Civ really did take a major diversion after 4.

[noto2]

Whelp, I just got chastised for critisizing Civ 6 in the Civ 6 forum, and told to take my thread to the Civ 4 forum... as if we are different sports teams. I figured that we were all Civ players but I guess that's not the case. I figured some people would empathize with my frustration but I guess that's not the case.

I had a lot of fun playing Civ 5 for a while, I'm not going to lie. I modded the crap out of it, starting with Acken's Mod, and then I just learned how to mod myself. There are things I like about Civ 5, such as the religion system. It's great. I'll miss it. But, alas, Civ 5 just never felt like Civ, because the AI can't fight, and if the AI can't fight, my victory is guaranteed. At least it has a lot of good things going for it, though, and it's actually a great game. In fact, if I'd never played Civ 4 I'd probably say it was the best strategy game I ever played. Of course, Civ 4 is overall better.

What really pissed me off, though, was Civ 6. My lord...what a mess. There's just nothing I like about it. Districts? Why? Why did they add that to the game? I miss the choices between cottages/farms/mines, etc.

What I have realized is that the reason Civ transformed at 5 and why most people like that change and I do not, is because I am simply not like most people. I like to be challenged, I like to lose. I LOVE Xcom. The Xcom series is up there on par with Civ 4 for me. That's the kind of game I like. I like playing chess against good people, and Risk, those are the games I grew up with. I like how I can lose the game in Civ 4 if I'm not playing really well.

But, I think 90+% of gamers are not like me. They want to just sit and watch themselves win. They hate losing. That's why Civ 6 is perfect for them. It's like playing Sim City. Basically you can't lose. The AI will never win, nor never make a serious attempt to stop you from winning. Civ 5 was bad in that way as well.

So I give up. Firaxis doesn't give a flying doggie-poop about me because the gaming experience I want is clearly in the minority. Civ is a lost franchise to me, I'm done. I'm thinking of re-installing Civ4 and playing more of it, but really, I don't know if I can restore my interest. Yes, I know about BUG/BAT and Kmod.

What games out there are similar to Civ 4 and/or Xcom? Or, are there some crazy amazing new Civ 4 mods?

 

[Xyth]

Whelp, I just got chastised for critisizing Civ 6 in the Civ 6 forum, and told to take my thread to the Civ 4 forum... as if we are different sports teams. I figured that we were all Civ players but I guess that's not the case. I figured some people would empathize with my frustration but I guess that's not the case.

Don't take it personally. There've been many posts by disgruntled Civ4 lovers like us on the Civ6 forums, and they seem to have run out of empathy. Although it was too much of a radical departure for many of us, Civ5 did bring in an awful lot of new fans to the series who just don't have the same experience with earlier versions. So it's not that we're different sports teams, but playing different sports.

There are things I like about Civ 5, such as the religion system. It's great. I'll miss it.

I humbly suggest you try my mod (link in my signature). Customizable religions were one of the few things that I did like about Civ 5, and it inspired me to create something akin to it:



It includes K-Mod and has a Civil War/Dissent mechanic (different from the Revolutions mechanic in many other mods) which helps to up the challenge a bit from the standard BTS experience. I certainly can't promise X-Com levels of challenge (I'm also a massive fan of that game), but add some extra depth and flavour might help restore your interest in Civ4.

 

[elitetroops]

Yeah, comparing IV to VI in the VI forums is kind of useless. It's been done a ton of times and it always ends the same way. Same people chime in to repeat the same arguments over and over.

A lot of the arguments against IV boil down to "I never learned to play it, therefore it sucks". You see people saying that IV is so simple, because there is only one way of doing things, one way of fighting wars, one way of developing your economy, and so on. The "one way" they describe is usually horrible strategy. Not to blame them, because if you read the Civ IV forums from the time V was released, most of the strategies discussed have since been made obsolete by superior strategies. Anyone who moved on to V when it was released will not have learned to play IV the way the currently active players know how to. And still today we have people like WastinTime completely overhauling all aspects of the economy to massively improve on what previously has been thought possible in IV.

I wonder if there is any chance this will be the case in VI? Does that game provide enough strategic depth so that nobody will have figured out how to play it close to optimally by the time VII is released? Somehow I doubt it. Maybe it could be possible if expansions massively improve the game, though seeing the direction this series has taken, I somehow doubt it.

