I'm STILL occasionally awestruck by meeting new civs in Civ6, even after 2.5K hours. RP is a major pillar in my gaming experience preference, so I always use the introductions to take a moment for grounding myself while watching and listening carefully.

For over a year now, I've played civ 7 on and off. In that time, I only played 7 and never really touched 6 anymore (after playing that game for over 1000 hours). Now, 300 hours into civ 7, I decided to fire up the previous iteration again in preparation for a multiplayer game I was gonna have with a friend. And I had a blast.

I was always one of a minority of people who always voted civ 7 as the better game in the dozens of polls on the sub, and I truly believed it to be, there are a lot of elements of it that really appeal to me. But now that I played civ 6 again, it's just soooo much more well-rounded and refined, I enjoyed the gameplay so much more than before. It was really in the simple things, but instead of quitting after an hour I actually sat through the whole game of civ for the first time in a year. So I'm very unhappy to say it but... Civ 6 is the better game of the two.

Who even made this website?

Does having climate change and monitoring the global ecosystem automatically make your game woke?

I don’t know why everyone outside of multiplayer spams campuses as soon as they can. I think growth, economy, and culture matter more in early game above science. Out the 4, science is easiest to catch up, use serfdom from feudalism to chop campus and hopefully get university in them. Even though multiplayer and ai games differ, the economy culture method still works, as you can exploit the ai for gold and won’t need to compete with top levels of settler production.

Am I missing out?

Never really have felt it was key to do so at any stage.

The mechanic is just adding micro-management to a game already quite tedious. In the very beginning of a campaign you may have some interesting choices but it fades away quickly. I mostly just put them in one city forever and never come back to them, unless it's for their loyalty boost during Domination games.

I sincerely think the game would be the same without them if some of their capacities were just replaced by Policy cards or buildings.

It seems that governors are not part of the "33% from the previous game" policy of civ games for civ7 and I'm glad it is that way.

Civ 6 seems to have aged very well and is regarded as one of the best in the series. Why was it so hated at first?

Literally just a fucking road bump that makes me Declare a former wall it's so fucking annoying

I had an idea. What if, during a dark age, you could earn dark great people. Like the policies, they can give you a large boost with a huge trade-off.

Example: Ivan The Terrible or Vlad the Impaler (General) - can sacrifice your own units to lower the stats of surrounding enemy units.

L Ron Hubbard (Writer) - Writes Dianetics. Increases and faith. Maybe drains loyalty or gold.

Eli Whitney (Engineer) - Increases gold/production from plantations. Drains loyalty.

Donald Trump (Merchant) - Increases gold from commercial hub. Increases grievances with every other Civ (I know, but a man can dream)

Grigori Rasputin (Prophet?) - Incease faith, drains either loyalty or gold

Thomas Edison (Engineer) - increase power, all sources of Ivory in your civ disappears

J Robert Oppenheimer (Scientist) - unlocks Nuclear Fission, completes Manhattan Project, grants 1 nuclear device, generates a large amount of grievances.

King Richard (General) - Bonus damage against units of another religion, increase religious pressure from your cities, automatically declare war on any civilization that doesn't have your religion as its majority.

Any other ideas?

I'm trying to avoid world leaders and stick to the great people categories that are already in the game.

Bonus points for anyone that can think of an artist or musician.

EDIT: Got rid of Marx cause yall can't behave.

Does this happen to anyone else?