improved and not just thrown out wholesale.
Those just become mandatory. Everyone wants production and science so every city isn't a city until it builds them. Civ 5 did this and it was not a good thing.
Every city having districts makes the entire map an urban sprawl nightmare.
So, Civ 7 when?
never
why doesn't Sarah have a surname
when Sean Bean dies but for real
>looking for historical civilizations and leaders mods to add to the game
>80% of leaders on steam workshop are animal girls from some weeb shit
So annoying.
>filter for assets
>filter for wonders
>filter for something specific by searching for fort or something
>still get weeb shit leaders in results
That's what makes it great. The real issue is that half of them break the game and 75% are in Chinese.
You can just grab Gedemo's stuff if you don't want to bother sifting, though. He's got like fifty forgotten jungle tribe mods.
Probably so rare they didn't think to check for it. Alternatively,
I think you could get out of it by expanding your borders out, building an encampment, and spawning units on that to go conquer something. Obviously torturous for no benefit, but it might be possible.
I was thinking of trying that. Saved it for later if I felt like it.
I'd have to assume woman moment. How hard can it be to code that you will NEVER start inside any pocket of mountains smaller than say 20-30 tiles? Obviously it doesn't really matter since you instantly re-roll, but yeah. I guess maybe it was kept possible because they thought it would be funny?
I don't understand how the mountains are sieging me.
Isn't it just starvation in this case? No workable tiles = no food.
That or maybe it's like, normally when sieging am mountain adjacent to the city would be ignored, so if you were surrounded by 3 mountains a single unit could siege, so the game is coded to read 6 mountains as automatically sieged?
I don't care that the rest of the art style is shit when mommy's in the game. Hnnnnnngh!
While she's good coombait, Poland really needed another leader before they stopped adding shit. As it is, they lost their already niche uses to Byzantium and the new Kongo leader.
>mommy's
> good coombait
mental illness
go back to crystal cafe
go back to your discord pedo group homosexual
>calling attractive women "mommy" is now pedophilia
what
>degenerate jacking off to pixar tier animation
you will fit in there with rest of the groomers.
Why is this roll possible?
leader's agenda is a dumb mechanic. some leaders will hate for playing normally (frick you pedro) and some will hate you for stuff that are out of your control (frick you catherine)
I feel like a recent update in the past has made the ai go full moron. They can't fight wars for shit. Not even against each other. They'll insist on killing all the units first without getting rid of the city defenses mowing them down. While also only going for the enemy capital getting killed every time along the way. The borders in two games now just stay completely frozen starting in the medieval era.
Anyone else go Gilgamesh- 3 + war carts - kill everyone on the continent before advancing the first age?
His bonus for looting villages is immensely overpowered.
Usually have one landmass to myself and 20+ cities, is there another way to play?
This gay ass frickin pixar art style is real annoying.
I only got the base game on PS4 do I really need the DLCs to have fun
Just try it out and decide for yourself.
The DLCs add a ton of new mechanics, which can make the game kind of tedious and may be overwhelming if you're playing for the first time.
That's what I thought, but I just didn't want to waste hours on the base game if the consensus agreed that it is shitty
tbf it is kind of shit, so I wouldn't play more than 1 or 2 games without DLC
>humble blunder sells civ franchise again, they can't even include civ 6 with all it's DLCs
>here is a coupon lol
>no partial tier either
They're selling all the DLCs that matter. New Frontier doesn't matter.
what's the point of the humble sale when it's on sale on steam at the same time
just buying the VI Anthology off steam is probably cheaper than the bundle + new frontiers with the coupon
>buy on Steam
>money goes to Firaxis
>buy in Humble Bundle charity drive
>no money goes to Firaxis
Heh heh heh... nothing personal, Sid.
I actually miss Civ3 aesthetics.
>went wrong
1 UPT
AI can't play the game effectively
Too much DLC
Irrelevent leaders
Religion is kinda annoying (and why can I only found 1?)
Weird movement rules
>right
Pretty much everything else, I liked Civ VI mechanics and the
Ditto. There was something about the 2D map that allowed them to have a greater variety of tiles
Glad to hear it.
I've been saying for years that 1UPT is a perfectly fine system for a tactical wargame, but it completely inappropriate for a game like Civ.