 

[Robo-Star]

I wonder if there is any chance this will be the case in VI? Does that game provide enough strategic depth so that nobody will have figured out how to play it close to optimally by the time VII is released? Somehow I doubt it.

Why?

 

[elitetroops]

Why?

Civ VI just seems a lot more straight forward to me. In IV the amount of important decisions/turn is much greater. Some call it tedious micro, but worker management, whip timing, how/when to chop, tile management, slider management and so on, are all complex and important decisions. The best solution is often far from obvious, and every tiny decision can make a massive difference a few turns down the road.

VI tries to make it look like there are important decisions to make, like for example through the hyped district system, but a lot of them feel quite superficial to me. Either the decisions have very small impact, or they are kind of obvious. If I'm going for science victory, I'm gonna place my Campus where it gets the biggest science boost. Even if someone thinks really hard about this for five years, I doubt they will come up with a better strategy. And the amount of decisions/turn in VI is a lot smaller. In the later eras turns fly by in no time compared to IV.

I have so few games of VI under my belt, that I'm not trying to say I have the game "figured out". Far from it. I'm sure there would still be a lot to learn and a lot of what they are discussing now in the S&T forums will be considered outdated 6 months from now. But like OP says, the game is just too easy to beat even on deity, which makes me completely uninterested in working on improving my game.

 

[need my speed]

because if you read the Civ IV forums from the time V was released, most of the strategies discussed have since been made obsolete by superior strategies.

Imagine, what a game, to have new strategies discovered a decade after its release (and yes, mere months ago, there was a whole new thing).

But yes, the ignorance is rife; all the arguments against stacks of doom clearly come from never having even watched a multiplayer game (and then there is general silliness in claiming that terrain doesn't matter, for example), and combat at large is more complex than V and VI, I would argue (more promotions, slower speeds so more manoeuvring, stack composition and spying on what your enemy has is actually important, amphibious invasions or paradrops or such aren't feasible in V and VI...).

At its core, however, IV was an empire-builder, just as III, II, and I, but V and VI aren't. I have expanded upon that multiple times, though, and I need to play Minecraft with my sister now.

 

[ztrapon]

I wonder if there is any chance this will be the case in VI? Does that game provide enough strategic depth so that nobody will have figured out how to play it close to optimally by the time VII is released? Somehow I doubt it. Maybe it could be possible if expansions massively improve the game, though seeing the direction this series has taken, I somehow doubt it.

I've played it for a few days and believe I've already figured out the best strategy: 1) play Scythians, 2) rush. Has been successful on every difficulty (haven't tried Deity yet) and every map played so far.

 

[elitetroops]

combat at large is more complex than V and VI, I would argue

So true. You have more units and every unit has more possible locations to move to. Add to this the uncertainty of combat outcome and it is way more complex than VI. 1UPT is another one of those things that tries to appear more strategical, but totally isn't. The options are very limited and the best solution is glaringly obvious. And since combat outcome is largely pre-determined, it is very easy to go the entire game without losing a single unit.

I've played it for a few days and believe I've already figured out the best strategy: 1) play Scythians, 2) rush. Has been successful on every difficulty (haven't tried Deity yet) and every map played so far.

Scythia, along with Sumeria, were both so obviously broken that I never played them. I mainly played the weaker civs, like Norway, France and America, still none of my deity games lasted past t200, regardless of victory condition.

 

[Fippy]

Just take a look at Civ6 forums, it's all about talking and not about playing.
These are the same peoples who get excited about typing into smartphones outside, they find it interesting anticipating dlc and happily pay for single leaders.
No amount of wisdom can help there, it's like feeding those pink animals.
And that's who they created this game abomination we know as Civ6 for /rant over

 

[rah]

it's all about talking and not about playing.

This sums it up the best.

 

[Archon_Wing]

There've been many posts by disgruntled Civ4 lovers like us on the Civ6 forums, and they seem to have run out of empathy.

Well, to be honest, I am out too. I think a lot of those more aggressive Civ 4 players have unusually poor diplomacy skills and that disappoints me. And I always tell people to buy Civ 4 regardless of subforum.

Too many people are so insecure they need to knock something else down to push whatever they like. Too many people are just looking for other people to agree with each other and not really here for a discussion. And almost none of this is constructive.

I mean how exactly do you start a conversation with "Well, I know I like a challenge and you are an imbecile that can't handle the simplest of concepts...." Ok, nobody has actually said that but I think it's come close.

