5 ms·

Kind of agree, but I don't think the problem is specific to Civ 6.

kibwen 6y ago
As someone who's been playing since Civ 3, agreed. Every wide, lategame empire turns into a management quagmire eventually. Previous games did have a feature where you could assign AI governors to handle the city for you, but they were all so bad at their jobs that I could never being myself to use them. If anything I think Civ 6 is the least affected, because now cities can be set to perpetually produce "projects" (which produce empire-wide resources like science or faith) rather than working through the tree of buildings or units. It still doesn't make the lategame nearly as good as the early game, though.
- alach11 6y ago
  > you could assign AI governors to handle the city for you, but they were all so bad at their jobs that I could never being myself to use them Perhaps this is most accurate to real life! It’s often tough to delegate tasks and watch them done less effectively. But it’s the only way to scale...
  - kibwen 6y ago
    Indeed, I appreciate the (intentional?) parallel to reality, but that doesn't necessarily make for a fun game. :)
  - tdsamardzhiev 6y ago
    Haha, you aren't wrong.
- JakeTheAndroid 6y ago
  I think the big difference in 6 is that you aren't penalized for building wide vs tall, in fact you're encouraged to do so. You need as many useful district bonuses as you can get, which are often improved via the Pantheon. Since any City can only have one of a specific district, you want to build many cities. Civ 5 encouraged building Tall. So it was far less likely to end the game with 15 cities unless you played one of the few leaders that needed Wide expansion. In 6, there is really never a logical stopping point for building a new city. You either stop because you don't have space, you're busy with war, or it is so late in the game and you're just trying to end it. Otherwise, it's worth settling in a bad spot just to control more of the map or get a district bonus. But, yes, I don't think this is new to the series overall.

As someone who's been playing since Civ 3, agreed. Every wide, lategame empire turns into a management quagmire eventually. Previous games did have a feature where you could assign AI governors to handle the city for you, but they were all so bad at their jobs that I could never being myself to use them. If anything I think Civ 6 is the least affected, because now cities can be set to perpetually produce "projects" (which produce empire-wide resources like science or faith) rather than working through the tree of buildings or units. It still doesn't make the lategame nearly as good as the early game, though.

alach11 6y ago
> you could assign AI governors to handle the city for you, but they were all so bad at their jobs that I could never being myself to use them Perhaps this is most accurate to real life! It’s often tough to delegate tasks and watch them done less effectively. But it’s the only way to scale...
- kibwen 6y ago
  Indeed, I appreciate the (intentional?) parallel to reality, but that doesn't necessarily make for a fun game. :)
- tdsamardzhiev 6y ago
  Haha, you aren't wrong.
JakeTheAndroid 6y ago
I think the big difference in 6 is that you aren't penalized for building wide vs tall, in fact you're encouraged to do so. You need as many useful district bonuses as you can get, which are often improved via the Pantheon. Since any City can only have one of a specific district, you want to build many cities. Civ 5 encouraged building Tall. So it was far less likely to end the game with 15 cities unless you played one of the few leaders that needed Wide expansion. In 6, there is really never a logical stopping point for building a new city. You either stop because you don't have space, you're busy with war, or it is so late in the game and you're just trying to end it. Otherwise, it's worth settling in a bad spot just to control more of the map or get a district bonus. But, yes, I don't think this is new to the series overall.