Does Civ 6 have the potential to surpass Civ 4?

[killmeplease]

my theory is theres a moment in life when you become not interested in something new anymore and just sigh for the good old days
maybe late 2000s was the time when the first major generation of gamers got to that moment so its civ4 which became a legend not civ3 (although particular people may prefer civ3 or even civ2)

 

[Esperr]

To me civ IV will always be the perfection of the civ I formula, V was a different game altogether. V lacked the depth of IV, and the AI was better just because SOD made it easier for them to go to war, but I ultimately found V to be more fun, and VI to me is just a more perfected version of V.

I do miss the depth of IV though.

 

[Staal]

Basing an opinion on this on 1UPT makes no sense. Each and every other system in the game is better in Civ 6 than previous versions. The only thing that is lagging is AI due to the increase in complexity from 1UPT. It makes no sense to rate Civ 4 higher based purely on combat. It is one system (crucial yes, but only one) of many. Not to mention that 1UPT is more fun to play despite the AI ineptitude at time. Every other system has been improved. Eventually the balancing of production/tech etc will be done and is thus irrelevant to this question. The Civ 6 game design is BETTER right now than any previous iteration at the same stage of development. Once the aforementioned fixes are in place Civ 6 will be undisputed champion of the series.

 

[RohirrimElf]

Civ 6 already surpassed civ 5 at launch. If it will be better then civ 4 depends on the next few years of patches, dlc and expansions.

 

[AlpsStranger]

my theory is theres a moment in life when you become not interested in something new anymore and just sigh for the good old days
maybe late 2000s was the time when the first major generation of gamers got to that moment so its civ4 which became a legend not civ3 (although particular people may prefer civ3 or even civ2)

Disliking the new thing carries a certain gravitas. Now, in the case of the Civ5 launch, you had introspective and sincere people who had real issues with it. I myself defended it a lot, but in practice I mostly played BTS until Gods and Kings was released.

That said, Civ6 has 1.0 issues and some design issues, but they aren't major. It's a legitimately solid entry into the series.

My bias is definitely to favor the hot new thing, but I think a lot of the younger-and-wanna-act-older as well as a lot of the older Civfanatics have a bias towards a certain release. When Civ4 was still hot and new, Civ3 was the Sacred Good Old Days, when Civ5 was hot and new Civ4 was the Sacred Good Old Days. Civ5 isn't the Sacred Good Old days because, frankly, it's a little shaky, so the sentiment tends to fall back to Civ4.

Except in graphics *****ing threads, then Civ5 is definitely the Sacred Good Old Days

EDIT: I, personally, started with Civ3. Play the World and Civ1 never really caught my interest TBH.

I currently like Civilization 6 the best ( but that *may* wear off, though I doubt it to be honest ) followed by Civ4: BTS, followed by BNW. Civ3 is probably my least favorite and I kinda hate it.

 

[Ikael]

Civ 6 on launch utterly rolfstomps vainilla Civ 5, even with the initial hotfixes and patches, so I would say that it has a damn good chance of surpassing even my favourite, Civ 4, but let me elaborate on that.

I mean, yes, the game has some problems: Limited AI, "production is everything" balance (come on guys, 100 turn Pyramids, really?), some underwhelming Civs (Norway, Spain, etc), some underwhelming civics, really weak sea cities and religious spam / cluttering.

But all of these problems are a question of balance and adjustments, some of them very simple adjustments (like creating another unit layer for religious units), not design.

The core systems of Civ 6 are way better than the ones of Civ 5, and even some of the Civ 4. Housing is a better version of health, designing the AI to roleplay and being transparent is far better than Civ's 5 stupid, deliberate decision of making the AI opaque and designed in order to "play to win" and thus, has much more room to be improved, Civ 6 goverments and civics offer a great balance between the identity of civ 5 social policies VS Civ 4's goverment flexibility, and the new introduced systems such as districts and suzerain bonuses are the best part of the game.

