I just set a new record for time-to-uninstall in Civilization VI

That’s because you have the mindset of a casual internet user.

You don’t understand arrendek. Someone is on the internet. And they are wrong. People of good conscience have to act to stop this.

OMG why doesn’t this forum have a like button

Just write “FIRST AMENDMENT! FIRST AMENDMENT!” I hear that’s what the real freedom fighters are shouting these days.

I agree with this sentiment.

Amen to that.

I remember that. I sent an email, and proceeded to forget about it until Tom replied to me a year or so later when he opened things up a bit.

I had to get approval from Tom as well, that was ages ago. I remember reading at some point (maybe around the time we migrated to the new forum software, which is either Discord or Discourse, I can’t be arsed to remember) that we opened it up to just anyone that registers, however.

I was brought here by google, I very much wanted to do just as you say. I was feeling too lazy to make an account but your post, Mr, your post tipped me over the edge so here I am.

Civ6 is gr8 f ur review

Do you remember your search query?

Wow, this thread has not gone the direction I was expecting.

Are there some fans of games that query google daily just to stumble across any mention of a particular game? That seems…odd. I can’t remember the last time I searched for a specific game that wasn’t for a mod or a newer game (to me) that I needed some sort of guide for. If I’m so in love with a game that I’d rando-chute down into some unknown forum just to defend, I’d certainly know it well enough that a guide wouldn’t be needed. And Civ6 is a few years old so it’s not like searching for reviews (which metacritic is for, not google). One person joining after stumbling across Tom’s post, I can understand. But 4 or 5? That’s strange.

There is a new poster over on the Single Player Game thread that actually posted something thought out and helpful. So it’s not just Civ6 that got googled the last couple of days to bring folks here. Freaky!

It actually went the exact direction I was expecting when I saw Tom’s article. I suspect it went Tom’s direction, as well. :)

I dont get the hate? I’ve put over 400 hrs on civ 6 its my favorite pc game I’ve played. I’ve heard people praise civ 4 but after over 1000 hrs on civ 5 and the time ive put on 6, 4 is unplayable for me. Hexes and non stacking units just makes sense to me

I don’t think you’re alone, I think the series remains quite popular. For me, my criticisms could be condensed down to the fact that the AI is incapable of handling the basic fundamentals of the game design and that as a strategy game, the game lacks “interesting decisions” as Sid Meier would put it.

Googling “uninstall civilization 6” without quotes has this post on the top of the second page of search results.

For people that have googled “Civilization 6” previously this may show up in their Google news feed which is probably causing the influx of new members. I welcome them all wholeheartedly!

A far better player than me explained it long ago. I may be ignorant (which I am, because it still looks like the same puzzle busy work from watching a couple of lps) but it doesn’t seem anything fundamentally changed, just tinkered with.

Clearly this [1UPT] was a decision made early on, since it’s such an important part of the game. At the same time, they wanted to keep the “civ” feel to the game, where you settle new cities, build improvements and city buildings, and go in to the city screen to adjust your citizens. Combined, this meant that they had to limit the total number of tiles in the game, and so they tried to force army sizes to be very small. A typical civ 4 army of ~50 units would be incredibly annoying to manage in the Civ V style, so they wanted to encourage armies of only 5~10 units. I hope this succession game showed how clunky warfare becomes in this game when the army sizes get large (I enjoy the early wars with small army sizes). The AI can’t handle it, and the player doesn’t enjoy it.

In order to do that, they had to limit production. You can see that in the decreased yields- production and food yield have been decreased compared to civ 4, whereas the food required to grow a city was greatly increased. The early units like warriors don’t take very long to build, but the cost of units quickly increases. The high upkeep costs for units, buildings, and roads factor in to this as well (see my sig: Civ5 is the first Civ game that is about NOT building instead of building. Don’t build troops since support is so high, don’t build buildings because support is too high, don’t build roads because… yada yada yada). The idea was, I think, that every new military unit would take about 10~20 turns to build, just enough to replace your losses while you continually upgraded your original army. As a result, your army size would stay almost constant throughout the game.

Also, it’s worth pointing out that there’s two ways of effectively decreasing production. Either decrease hammer yields while increasing costs- which they did- or to make science go faster- which they also did. The beaker cost of techs decreased, great scientists became more powerful, and research agreements were added. All of these accelerated the tech pace, giving less time to build the units/buildings for each technology, which effectively decreased production.

So now the developers are stuck with a game that has greatly reduced production values. That’s fine, except for one thing- what do they do in the early game? They can’t expect us to just sit around clicking “next turn” for 40 turns waiting for our worker to finish, or 100 turns for a library to finish. It’s bad enough that it already takes up to 15 turns to finish that first worker. So, they had to make the early stuff a bit cheaper. You can build a warrior in ~6 turns, and you can build a horseman or a library in ~10. Even a coloseum only takes ~20. The idea was that a small city was efficient enough to produce the early game stuff in a reasonable amount of time, and as the city grew, it would produce the later stuff in the same amount of time- keeping army size constant while the cities grew and built infrastructure. There would be no massive increases in the power of a city with its size (like civ 4 had) because if a city became really powerful, it could create huge armies which would break the 1UPT system. If large cities were only modestly more powerful than small cities, the army sizes would stay small. That’s pretty much what I discovered when I tried a game limited to just 3 large cities.

For some reason this article appeared in my google news feed, although i don’t think i did search specifically for Civ VI recently. It’s even more surprising as i usually get news in French (my native language).
The title made me curious and i found the comments quite funny, so here i am.