Give me 6 reasons why you are playing Civ6 and not Civ4?

[TomKQT]

I'm not sure I would be able to give you many reasons why to play Civ6 instead of Civ5. But when asking about Civ6 versus Civ4, then I'm 100 % for Civ6.
I don't remember Civ4 so well anymore (it's been quite a while), but just out of my head some "random" points against Civ4:

• Square tiles. Hexes are so much better, more logical, natural and mathematically interesting. Moving diagonally on sqares means that 1 tile movement is in fact 1.4times longer than horizontally or vertically. 3tiles radius of a city is quick to understand and makes sense, while in Civ4 you had to remember the exact shape of city's tiles.
  
• Stacks of doom. After moving to Civ5 I realised how strange the combat system was in all previous Civ games. Sure, 1UPT has some problems and disadvantages, but offers much more tactical options in fight and with clever use of terrain you can win against a much stronger army. In Civ4 you also could apply some tactics and strategy, but size of the stack was still extremely important.
  
• Too much micromanagement with all the Civ4 datadisks. The game in the end contained imho too many functions with no strong positive impact on the game. Factors like health, happiness, food, production etc. - all per city and all managed almost the same way (tile improvements, buildings, wonders...). Together with religion, corporations... (Yes, I know, Civ6 is a micromanagement hell, but that's because of a bad UI, so far...)
• Railroads giving +1 production - it was stupid not to use this, but it was equally stupid and tedious to build railroads on every single tile.
• I wasn't a fan of the idea where a city with no military unit could not defend at all and even the weakest enemy unit could capture it in one turn. I think at least some citizens would fight for their city And even when we put realism aside, it was bad from gameplay point of view.

 

[Crawd]

6 reasons why I play Civ6 and not Civ4?

1- I don't have Civ4. Sure I could buy it, but I like Civ5 a lot and since Civ6 feels like an improvement to Civ5, without a single expansion, for me it's a must.
2- The district system. It gives more strategy in your city building. Because a bad district decision could mean a bad city.
3- Having the possibility to see World Wonders easily. Just having world wonders on a tile is a huge improvement.
4- The diplomacy system feels more immersive. While it may feel like a chore sometime, it really feels more how it works in real life. Civ is a simulation game afterall, so, that system feels way more accurate.
5- I no longer feel weak when I focus more on cultural victory. With both distinct tree (Civic and Tech), it feels way easier to decide what to pick. In Civ5, it usually meant to pick the non-military section of the tech tree, which weaken your army by a lot and winning a cultural victory wasn't something that was quick to do. Now, you can have a strong culture and a normal military progression.
6- Will have expansions. As I've said in #1, I really feel like Civ6 is already better than Civ5 and there's will have some expansions in the future. Which is something that I will look at.

Civ6 is not perfect, but it's a great game. I didn't think I would have have more fun with another version of Civ, specially since I've had a lot of fun with Civ5. I'm not good compared to some people, since I'm still having trouble at Emperor, but the most important is "Having fun", the primary definition of a game.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Can't help you here. I can give you 6 reasons why I play civ4 over VI though.

 

[ZHONN]

Civ 4 is something I really love. I've played thousands and thousands of hours of it. I have it installed right now, but it's been some months since I last played it.

1) 6 has some new mechanics for me to learn and to optimize my playstyle. My playstyle in 4 is very streamlined and repetitive. I still haven't hit that point in 6 yet.
2) Districts are a nice, new piece to a puzzle. To me they're a big improvement on the earlier games.
3) 1 upt and the new moving mechanics make combat more tactical to me. I do not care if the AI can't handle it as well as I can - the AI can't handle me in 4 either. The real test is multiplayer.
4) Builders with charges vs settlers is a welcome addition
5) I like eurekas and inspirations, even if they're not perfect as they are. I would prefer a scaling benefit with easier and harder things to do.
6) There is a bigger social aspect to playing 6. Hardly anyone plays 4 anymore.

 

[Arent11]

I'm new to the series but from all I've read Civ4 is considered the best?
Give me your 6 reasons why you're not playing it.