So yes, I think that Civ 6 might very well surpass 4, and that it won't need even an expansion to do it so, just an extensive, Paradox-like balance patch (or fan made mod) will do the trick, you can quote me on this.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

What I don't get from Reading this thread is how a lot of people seem to prefer a broken, unbalanced and buggy game to an old functional one. I mean just because something is New doesnt make it superior? It's a weird sort og hit list mentalty. "This song is New and has a different beat and so much better than last months hit".

A lot of people Even go so far as to call the game good. I cant belive this. To me broken, bugged and unpolished is quite the opposite of good.

Civ 3 and 4, Even 5 which i feel is the most boring entry to the series Are at this point lightyears ahead.

On to the topic. I would be surprised if this game can surpass a classic such as civ 4. It could happen i guess, but to me it would mean a serious upgrade and Even reworking/scrapping a lot of current game systems.

 

[Staal]

So yes, I think that Civ 6 might very well surpass 4, and that it won't need even an expansion to do it so, just an extensive, Paradox-like balance patch (or fan made mod) will do the trick, you can quote me on this.

Done

 

[Staal]

What I don't get from Reading this thread is how a lot of people seem to prefer a broken, unbalanced and buggy game to an old functional one. I mean just because something is New doesnt make it superior? It's a weird sort og hit list mentalty. "This song is New and has a different beat and so much better than last months hit".

A lot of people Even go so far as to call the game good. I cant belive this. To me broken, bugged and unpolished is quite the opposite of good.

Civ 3 and 4, Even 5 which i feel is the most boring entry to the series Are at this point lightyears ahead.

On to the topic. I would be surprised if this game can surpass a classic such as civ 4. It could happen i guess, but to me it would mean a serious upgrade and Even reworking/scrapping a lot of current game systems.

Civ 6 has many new and innovative systems, tweaks and redesigns that has refreshed the game play. If you are into that sort of thing of course.

 

[salty mud]

Civ 6 has many new and innovative systems, tweaks and redesigns that has refreshed the game play. If you are into that sort of thing of course.

It's a shame most of them don't work.

 

[genyl]

Even although civ6 at launch it is better than civ5 at launch I am still skeptikal. When Civ5 came out I was convinced it was impossible to surpass Civ4. I won it in deity and went back to civ4 thinking what a pile of rubbish

Somehow with BNW they managed to miracously fixed it and to my great surprised I considered it the best Civ ever.

I think Civ 5 is better than 4 because at immortal+ you can win the game relatively peacefully and with few cities. Civ4 it was all a warmingering fest at higher levels

I am not sure if we are realistic about how much a game can improve. I am not sure they can pull a fux so great as civ5. I cant remember seeing one as big as that in another game. Just look at xcom2 a aaa game that I like but that it hasnt been improved by any patch. I bet the 4 first dlcs here will just be more civs and scenarios

at least I like civ6 much more than endless space 2 which I founded boring (even after loving part i)

 

[Lord Shadow]

What I don't get from Reading this thread is how a lot of people seem to prefer a broken, unbalanced and buggy game to an old functional one.

Now that's a mighty overstatement, and you shatter your credibility claiming Civ5 is light-years ahead of Civ6. It proves that indeed Civ5-themed rose-tinted glasses are now up for sale.

Civ3 was "broken, unbalanced and buggy" on release. In the beginning, I personally felt it lacked that indescribable Civ2 "feel".

Civ4 was "broken, unbalanced and buggy" on release. My memories of that launch aren't crystal-clear, but I do remember a similar minority stomping off back to Civ3 because this or that feature didn't suit their tastes. Nowadays, thick rose-tinted glasses aside, it has the advantage of being more stable, and the AI has the potent illusion of being "better", but the truth is the game is simpler across the board: simpler cities and construction, simpler warfare, simpler espionage, simpler religion, simpler culture, simpler victories, simpler Great People, etc. Literally almost every Civ4 system is obsolete by now. And I graciously say "almost" in case I'm forgetting something, but I can't recall any exception. Corporations, maybe? But that's largely religions with a different paint coat, outclassed by newer trade mechanics.

And needless to say, Civ5 was "broken, unbalanced and buggy" on release. In fact, it still is, more than Civ6.

