Accessibility is one of the best strengths of the civ franchise

[Aristos]

Funny. I just started a new Teutonic Order --> Prussia --> Dominator of the Baltic (hopefully) in EU4, and man I'm having a blast; all the intricacies of the dynamic web of alliances, relations, economy, etcetcetc... plus the AI gives you a run for the money all the time... I know some people are critical of the EU4 AI, but compared to the pseudo-AI of civ 6, it's sentient. And to me, that is a HUGE part of the enjoyment, and as a wannabe Prussia, surrounded by enemies and potential temporary allies, trying to balance relations with future targets, developing the country and the forces, etcetcetc, is a blast. Civ 6 will probably never give me that experience, unfortunately.

Paradox games are hard to start playing, hard to master (for most people). Civ games since civ 5 are easy to play, and easy to master. The sweet spot, the "perfect" strategy game, is that one that is easy to play but hard to master. I think many here can agree that it was civ 4 that hit closest to that benchmark (and a few others in the history of gaming, such as MOO2 and perhaps Alpha Centauri). Civ 6 has sadly no chance to hit that milestone.

My point was that the advantage Civ has over its fellow 4X games is marketing, as opposed to grand strategy games like Stellaris or Crusader Kings.

No, the biggest advantage of the Civ franchise is their loyal base of fans, that same one they are trying so hard (and succeeding?) to alienate...

 

[Socrates99]

My first strategy games were those KOEI games: Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Genghis Khan and Nobunaga's Ambition. They were intimidating at first but you quickly realize a lot of it is fluff and you could focus on a few aspects to run away with the game.

That seems to be my impression with a lot of strategy games. There's a ton of fluff but once you strip it down to the most important priorities it's easy. Civ is really approachable because most of that stuff uses real world terms, even for abstracts.

Then all you need is an easy to use interface. That's any game genre, easy to grasp mechanics and interfaces are behind the best mmos, fps, etc. Sometimes Civs isn't the most intuitive but it's pretty easy to grasp.

 

[Zaarin]

No, the biggest advantage of the Civ franchise is their loyal base of fans, that same one they are trying so hard (and succeeding?) to alienate...

If they're trying to alienate them, they're doing a horrible job of it. Maybe they could take lessons from Bethesda--now there's a company that knows how to alienate its fanbase.

 

[Equilin]

Paradox has always had this infamous trait of bad UI and useless tutorial, or so I've heard (not to mention DLC policy). Early on when I played EU4 I have to keep a separate browser tab to open the wiki for informations on pretty much every game mechanic, a lot of them does not interact with each other, and by doing so it eats my PC.
Civ, both 5 and 6, on the other hand, just open Civilopedia. I only open wiki a couple of times to see hidden information (e.g. Civ 5's UU carry-on-upgrade) or when i'm setting up a game (very sad that I cannot access Civilopedia from Civ6's main menu).
I'm not sure if it's the "best strength" of Civ franchise, but it's a significant strength nonetheless.

 

[Aristos]

If they're trying to alienate them, they're doing a horrible job of it. Maybe they could take lessons from Bethesda--now there's a company that knows how to alienate its fanbase.

Hmmmm... not that horrible of a job, if you ask me.

Paradox has always had this infamous trait of bad UI and useless tutorial, or so I've heard (not to mention DLC policy). Early on when I played EU4 I have to keep a separate browser tab to open the wiki for informations on pretty much every game mechanic, a lot of them does not interact with each other, and by doing so it eats my PC. Civ, both 5 and 6, on the other hand, just open Civilopedia. I only open wiki a couple of times to see hidden information (e.g. Civ 5's UU carry-on-upgrade) or when i'm setting up a game (very sad that I cannot access Civilopedia from Civ6's main menu).
I'm not sure if it's the "best strength" of Civ franchise, but it's a significant strength nonetheless.

I just finished my Sunday session of Prussia's EU4. Came here just to look what's new, and found your comment. I can trade a 1000 Paradox's UI quirks in exchange for the thrill I just finished feeling for the entire afternoon; my Teutons were struggling to hold the country together, a pile of debt from the last Polish War keeps me under pressure, while I had to honor my Support for Independence of Sweden when the swedes decided to start their Independence War right after I barely held ground against the gargantual Polish Commonwealth... out of that War, again barely, England and Teutonic Order managed to support the swedes enough for Denmark to accept the peace and release Sweden. My manpower is depleted, Poland once again looks preparing for war, I am barely holding my alliance with the Holy Roman Emperor, Brandenburg, but have a strong hold on the eastern giant, Muscovy, hoping that they are enough of a deterrent to Polish ambitions in my Baltic.