>Good
Two tech trees
Distric system.
Goverment system.
Barbarians being a little more complicated.
Music is great.
Leader agendas were a good idea, but poorly implemented
Combat is... whatever
>Wrong
Literally everything else. Special mentions:
Shit leader artstyle. They look like badly made Pixar characters.
UI is pure mobile trash.
Trash second DLC that actively makes the game more of a chore to play.
Game basically abandoned (with a shitton of flaws and bug) for some Season Pass shit with awful content to milk the playerbase. Wich basically means Civ VII will be even worse.
Oh myyyy goooood. frick you.
Ciconina When They Cry Phase 2 reveal image.
?t=7
If you didn't place Liang with reinforced materials there you only have yourself to blame
stupid cringe anti-war systems
I hate how the game is designed around crippling the player any time they attempt to engage in warfare for longer than like 20 turns.
The older Civ games were made for gamers. 6 was made as a distraction for ADHD toddlers on their mom's ipad.
The stench of designed-by-committee slop pervades every aspect of the game's design, from its Chinese phone game art style to its awful tech quotes to its goofy cartoon slapping noises to its reddit pandering button for Scout units to pet their wolves.
>Anons still seething about the graphics
I can't understand how any of you manage to play without strategic view.
I use mods. Only thing that hasn't been covered by them are alternative leader still-portraits
>b-but your heckin animationrinos!11!
Played civ games and mods w/o them.
Original cartoon Caesar, do not steal!
After civ 4 they removed more and more automation.
>No city governors
>No automated workers
Gay shit that makes it clicky and boring to macro. Caters to autistic homosexuals who want everything just so down to the last detail.
The solution:
Kill everyone with autism.
>choose random civ since I always end up picking Rome or "other" Rome
>game rolls dice on random civ
>it's always china somehow
>and it's the shit leader with some project bonus
seriously what the frick is point of "projects"? Early game you don't have the production to spare, late game shit is mostly pointless
They’re for snatching great people.
I saw this game on sale but it has endless DLC,/expasions passes and packages to the point there's no way to be sure you are buying a complete edition.
What's up with that?
Platinum Edition has all the essentials, Anthology Edition has all the extras that you don't need unless you enjoy the game a lot.
>king too easy
>emperor too hard
How do I get good?
i like it a lot, feels like a marriage of Civilization and Colonization - worker placement, specialization, re-implemented as districts. founding fathers, now as great people. tribes as city states. combat is fun, with flanking and ranged units. corps/armies being a nice middle ground between 1upt and doomstacks. flexible political and religious systems. loyalty system reminiscent of Master of Magic. diplomatic victory like it's Master of Orion. environmental frickery like it's Alpha Centauri.
nostalgia aside, it's the best Civ.
You sound like a colossal homosexual.
not an argument
Full marks genius, it's a statement of fact. Fricking homosexual.
Just city spamming and plopping down districts that dont matter while being embroiled in basically the most convoluted piece of strategy dogshit ever released.
>Disney China graphics
idc about this so much but the game feels like spam more than strategy. Also war weariness is moronic but not as moronic as the fricking card system. Holy shit what a bad game.
>what went wrong
for me it's having to listen to the same rock band riff every turn
>Went right
Better than the mobile shitshow that was V
>Wrong
Everything else
the visual design is a hige failure, reading the map is much harder than it should be (is that jungle a hill?)
I'm not even going to type the other problems I have, I literally can't play the game because of the graphics. It make me feel like its made for 12 years old.
No joke. There are some mods to fill put the trees and for civ v textures but it's fort of like uncanny civ v. That said I have trouble going back without districts and policies.
>try the new monthly challenge thing
>expansions are disabled
I mean I get it, they don't want to lock out people who don't have them but still I don't like having half the features I'm used to locked away
I want to know who unironically played as this civ
Aren't they unironically top tier?
The game loves putting her in the most disaster prone tiles. She is my diplo points pig.
>that’s not my job
>I’m on my lunch break
>why is my civilization the only one who’s work you are checking?
Is life easier when you're racist or is it just more annoying?
Life certainly must be more difficult when you an overly sensitive homosexual.
