The fact that cities can generally take out contemporary units (particularly siege weapons) in only a couple of shots notoriously makes the AI all but unable to capture cities. This feature, probably more than any other, renders defensive armies all but obsolete. The city ranged attack (in Civ6 it requires walls, which is at least a small step in the right direction) is one of my pet peeves.Here I’ll try to list some specific points that I find problematic, how they interfere with other aspects of the game, and how they possibly could be improved. This is both unrealistic and very bad for game balance, and it favors builder civs (who focus on technology and/or culture) over militaristic civs. Even in a conquest game, you can conquer entire civilizations with only a small offensive force, while you leave your entire empire empty of military units. So why do I think this is a problem? Well, it’s well known that you can go through an entire game of Civ6 and manage even a large empire with only a handful of military units. With walls present, this defense also doubles as an offense, which only makes the problem worse. The first flaw I’d like to address is the way cities can defend themselves in Civ6 (and also could in Civ5, I could add) without any actual military presence. However, I also think it has some major flaws, and that if we don’t discuss these, we and the developers can’t learn from them and make Civ7 even better. First off, a disclaimer: The point of this thread is not to bash on Civ6 in general, I think it’s a great game with many good elements.

Is modern combat funner in civ 6