Get Civ 6 to give me all that in one cold Sunday afternoon.

 

[Depravo]

... perhaps Alpha Centauri).

I can't speak for MOO, but SMAC's military AI was pretty atrocious, though the game was still very enjoyable.

EU's AI benefits from questionable tactical railroading like the forts system and the current retreat mechanics (lose a battle in the Pyrenees and retreat unmolested all the way to Flanders) as well as insane buffs at high difficulties, particularly if playing vs historical Lucky Nations - as you must if you want achievements. If you recall the way things were before forts were introduced in their current form, the AI was easy to fake out and trivially easy to beat, especially if you exploited their inability to effectively move forces between fronts separated by water.

Then there's the naval model, where the war at sea is usually still decided by one engagement in the opening weeks of the war, just as land war used to be.

 

[KayAU]

I was fairly late to try out Paradox games. They always intrigued me, but it seemed like they would be hard to get into, and I only have so much time. When I finally did try them, though, I found them very enjoyable, and not nearly as hard to play as their reputation would have me think. I started with Crusader Kings 2, which was not too tricky. I unified Ireland and started taking control over the other British Isles. I then got EU IV, which I liked even better. I played as Norway, and managed to expand into Denmark, before colonizing the Americas, and founding Vinland. That was a lot of fun. The most recent Paradox game I have played is Stellaris, which I absolutely love. It lacks a good late game, I think, but this is a 4X game which benefits greatly from having a very long exploration and expansion phase.

As for Civ, while I may complain a lot, and often feel frustrated when parts of the game fail to meet my wishes or expectation, there is no doubt that I spend far more time with Civ than I do with any other game. I think part of the reason is accessibility. It is just very easy to get started with a Civ game, and to keep a good overview of what is going on with just a glance at the map. I am not saying it's a masterpiece of UI design (Endless Space 2 impressed me more in that regard), but it does do a fairly good job of reminding you of the basic things you are supposed to each turn, and most of what you need to know is usually visible on the map itself. As it is a turn based game, it is always paused as well, which is something I appreciate, as I have a wife and two kids, and being able to leave the computer at any time is a useful feature. The fact that it is turn based also means that progress comes in discrete increments. Every time you click the End Turn button, you get something, and once the AI turn completes, you are presented with a new set of choices. It is usually tempting to just do those things, and when you have, well...might as well hit End Turn again, right? And so it continues.

I do wish there was more competition among 4X turn based strategy games, though. There aren't really any other major games which tries to cover world history like Civ does. At the Gates is coming out soon, but that covers a much narrower scope. There have been some good fantasy Civ-likes (Fallen Enchantress being my personal favorite), but there hasn't been much in that sub-genre recently.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Every time you click the End Turn button, you get something, and once the AI turn completes, you are presented with a new set of choices. It is usually tempting to just do those things, and when you have, well...might as well hit End Turn again, right? And so it continues.

More than that, I argue that the "just one more turn" addiction that civ gives players comes from the fact that the game dangles a reward in front of the player just a few turns in the future, over and over again. So it's not just that the player has to make interesting choices but the player then hits "end turn" to see the consequences of those choices and because they want to get to that next reward. Just 4 more turns and I will get a wonder, just 1 more turn and I will complete a space project, just one more turn and I will conquer this city etc... In fact, you'll even notice that the game makes a big deal when it gives the player a reward, like the little wonder animation or the fanfare when you conquer a city.

 

[Equilin]

I just finished my Sunday session of Prussia's EU4. Came here just to look what's new, and found your comment. I can trade a 1000 Paradox's UI quirks in exchange for the thrill I just finished feeling for the entire afternoon; my Teutons were struggling to hold the country together, a pile of debt from the last Polish War keeps me under pressure, while I had to honor my Support for Independence of Sweden when the swedes decided to start their Independence War right after I barely held ground against the gargantual Polish Commonwealth... out of that War, again barely, England and Teutonic Order managed to support the swedes enough for Denmark to accept the peace and release Sweden. My manpower is depleted, Poland once again looks preparing for war, I am barely holding my alliance with the Holy Roman Emperor, Brandenburg, but have a strong hold on the eastern giant, Muscovy, hoping that they are enough of a deterrent to Polish ambitions in my Baltic.