How do you find time for games if you get triggered by something so mild?
GOOD:
Districts is a cool idea and expanding out from the city is neat
Wonders being tied to locations
Barbarians evolving over time
Traders building roads *
More complicated city-state interactions **
Good narration ***
Religion is finally a win con ****
Holy God Giant Death Robots are cool as shit now
Natural disasters
Cults with the DLC
Larger unit variety
BAD:
Base yields are ass and improving them isn't much better
*You can't build road until super late on
**City-states are now more imbalanced and its harder to take good ones away from others
***Half of the narrations are stupid now. Quirky jokes and one liners aren't funny at hour one hundred.
**** Religion interacts separately from most of the game making it harder to work WITH your Civ.
3 CHARGE WORKERS???
Governors, mostly because they're so few and so imbalanced. Why does every city not get one?
Great People being unique is great for depth but awful for gameplay.
Believes in man-made climate change as if we live in 1990 so the sea levels rise by 50 feet and ruin everything immediately and we introduced mechanics to counteract this and then had to make them bad because it made us aware that we could also just do that in real life and it made us (the devs) uncomfortable.
Air units are trash
Policies are somehow worse than Vanilla Civ V (lekmod only bb)
Movement is nigh unworkable.
One turn razing of cities wtf???
Promotions are now super niche, bad for both SP AND MP
Housing is a cute concept but its another hindrance to gameplay by trying to make it 'more realistic'
The sad part is I could probably think of more given time.
The biggest problem with Civ VI is it has LOADS of good ideas but the basic gameplay gets in the fricking way.
I've returned to add to this.
GOOD:
Music is INCREDIBLE... at the main menu.
Fighting animations are crisp.
AI interactions are fleshed out so that warring is more complex and politics more easy to track.
BAD:
Trying to find information in this game is insanely hard. In V you could stumble across more and more info that was interesting but in VI you can't even find basic info. So many resources are also split up into other resources that then add to other resources which you then have to search through multiple menus to even track.
Exiting tile management in your city is really unintuitive, making it a chore to do.
I'm mentioning Workers AGAIN because early game you're just not doing anything when you can't plan out tile management and development. You spend a lot of time just pressing next turn just to find something to do.
Half the new game modes made the game experience worse. Which is a shame.
I usually don't comment on Singleplayer AI cause I think all AI is underwhelming but VI AI is really trash. Its the easiest of the series by far and if you decide to War you'll just win the game effortlessly.
The SINGLE LARGEST problem Civ VI has, is it sacrifices Gameplay for Realism or interesting ideas over and over AND OVER.
I genuinely think I could ignore 90% of the issues I have with the game if Workers didn't have a Charge system.
I felt governors were garbage. They have one or two good skills and a bunch of trash. Also, there were not that many.
There was a workshop mod that added a ton of governors, each with very specific roles. However, I felt that they were each a bit too strong.
>What went right
With the civ 5 environment skin mod this game actually looks great.
Animated time of day is neat
Leader abilities are generally better
Different leaders for the same civ offer different ways to play without having to include literally who civs like Venice or something
Jadwiga's hips
Wonders and districts are fun
Cleopatra's breasts
About 3 or 4 themes are excellent and the change of instruments through the ages are a cool touch
Dommy mummy Tomyris
>The bad
AI. This is about 70% of the problem with the game. Civs will not work tiles, over invest in a single victory type (300 culture Mali with 80 science in Atom age, 40 missionary Jadwiga), will build wonders while you siege their city. Aside from that the AI blatantly cheats as a crutch, or has an 'aggressive' ai package which just means they will attack you for no reason and you've just got to accept it and they will suffer no penalties
Personally not a fan of Sean Bean, I preferred the comfy civ 5 guy
Climate. I'm really not sure how they expected us to care about climate, and its clear the AI doesn't give a shit either. You suffer natural disasters and shit, but to counter it you do a 10 turn city project once in your empire and you'll end up lowering global temp by about 3 degrees which does nothing except give you credit toward building your army and burning coal. What lol??
