Civ 6 Release and Update Discussion Thread

[BRickAstley]

"Reasons for Current Relationship" - this is a complete joke. I'm currently at -63 for unknown reasons. Here's the extent of my relationship with Saladin here:

So they have explained this some. The unknown reasons have actual justification, but you are supposed to reveal those over the course of the game as diplomacy and espionage improve.

Bingo - I renamed my C:\Users\Windows\Documents\My Games\Sid Meier's Civilization VI\ folder and it works just fine... Although actually its possible that my screwing around with the adventure save game file in a text editor to try to let me play it without the Aztec DLC caused the problem.

Yeah that happened to me too trying to do the same thing for you Speaking of, I'll try and get a non-DLC save out in the next couple of days.

[scooter]

"Reasons for Current Relationship" - this is a complete joke. I'm currently at -63 for unknown reasons. Here's the extent of my relationship with Saladin here:

So they have explained this some. The unknown reasons have actual justification, but you are supposed to reveal those over the course of the game as diplomacy and espionage improve.  

Yeah, I understand the intent here, but it's still pretty unfun. If you rack up -63, it should at least indicate some of the reason for it. I can pretty much deduce a lot of it is warmonger penalties, so why not at least tell me that part.

[Yazilliclick]

So I've only played about 150 turns in one game and then the adventure to completion (culture victory as Kongo in about 330 turns).

So the obvious things are the UI needs some work as some things are just completely hidden. Seems like easy enough fixes and I'm very hopeful that even if firaxis doesn't get to it that they do seem to have all the UI elements done in XML and Lua so should be able to mod them I would think. Very much like the looks of how things seem to be made so open to support mods and future work!

The AI was a complete bore on prince. Of course that's prince and put in some randomness from such a small sample it's hard to say just how bad the AI is overall. I had no wars and nobody close to beating me to any victory condition and I wasn't really trying. Combine that with I'm pretty far away from some of the stronger civ players and it seems the AI is on weak side. I mean for most of the game I had two swordsmen and 2 crossbows as my only military units and nobody attacked me once while I ran away with the game and settled pretty close to them (got a lot of warnings).

I think there's a LOT of potential good strategy with the new district and wonder system of having them build on actual tiles. The amount of difference this can open up between bad planning and good is amazing. Especially when you start to look into adjacency bonuses that can extend up to 6 tiles to other cities for things like power plants and certain wonders. The amount of neat planning good players can pull off here will be neat to see. Definitely an improvement to the tile improvement mechanic that has been stale in series for long time. Concern here I guess would be how much of a nightmare it may be to make maps somewhat balanced taking all these into account.

Somewhat related to the UI, and the above new tile system, the end game map gets VERY cluttered and hard to see things on. I think this could be improved with more options and shortcuts to easily toggle some things on and off (like shortcuts to toggle tile yields and resource icons on/off) as well as maybe some new lenses. I was thinking that if you could make the map look like the fog of war map but have icons in color that would be MUCH easier to see what's going on.

Really like the civic/government/policy system. Another great re-work which I think can add a lot of strategy. Will be interesting to see what combos of policies people prefer and under what circumstances. May be a nightmare to balance though with so many interactions.

[Ruff_Hi]

Missing UI stuff ... need someone to BUG'ify it. At least with the BUG Civ4 version, no one ever said we hid information.

[T-hawk]

Genuine question because I've forgotten - how did Civ4's maintenance model lie to you?

The city screen that would say "X total cost for this city" left out a lot.  It didn't exactly lie, but it created the wrong perception by putting a complete income number next to an incomplete cost number, inviting you to compare them and intuit that a city was profitable when it really wasn't.  Civ 4 scattered and hid the costs like horcruxes so you wouldn't really realize how much you were paying.

1. The inflation modifier.  This was rather blatantly buried in one particular advisor screen.

2. Civics upkeep.  This is a function of cities and population.  Each city adds to that as well but the city screen doesn't say so.

3. Number-of-cities upkeep.  Each new city adds to the cost of all previous cities.  A new city might claim it's costing 5 upkeep when founded, but the real true cost could be 15 or 20 among all your existing cities.

4. The unit maintenance cost for the workers and police and military to support the city.  Of course this is indirect and contained in another subsystem, but it's another reason that a city claiming to produce N income against N upkeep was not breaking even for you.

5. Anarchy length which is a function of cities.  Again, indirect, but it is another cost that figures in.

Civ 5 has similar per-city penalties, on happy and policy and tech and national wonder cost, but calls out and warns you about those cost increases very distinctly in the UI.

[pindicator]

I can live with districts costing more if it is incremental, like Settlers and builders. But when I put down a district in my first city for 40h, and then try to build one in my second city a few turns later for 120h ... put succinctly I think that's shitty design.

Edit : reading T-Hawk's post, this isn't a lot different than planting that one city in Civ4 that costs you 20g maintenance.  Remember how often people went bankrupt in 4 in its early years?  I wonder if we'll learn to work districts the same way

[Magil]

Bad points
- Splitting the tech trees seems better in theory than practice. My science and culture advance at almost the same rate, so I’m not feeling the difference.

In my adventure Kongo game my culture got way ahead of my science. I completed the "Space Race" civic before Electricity... and I was only a couple of civics away from Social Media.

Granted I deliberately prioritized other districts over the Campus aside from a single Campus I built early on, but yeah, it's certainly possible.

[AdrienIer]

And vice versa. It's easy to end up with a huge science output and a mediocre culture one (especially if you're not Rome, who gets an automatic monument in every city)

[Molach]

Costs seem to rise as you gain (some) tech/civics...which isnt easy to stop...

Apparently in the current state you should _start_ constructing a district ('clear the land') asap when you get the tech/city...cost freezes then. Finish the build when youre ready. While that is probably unintended bugfeature, if they fix it by letting costs rise even while building it...so a hammer-poor city might find itself 'forever building a district, chasing ever-higher production cost with 1 hpt. 

You cant rush-build them, so a production-poor new cities in current version needs to harvest/chop resources to start off.

[Dreylin]

I can live with districts costing more if it is incremental, like Settlers and builders. But when I put down a district in my first city for 40h, and then try to build one in my second city a few turns later for 120h ... put succinctly I think that's shitty design.

I was looking at the same thing last night; at t155ish, my Districts were reporting "Base Prod" = 60; "Adjusted Prod" = 267 ... that's +100% cost every ~35turns. 

I can see an argument for increasing the costs of Builders & Settlers, since that's a way of transferring production from one city to another, and maybe for District costs to scale within an established city, but for districts in new cities to be so ridiculously expensive seems silly.

TBH, I'd have thought that if you want to scale District costs, the best way to do it wouldn't be by time/tech as it seems to be, but by the number of existing Districts in the city. i.e. first District costs 60h, second costs 120h, third costs 180h (or whatever increment you want it to be). It probably makes Industrial District first into a "one-right-choice", but that's pretty-much the case now anyway with the egregious scaling.