 

[StrideColossus]

What I don't get from Reading this thread is how a lot of people seem to prefer a broken, unbalanced and buggy game to an old functional one. I mean just because something is New doesnt make it superior? It's a weird sort og hit list mentalty. "This song is New and has a different beat and so much better than last months hit".

A lot of people Even go so far as to call the game good. I cant belive this. To me broken, bugged and unpolished is quite the opposite of good.

Civ 3 and 4, Even 5 which i feel is the most boring entry to the series Are at this point lightyears ahead.

On to the topic. I would be surprised if this game can surpass a classic such as civ 4. It could happen i guess, but to me it would mean a serious upgrade and Even reworking/scrapping a lot of current game systems.

I suggest this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/initial-civfan-reactions-to-civ-4.602405/

 

[GT_OKEZ]

I'm a giant Civ 4 fan (moreso than Civ 5) and I think 6 has the potential to be better and probably is better.

 

[rezaf]

Depends on how much polishing Firaxis are willing to do. The game has some great foundations, but also many tiny to medium issues and a fairly bad UI.
The elephant in the room, though, is 1UPT, which will never work properly, at least not unless ranges (both for movement and ranged attack) are massively increased - see Warlock, whose 1UPT based combat works much, much better than that of Civ6.
Making adjustments there would make combat much more bearable and allow the AI to have an easier time - however, traffic jams and annoying, time consuming movement of large armies would still remain problematic.
Failing that, the AI will forever be unable to put up a decent challenge and playing (and winning) Civ6 will remain a hollow experience.

 

[Staal]

It's a shame most of them don't work.

They all work, perhaps some need balancing, but they work. Once again an OTT rant that things are not perfect is not helping anyone.

 

[Trias]

As long as 1upt remains on the main strategic map, the AI will always have problems with it.

People seem to have an incredible rose tinted view of the ability of the civ4. Everybody seems to forget that the civ4 was actually quite bad at handling stacks. In particular it had no clue about collateral damage or how to use it. The order in which stacked unit attacked was essentially random. The only reason that the AI managed to pose some kind of threat with its stacks was because the AI had bonuses allow it to have significantly larger stacks. For example, even at Monarch the AI had a 50% discount on unit maintenance, allowing it to have stacks which were about twice the size of the human player.

One of the big problems with civ5 was (certainly initially) that the bonuses it was getting where ill-suited to cover for its short-comings. In particular, the same tactic as in civ4 of allowing the AI to build significantly more units than the human player was in many respects counter productive (as it was make some of the logistics issues the AI was facing worse.)

I am glad to see that in civ6 the designers have acknowledged this and have finally implemented combat strength bonuses for the AI, which do a much better job at covering for the weaknesses of the AI. (Moreover the +1 combat strength at king, seems rather modest next to the civ4 AI's double sized stacks.)

 

[rschissler]

Depends on how much polishing Firaxis are willing to do.
The elephant in the room, though, is 1UPT, which will never work properly, at least not unless ranges (both for movement and ranged attack) are massively increased - see Warlock, whose 1UPT based combat works much, much better than that of Civ6.
Making adjustments there would make combat much more bearable and allow the AI to have an easier time - however, traffic jams and annoying, time consuming movement of large armies would still remain problematic.
Failing that, the AI will forever be unable to put up a decent challenge and playing (and winning) Civ6 will remain a hollow experience.

Yet, what are the odds of this being improved, combat and issues related to 1UPT? Slim to none probably, based on the Civ V experience.

 

[GT_OKEZ]

I like the 1UPT rule. It forces you to think more strategically and 'stacking' is somewhat allowed to a moderate degree with corps, fleet, and support units.

 

[rschissler]

People seem to have an incredible rose tinted view of the ability of the civ4. Everybody seems to forget that the civ4 was actually quite bad at handling stacks. In particular it had no clue about collateral damage or how to use it. The order in which stacked unit attacked was essentially random.

Not true at all. I've played many recent games of Civ IV, and their stacks almost always started with catapult/cannon/artillery, inflicting collateral damage before using other units.