Hammurabi, Cyrus, Mbanza, a lot of the vanilla civs that are just plain boring and uninspired like Vikings
I forget what it was in civ 5 but picrel. Vaguely remember how it worked, but in civ 5 ideology seemed to mean a lot more than it does in civ 6 and was more fun
The game feels way too easy at times, and can drag on for long. It's a lot more slow paced than AoE2, like playing chess. I wanted to play as Mali, and while they can have a slow start, their gold bonus gives them a snowball effect alongside purchasing Suguba (Unique Malian Commercial Hub) buildings with faith.
It's intriguing how the Mali in Civ 6 and Aoe2 have a bonus towards gold, but CIV 6 appears to give a slower bonus at the start that becomes better as the game goes on, while it is somewhat the opposite for Aoe2
Culture victory was very easy to achieve with the Mali, especially when you get the ability to purchase campus and theatre districts with faith and cheaper gold.
>the worth of... [etc]
god, the copy in this game was written by complete morons
I play CIV exclusively as a war game, usually between Emperor and Deity settings.
>A few observations
1. I like naval warfare, and certain civs are overpowered in this respect - Norse, English, etc. But the Maori are almost too good. You can build quadriremes and galleys right away and conquer any coastal city in basically the first 200 turns. I've won domination victories on large maps in the Medieval era that way.
2. That aside, conquering cities is harder in the early game because the AI starts off with so many units and typically builds walls faster than I do. It gets easier as I go and becomes a cakewalk by the time artillery and planes get in the mix because the AI doesn't seem to know how to defend against those. So the modern military game can be pretty boring, even if the giant robots are cool.
3. Perhaps my favorite game experience in CIV 6 is the Viking scenario (Traders, Raiders, Thieves) because it's so military-centric AND no one progresses past late Middle Ages tech/units. It's the right balance of speed, challenge and "realism," and I kind of wish the whole game played more like that.
>A few suggestions
1. Just as you can configure games to start in a certain era, you should be able to make them stop at a certain era.
2. Would love it if CIV had a map-builder feature, but they make money off new maps in expansion packs, so...
3. It would be nice if they could check the opposing civs, city states, and barbs' progress so you don't end up facing, say, cavalry and field cannons in the early medieval era. I can turbocharge science and get those units too, but don't like the anachronism of it.
Also, I echo other anons' enthusiasm for sexy Jadwiga.
Non military victories are mega boring.
>All that one-leader nations that really could get use of a second leader
>meanwhile China has like five leaders
That's really annoying.
>no freaking Napoleon for France
>no based Prussian homosexual for Germany
I think Cleopatra is hot
I'm genuinely curious.
Does anyone here play multiplayer Civ at all?
I personally prefer Civ VI because the other victory types are more fun with the district system, it's more easily moddable with (slightly) better netcode than the rest of the series. Don't get me wrong, Civ IV is definitely one of my favorites for single player, I can't deny the improvements to the game for the casual multiplayer board-game night that I play Civ for. It's a digital Ticket-To-Ride for the drunk history autist and their schizo friends.
Frick me, just got off graveyard, this is incomprehensible.
I like that the other victory types are more balanced than before, because it always rubbed me the wrong way that it was always spam science, flood military, destroy. That is often still the best opportunity, but I like having different goals to build towards. Plus, there's always mods to tune your 'tism, and the other options like corporations and such getting economic tourism was a fun idea too.
Also, I always turn off global warming. CO2 shouldn't cause meteor strikes, how stupid were those devs?
>Does anyone here play multiplayer Civ at all?
no because multiplayer games go like this
>wait half an hour so everyone show up
>start game
>2 out of 4 disconnects
>restart again, no dc
>2 people concedes defeat because their starting area sucks
>remake game
>1 person dc
>remake game new map
>1 person complains their start position is unplayable
>remake game
>no complaints, play game
>2 people dc
>load game wait for game to catch up
>finally play game
>servers desync from players
>reload game wait for all to load
>1 person dcs
>another person dcs
>realize that 4 hours have passed already and you had like 1 hour of actual playtime at most.
This is how Civ6 multiplayer games go.
youre forgetting the one guy who wants to read the leaders tier list every time a game is remade
>we want the Humankind audience completely unironicly
its a slop
barbarian clans are obnoxious and war penalties are anti fun, and diplomacy is completely broken. npc leaders are unhinged and interacting with them is pointless.