Sure, I correct misinformation people sprout about IV, and they do so in droves. But I usually don't do it in a patronizing fashion. Or at least I am, but I'm trying to be funny about it.

Here is an example of one of my posts that I would consider proper critique of the games involved:

But nevertheless I do believe challenge, in particular a challenging AI, is simply not a concern for most customers. That certainly got me pelted for claiming this, but it's also something I've just come to accept over the years. The audience has gaming has broadened heavily over the years, and hardcore gamers while I wouldn't call a dying breed, are in the minority. It's .not just companies that have changed, but the idea of a gamer itself has so as well.

On the other hand,

And what is often missing from this discussion is that preference in one game doesn't translate to preference in all games. For example, I played Age of Empires II for many years, but never really well, because I never took it seriously and never made it to multiplayer; just did co-op with friends. So seeing the greatly improved AI in the HD fashion (Firaxis take note of an AI able to preserve units in real time) was a good boon even though most seasoned players didn't give a damn. On the other hand, I took Starcraft (Brood War) a lot more seriously and would find most forms of single player incredibly boring but more casual players wouldn't look at it the same way. But is anyone really wrong in how they approach the games? Not really. And ironically, I went back to being casual in its highly inferior sequel. (Oh, I forgot about being constructive)

BTW, my RTS background tends to scoff at tactical "revolutions" suck as 1 UPT or whatever, since it's really fairly banal stuff. In a Civ context, it really only pertains to war, so in the end I don't actually care that much either way. And no, Civ V didn't invent positioning.

Oh yea, speaking of Sim City, 4 was also the best version, and then it went wayyyy downhill, but that was more of EA doing their thing.

 

[noto2]

I just played some Civ4 for the first time in years. Look, the game is far from perfect. I prefer some design decisions made in Civ 5, such as handling national wonders. Religion, of course, is far superior in 5, they build a fantastic religion system as far as I'm concerned. Having truly unique civs instead of leader traits was also an improvement (even if they made most of the civ unique abilities worthless...)

So 5 got some things right. But, really, 1 UPT ruined the entire thing. I think warfare should have gone the exact opposite direction and should have become as simplified as possible, mainly to benefit the AI. As much as Civ 5 has going for it, the fact that the AI cannot truly threaten the player completely ruins the game for me. There is no suspense. There's no "oooh, if I spend my production on wonders for the next 20 turns, will my neighbour come at me with a massive stack of macemen? Can I get away with it?" In Civ 4, that was a legitimate concern. In 5, I know I can get away with it because I can use my 4 units to fend off an army of 40 if need be.

So what about Civ 6, did they improve on this at all? No. It got worse. Much, much worse. I'll be honest with you, I probably have a slight preference for stacked combat, as it is a grand strategy game after all, but I'm not strongly opposed to 1 UPT. If the AI could actually handle it, I probably would have moved on by now and just adapted to the change. Unfortunately, the AI cannot handle it, and it has never been a realistic proposition to play these games primarily online against other people. So, with Civ 5 and 6, I can't play them against people, and the computer can't play them at all. Basically, playing these games is like playing alone, it's like playing a game of civ where there are no other major civilizations. Sure, you could build every wonder in the game and launch the space ship, but would there be any sense of accomplishment?

 

[Robo-Star]

Imagine, what a game, to have new strategies discovered a decade after its release (and yes, mere months ago, there was a whole new thing).

What was discovered?

 

[need my speed]

What was discovered?

I think it had to do with a game that tried to reach the highest score by 2050, some kind of food / corporations-based economy, but I am really unsure.

 

[elitetroops]

I think it had to do with a game that tried to reach the highest score by 2050, some kind of food / corporations-based economy, but I am really unsure.

WastinTime first came up with the idea during the HoF high score gauntlet (which yielded the first ever 10M point games, not by 2050, but highest finishing score) and it's an economy completely centered around failgold. Failgold is of course nothing new, but the way he uses it is. It's explained more in detail in his deity BC space thread in S&T, along with a ton of other useful tips and tricks.

 

[Fippy]

They are always making the same mistakes..Civ4 lovers?
Good game lovers.

Civ6 and so on are bad games. Back then this would have been said clearly and without all the fluffy stuff covering facts up, now you have all kinds of channels, fake reviews, discussions, social media and who knows what and they all work together to hide simple facts: those are t e r r i b l e games.