First of all, I like civ 4 very much, so I think both games have their merits:

(1) in civ 6 the graphics are argueably better
(2) in civ 6 the card system/governments is better
(3) the combat system would be better, but it is more difficult to handle for the ai than "stacks of doom"
(4) I like hills/forests/grassland being comparable/as good as other tiles. In civ 6 hills are strictly better than open grassland, which is weird.
(5) enbarkment is worse in civ 6 than the transport ships in civ 4. Let's face it: If you want to do an invasion, you need to build ships. A lot of historical invasions were not possible because ships were missing or got destroyed. You can't just "move a cavalry onto sea" without the necessary infrastructure.
(6) The abstract/passive trade in civ 4 was much better than the traders in civ 5 or 6 because of 2 reasons: (a) it gave you a strong reason to maintain *peaceful* relations with other civs, because you could profit from trade (b) I don't want to always reassign new trade routes
(7) Tech trade was possible in civ 4, although overpowered. This made exploration/ships that cross oceans extremely important. It was exciting to meet your friends and trade tech with them. Now, you're more playing ~"alongside" your friends than really cooperating.
(8) the culture system in civ 4 was better. Culture could "conquer" tiles and even cities. Now, culture is a kind of additional science, which is superfluous, because we already have science and we don't need 2 things that do the same
(9) Certain elements of religion were worse others were better in civ 4

 

[Ryika]

1. The graphics are better
2. The models look more interesting
3. Unit Animations look great
4. The Cinematic looks pretty realistic
5. Day-/Night Cycle makes the graphics look more varied due to different color tones
6. It has less game options, so it's less confusing

 

[Zuizgond]

Can't find any. Every aspect of the game is worse.

 

[nzcamel]

3- Having the possibility to see World Wonders easily. Just having world wonders on a tile is a huge improvement.

I hope you're comparing to V as it was easy to see wonders in IV! And the diplomacy in IV was the most immersive of the whole series.

 

[HF22]

Diplomacy is one area I have high hopes Civ 6 will improve (the code has several comments pointing out where they need to add stuff which has been left out, & a World Congress based expansion seems quite likely).

But at the moment? Its just incomplete.

 

[bbbt]

I haven't played 4 in ages, but there were a lot of great things about it. Cons compared to Civ 6 - Civ 4 is a lot more generic/bucket-filling in many ways - all the leader traits were stat boosters, that slider (which always ranked as one of the most immersion busting things for me) etc. Civ 6 dresses up it's mechanics better.

I feel like they are both board games - Civ 4 is one of those old Avalon Hill style historical games with tons of cardboard cut out pieces, 6 a more modern style game.

I think I prefer the mechanics of 6 in many regards (religion, tourism/culture, districts). 4 definitely had better empire management assistance (great overview UI, queues and governor's, etc.).

Building and managing stacks of doom in Civ 4 I found devolved into a tedious headache(despite all the UI bonuses like rally points and mass upgrading). Managing 1UPT in Civ 6 I find devolves into a tedious headache. That's a draw to me.

 

[w3rallmachines]

Actually, given it more thought, the graphics in 4 Are actually superior. In civ6 they have messed it all up with unclear terrain, ugly and unclear fog-of-war and messy unclear icons. Yes i know you have lenses. In civ4 you don't need lenses.

One of the major complaints about Civ 4 in reviews upon its release was the clutter and being unable to tell at a glance what tile improvement was what because they were so busy.

Nostalgia is a wonderful drug.

 

[Left Foot]

Some of these may also have been in V, and many have been said already, but here goes:
a. Hexes
b. Military, Economic and Diplomatic Policies that fine-tune your government type depending on your needs at that time in the game
c. Districts
d. Number of wonders that one city can have being limited by the fact that one wonder takes up one hex
e. Great People
f. "build your own religion"

some things that need tweaking / fixing / to be added
1. Random events. They're a fact of life.
2. More dynamic world events - My all-time favorite event was in Civ 2, when after I captured an AI's capital, the AI's civilization split in two separate civs due to civil war. Loved that.
3. Tech speed / advancing through eras. I was playing as France and when I reached the renaissance era, I started to build my first UU. By the time it was finished and moved to the border, I was already in the Industrial era.
4. Some wonder requirements are way too specific and kinda defeat the alternate history immersion. Yes, the great lighthouse does need to be built on a water tile, but why do Pyramids absolutely need to be built on desert? You have pyramids in South America as well. Different design, but they're still there.
5. Give me back my mini-map replay at the end of the game!
6. Combining different types of units into armies / corps. Would allow for different war strategies.

 

[CPWimmer]

I've been playing the series since Civ 1, and I always upgrade to the next version. With the exception of Civ 6 (which I only have about 500 hours on so far) I have thousands of hours on each version and have purchased all of the expansions/DLC. I have always considered myself a good, but not great Civ player. I can win on deity, but I don't like the aggressive play-style needed to do so.

