Civilization VI is strategic, slow, and good...so what do I want from Civ VII?

I've been continuing my journey to play through all the Civilization games this year. Most recently, I've loaded up Civilization VI, the latest entry in the series and one I'm quite familiar with, having logged around 200 hours on Steam. That's a significant time investment for me, and it certainly indicates I've found plenty to enjoy.

However, I approach Civilization VI with some trepidation. Coming fresh from playing Civilization II and IV, I've found those earlier entries were quicker and easier to play, with better overall pacing. While I've enjoyed my time with Civilization VI, the last couple of games I attempted were left unfinished because the mid-game became such a slog. As I start another game, I'm concerned this pattern might repeat itself.

I dove back into Civilization VI by starting a game on a Continents and Islands map at Large size, keeping other settings at their default. I opted for a random civilization and was assigned Mansa Musa of the Mali Empire. This immediately highlighted one of Civilization VI's strongest aspects: the depth and variety of its civilizations. Firaxis has clearly invested significant effort in making each civilization feel distinct, and Mali stands as one of the more extreme examples.

Mansa Musa's civilization comes with an interesting trade-off - while suffering penalties to production, it enjoys substantial bonuses to both currency and faith generation. The design philosophy here is clear: rather than building things the traditional way, you're encouraged to purchase them outright, whether through gold or faith. Both resources can be used to acquire certain buildings and units. This was my first time playing as Mali, and their mechanics differed significantly from any other civilization I'd tried before. I found myself faced with an engaging strategic puzzle: how best to leverage these unique characteristics? Working out a viable strategy proved to be genuinely enjoyable.

And as always with Civilization, the early game proved captivating. There's something magical about starting with just a settler and warrior, surrounded by the darkness of unexplored territory. The fog of war conceals countless possibilities: the quality of potential city locations, the presence of natural wonders, or perhaps aggressive neighbors waiting to be discovered. This element of mystery in the early game never fails to excite.

Civilization VI, being the most recent release (though Civilization VII is due next week), looks stunning and runs smoothly. Like its predecessor, it uses a hex-based map rather than the square tiles of earlier entries - a change that was initially controversial and contributes to the game's slower pace. The hex system enables greater strategic depth, particularly since units can no longer stack as they did in pre-Civilization V games. Unit positioning becomes crucial, as does city placement, thanks to the district system where specialized areas occupy specific hexes on the map. These districts can receive various bonuses based on adjacent terrain features or other districts.

While I appreciate the strategic depth this system provides - after all, understanding the map has always been fundamental to Civilization - it feels particularly critical in Civilization VI. Your early game decisions about hex utilization can make or break your entire playthrough. There are fascinating optimization possibilities that only become apparent after carefully studying the map and considering your options. However, this attention to detail and strategic planning does significantly slow the game's pace, something I noticed once again in this latest playthrough.

This trade-off between strategic depth and game pacing appears repeatedly throughout Civilization VI. Take the boost system for culture and science research, for example. While it adds an engaging layer of decision-making, it's also another system that requires careful consideration and inevitably slows down gameplay.

The diplomacy system is another prime example. I appreciate how each AI opponent has specific agendas that shape their behavior and reactions to the player, effectively allowing them to roleplay their civilizations. It's an interesting asymmetric approach that makes AI behavior both comprehensible and purposeful. However, to fully utilize this system, players need to study each leader's goals and potentially even deploy spies to increase diplomatic visibility. Again, it's fascinating but time-consuming.

This pattern repeats across virtually every aspect of the game: city districts, army movement, the culture system, and religious mechanics. Each system adds depth and strategic possibilities, but also contributes to a slower pace of play.

This internal conflict leaves me scratching my head. I did manage to finish this game of Civilization VI, and overall, I enjoyed it. However, certain aspects and periods were less enjoyable - particularly during my pursuit of a religious victory. Spreading religion across the map requires extensive unit movement, which feels tediously fiddly in execution.

Yet, the strategic depth of Civilization VI is impressive, especially when compared to earlier entries in the series. There are notably more ways to optimize your gameplay. While Civilization has always encouraged strategic thinking and optimization, the range of options in Civilization VI feels significantly broader and more diverse.

Looking Forward to Civilization VII

Now, with Civilization VII releasing next week, I find myself pondering what I actually want from the new installment. Do I prefer a more streamlined experience with quicker gameplay and less mid-game slog? I think I do - but that raises another question: what am I willing to sacrifice to achieve that pace? Which of Civilization VI's complex systems would I be comfortable losing in exchange for a more dynamic game flow?

That's a difficult question to answer. There are certainly elements I wouldn't want to sacrifice. The current city system, with districts occupying specific hexes and receiving terrain-based bonuses, is compelling. It encourages players to think strategically about the map and plan ahead in meaningful ways. I'm also attached to the current implementation of science and culture research, and I particularly appreciate the diplomacy system's AI agendas.

However, I can identify areas where I'd be comfortable with simplification. Combat could be streamlined - perhaps with less emphasis on artillery and siege units for city invasion, or fewer specialized unit buildings overall. I'd also be open to trimming certain diplomatic features. While I want to keep the agenda system and core AI interactions, I've never been particularly impressed with the World Congress or emergency systems. Often, congressional proposals or emergency situations feel disconnected from my strategy and gameplay, becoming mere inconveniences to click through rather than engaging mechanics.

The religion and culture systems present another interesting case. I appreciate how they allow civilizations to influence each other and provide alternative victory paths. However, the current implementation of religious spread, requiring manual movement of missionaries and apostles across the map, becomes tedious - especially when attempting to spread your religion globally.

Final Thoughts

So that's my current perspective on Civilization VI. All things considered, I believe it ranks among the best in the series - definitely in my top three, and possibly even my top two. Though I should note that I haven't replayed Civilization V in this recent series playthrough, so that assessment might change. For those wondering, my top contenders are Civilizations IV, V, and VI. Yes, I generally prefer the newer entries in the series.

Civilization VII launches next week, and I'm both excited and intrigued to see what it brings. I've been following the development blogs, and there are some promising ideas about simplifying mechanics and reducing micromanagement - for instance, the removal of workers. However, reading about game mechanics on paper is quite different from experiencing them firsthand, so I'll reserve judgment until I actually get to play it.