You are definitely correct that Civ VI does seem to have more choices than previous Civs. I was put off by Districts at first because they limit what you can do: I'm used to building a library in every city, not just in a few specialized cities. But in the end I think Districts was a great decision precisely because…
You are definitely correct that Civ VI does seem to have more choices than previous Civs. I was put off by Districts at first because they limit what you can do: I'm used to building a library in every city, not just in a few specialized cities. But in the end I think Districts was a great decision precisely because it gets rid of the "one build order for every city" problem. That's boring. Also, we all like to see number go up and the thrill of finding the perfect site for a district, successfully getting a settler there, and finally seeing the mad adjacency bonuses pile up makes my brain happy.
Honestly, *big-number gives brain happy juice* may be the main reason I enjoy Civ VI so much. Every time it prompts me to renew a trade route, and I see *bignum gold* I'm reminded of the number and I get another little dopamine squirt. That does a lot for me.
My main complaints with Civ VI is that the global warming mechanic is badly implemented (if you carbon capture *all* the carbon that's been produced the ocean levels do not go back down, nor can you start an ice age by the same method. Boring!) and that the constant stream of DLC makes it difficult to keep up with new mechanics.
What's your favorite Civ? Mine is II for nostalgia, either V or VI in practice (I haven't played V in years, but I still don't have a game I've sunk more hours into).
I am glad you like it, and I'm surprised at how I started out trying to write a somewhat neutral analysis and ended up angry by the end. I don't want to be negative, I'm much more interested in trying to figure out how this game, in a genre that I like and full of individually interesting systems, still doesn't really speak to me.
I agree that city specialization is a good thing. I think Civilization 4 was the first game that did that well, mostly because of the importance of the national wonders. I think the two problems with districts is that (i) they can get a bit too fiddly, particularly if you're anxious about shooting yourself in the foot, and (ii) while they work well in your important, core cities, they are annoying if you have another 10-20 less important satellites.
Well *I* liked it. :-)
You are definitely correct that Civ VI does seem to have more choices than previous Civs. I was put off by Districts at first because they limit what you can do: I'm used to building a library in every city, not just in a few specialized cities. But in the end I think Districts was a great decision precisely because it gets rid of the "one build order for every city" problem. That's boring. Also, we all like to see number go up and the thrill of finding the perfect site for a district, successfully getting a settler there, and finally seeing the mad adjacency bonuses pile up makes my brain happy.
Honestly, *big-number gives brain happy juice* may be the main reason I enjoy Civ VI so much. Every time it prompts me to renew a trade route, and I see *bignum gold* I'm reminded of the number and I get another little dopamine squirt. That does a lot for me.
My main complaints with Civ VI is that the global warming mechanic is badly implemented (if you carbon capture *all* the carbon that's been produced the ocean levels do not go back down, nor can you start an ice age by the same method. Boring!) and that the constant stream of DLC makes it difficult to keep up with new mechanics.
What's your favorite Civ? Mine is II for nostalgia, either V or VI in practice (I haven't played V in years, but I still don't have a game I've sunk more hours into).
I am glad you like it, and I'm surprised at how I started out trying to write a somewhat neutral analysis and ended up angry by the end. I don't want to be negative, I'm much more interested in trying to figure out how this game, in a genre that I like and full of individually interesting systems, still doesn't really speak to me.
I agree that city specialization is a good thing. I think Civilization 4 was the first game that did that well, mostly because of the importance of the national wonders. I think the two problems with districts is that (i) they can get a bit too fiddly, particularly if you're anxious about shooting yourself in the foot, and (ii) while they work well in your important, core cities, they are annoying if you have another 10-20 less important satellites.
My favorite Civilization is definitely 4, though it might be mostly because I got to share it with both real life and the online community. I think it hit a really good compromise between a fairly simple core game and a lot of interesting, but opt-in subsystems. It also gave rise to this absolute monstrosity: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/lets-play-deity-bc-space-strategies-from-a-10-year-veteran.574724/
I also have a soft spot for Alpha Centauri, but the ICS gameplay there is really degenerate.