I'll be honest, I haven't played Civ 4 since the first Civ 5 expansion came out (and maybe sooner, it's been a while). I stopped playing Civ 5 when 6 came out, and haven't looked back.

This is specifically 6 Vs. 4 (as 5 has a lot of these features)
1. Hex Map vs. Square Map - I am SO glad Civ finally upgraded to hexes
2. No more stacks of doom (I like archers shooting over the front line of melee, and unlike some people I can hand wave the scale issues represented by it)
3. No more transports - I like the ease of auto-embarking - I still build a navy to defend my troops in time of war
4. Districts - fun new concept that adds a new level of strategy for us to explore
5. Unique Leaders/Civs - the abilities have real flavor from one Civ to the next
6. No more Road/Railroad spam - I even like the new take on roads being built by traders


As for 6 over 5 (along with districts). I really like the Tech/Culture Split, Eureka Moments, and the new Govt Policy card system.

There are things about 6 I'm not as happy about - but that's not what you asked. And some of them, like with 5, will get better over time.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

One of the major complaints about Civ 4 in reviews upon its release was the clutter and being unable to tell at a glance what tile improvement was what because they were so busy.

Nostalgia is a wonderful drug.

it has nothing to do with nostalgia. I still have civ 4 on my computer and play it regularly. I also have civ6 and give it a try every time they release something New and a few times just because it's civ and ir's new. In civ 4 you can easily tell what is hill and what is not. Tile improvments are much easier to distinguish. Fog of war is miles better. The screen is not cluttered with thousands of small icons and units i have to click on and off to spot what is what. Nostalgia may be a drug but so is ignorance.

 

[MyOtherName]

• Square tiles. Hexes are so much better, more logical, natural and mathematically interesting. Moving diagonally on sqares means that 1 tile movement is in fact 1.4times longer than horizontally or vertically. 3tiles radius of a city is quick to understand and makes sense, while in Civ4 you had to remember the exact shape of city's tiles.

Which is important if you're trying to accurately simulate real-world geography at a low level, which Civ 6 is not.

The distance in a game world is exactly what it is, no matter whether you use hexes, tiles, or some other arrangement. And when you don't need to approximate real-world geometry, squares are a superior interface to hexes in nearly every way.

Incidentally, if we are using hexes to approximate real-world geometry, horizontal movement is 15% longer than vertical movement. (as the hexes are arranged in Civ)

I agree that the shape of the big fat cross is weird, but that has nothing to do with squares vs hexes -- it would be simpler and more sensible if the game instead used a 2 tile radius. (i.e. a 5x5 square centered on the city)

 

[Depravo]

- Unstacked cities
- Hexes
- Highly distinctive rival personalities
- Faith (religion system is horribly flawed ATM but has promise)
- Increased importance of strategic resources
- Et cetera.

 

[Tacgnol]

-Graphics
-District system
-Ongoing support and game updates
-couple hundred hours played already vs thousands
-I can win on Deity
-Graphics

Like I'm all for gameplay over graphics but Civ IV is reaching the point where the graphics are just too bad for me to stare at for hours. And Civ VI is beautiful.

That said I was playing Civ IV over the weekend and probably will continue to do so every now and then because FfH is the best mod in the history of videogame customization.

 

[CivCube]

Like I'm all for gameplay over graphics but Civ IV is reaching the point where the graphics are just too bad for me to stare at for hours. And Civ VI is beautiful.

I concede that. Civ 4 was pretty noticeably low in polygon count by everyone at release.

 

[Gedemon]

I'm new to the series but from all I've read Civ4 is considered the best?
Give me your 6 reasons why you're not playing it.

4 reasons for me to have moved to civ5 over civ4
- Hexes over squares
- Lua for scripts in mods
- SQL for mods configuration
- Compatibility between mods

and 3 reasons for me to have moved to civ6 over civ5
- Mods in MP (was in civ4)
- Adding new 3D models seems less difficult, including terrain
- Bigger (modded) maps with better stability

What I miss from civ4 ?
- Diplomacy

 

[ltccone]

I still play PBEM Civ4 (since there is NO PBEM in civ 5 or 6) but some things about the game drove me crazy, like doomstacks and building a city and getting a popup for a hundred turns that I should give my city to someone else. I could never go back to Civ 4 for SP.