It's..well i am out of words lol, those games make me speechless.
Peoples these days make me speechless. There's just no honesty left.

Civ4 is great, sure. But so was Civ2, Civ3, warlords, homm3, and plenty other games of earlier eras. Let them enjoy their commercial crap i guess.

There are no aggressive Civ4 fanatics. But there are prolly good game fanatics, who wonder what happened.

 

[need my speed]

WastinTime first came up with the idea during the HoF high score gauntlet (which yielded the first ever 10M point games, not by 2050, but highest finishing score) and it's an economy completely centered around failgold. Failgold is of course nothing new, but the way he uses it is. It's explained more in detail in his deity BC space thread in S&T, along with a ton of other useful tips and tricks.

Exactly, that was it! Thank you!

 

[Archon_Wing]

I just played some Civ4 for the first time in years. Look, the game is far from perfect. I prefer some design decisions made in Civ 5, such as handling national wonders. Religion, of course, is far superior in 5, they build a fantastic religion system as far as I'm concerned. Having truly unique civs instead of leader traits was also an improvement (even if they made most of the civ unique abilities worthless...)

So 5 got some things right. But, really, 1 UPT ruined the entire thing. I think warfare should have gone the exact opposite direction and should have become as simplified as possible, mainly to benefit the AI. As much as Civ 5 has going for it, the fact that the AI cannot truly threaten the player completely ruins the game for me. There is no suspense. There's no "oooh, if I spend my production on wonders for the next 20 turns, will my neighbour come at me with a massive stack of macemen? Can I get away with it?" In Civ 4, that was a legitimate concern. In 5, I know I can get away with it because I can use my 4 units to fend off an army of 40 if need be.

So what about Civ 6, did they improve on this at all? No. It got worse. Much, much worse. I'll be honest with you, I probably have a slight preference for stacked combat, as it is a grand strategy game after all, but I'm not strongly opposed to 1 UPT. If the AI could actually handle it, I probably would have moved on by now and just adapted to the change. Unfortunately, the AI cannot handle it, and it has never been a realistic proposition to play these games primarily online against other people. So, with Civ 5 and 6, I can't play them against people, and the computer can't play them at all. Basically, playing these games is like playing alone, it's like playing a game of civ where there are no other major civilizations. Sure, you could build every wonder in the game and launch the space ship, but would there be any sense of accomplishment?

Is 6 worse than 5 in Ai? I mean, they're both so bad but 6's can move and shoot where 5's would get stuck and get horsehocky to death while doing nothing.

As for the lack of challenge, I agree that it sours the experience but I think that is something that is easily fixed-- more bonuses.

See, the way I see it, civ and difficulty don't belong in the same sentence. Firaxis has always relied on fake difficulty via bonuses and hidden mechanics to the point it basically plays a diffrent game. IV has some pretty big ones, and does 6's even start with archery?

None of this, mind you, excuses a terrible ui or the ai unable to play its own game. 6's ai is trash and they need to answer for it. The diplo gane is a joke. I have never been happy with people releasing half built games like vanilla 5-- pure garbage; I just believe these issues are more rectifiable and the updates are taking player input into consideration, so I don't belive Firaxis belongs in the garbage can. Yet.

Well, I mean if something as awful as 5 vanilla could be fixed....

 

[noto2]

I don't think adding more AI bonuses solves the problem, though. Sure, you can give the AI handicaps to an extent, but once you cross a certain point you destroy game balance and ruin the game. What I find is the case in Civ is that when I rise to higher difficulty levels certain strategies must be thrown out the window. Take Civ 4 for example. On Deity, you could forget about founding a religion or building wonders, or going to war with axemen. In order to win, you had to bulb and trade techs until you got to rifles and drafting, or to cavalry, and then go on a rampage and kill everyone. This is because the AI handicaps made it impossible for the player to build a wonder, but did not make fighting wars impossible.

The same goes for Civ 5. On high difficulty, winning by science or culture is actually a challenge, but war is a snooze-fest. Winning a conquest victory on deity isn't all that more difficult than doing it on emperor. The AI still can't fight worth a damn.

 

[Archon_Wing]

What I find is the case in Civ is that when I rise to higher difficulty levels certain strategies must be thrown out the window.

Yea, that's my problem with the series as a whole. I don't know what to do about that either. (At least something realistic)

It is funny because modders can improve the AI by that much. So it's not impossible either.