Get Civ 6 to give me all that in one cold Sunday afternoon.

Well that's just you (and a few others), who have been playing this type of game (complex strategy/grand strat/4X) for almost two decades. You'd value challenge and thrilling experience more as that is what keeps you playing. New players (which are important to the longetivity of the franchise), however, would value accessibility and linear learning curve much more. Civ definitely has more of the latter.
I myself only succeeded in getting 1 friend to play EU4 (my only PDX game) actively (and this guy has experience with hoi4 so he's used to PDX already), while OTOH I managed to get several friends (nearing 10) to play Civ, 5 and 6. That speaks a lot in what newcomers want from a complex strategy game.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Well that's just you (and a few others), who have been playing this type of game (complex strategy/grand strat/4X) for almost two decades. You'd value challenge and thrilling experience more as that is what keeps you playing. New players (which are important to the longetivity of the franchise), however, would value accessibility and linear learning curve much more. Civ definitely has more of the latter.
I myself only succeeded in getting 1 friend to play EU4 (my only PDX game) actively (and this guy has experience with hoi4 so he's used to PDX already), while OTOH I managed to get several friends (nearing 10) to play Civ, 5 and 6. That speaks a lot in what newcomers want from a complex strategy game.

It suggests they don't want a complex strategy game. I love Civ including VI but its never been a complex strategy game.

 

[bbbt]

I just finished my Sunday session of Prussia's EU4. Came here just to look what's new, and found your comment. I can trade a 1000 Paradox's UI quirks in exchange for the thrill I just finished feeling for the entire afternoon; my Teutons were struggling to hold the country together, a pile of debt from the last Polish War keeps me under pressure, while I had to honor my Support for Independence of Sweden when the swedes decided to start their Independence War right after I barely held ground against the gargantual Polish Commonwealth... out of that War, again barely, England and Teutonic Order managed to support the swedes enough for Denmark to accept the peace and release Sweden. My manpower is depleted, Poland once again looks preparing for war, I am barely holding my alliance with the Holy Roman Emperor, Brandenburg, but have a strong hold on the eastern giant, Muscovy, hoping that they are enough of a deterrent to Polish ambitions in my Baltic.

Get Civ 6 to give me all that in one cold Sunday afternoon.

Which is one of the strengths of EU, but not something any version of Civ - which has more been a history themed complex board game - would have offered you. I'm certainly sympathetic with some of the current criticisms to 6, but I don't see the point of complaining that it's not like game X or game Y. I'd prefer a variety of different games with different mechanics. Why not just play EU instead if that's want you want?

 

[Melliores]

@Aristos -

By reading your comments I think you are just a different kind of player than most of the core fans of the Civ series. For what it is worth, Civ has always had strong Builder roots and was shy when it came to simulating anything. The Paradox grand strategy games in my opinion double-down on the simulating history aspect, to the point that they have scripted events for some key historical cornerstones and obscure mechanics that are really important for certain countries ( the Catholic Curia for example) and have no bearing on others.

I also enjoy the simulation aspect of the Paradox games, but they need to make them more accessible in terms of interface and in-game help. The Civilopaedia and event-cycling via the end turn button are great editions to make everything more approachable by all types of players. If I want to read on some of the obscure mechanics added in CK2 since the last time I played, I will need to sieve through hundreds of forum posts on their forum to get a proper grasp of them.

CIv also lends itself well to multiplayer games, especially due to how moddable the game setup can be. Map size, game speed, starting era can bring something to the table for everyone. Paradox games are really best played in single-player.

 

[_ViKinG_]

I think hoi iv was easy to learn. I did watch alot of videos before it released so i tried to learn as mutch as i could until it got released. So just watch some videos on youtube

 

[Aristos]

Which is one of the strengths of EU, but not something any version of Civ - which has more been a history themed complex board game - would have offered you. I'm certainly sympathetic with some of the current criticisms to 6, but I don't see the point of complaining that it's not like game X or game Y. I'd prefer a variety of different games with different mechanics. Why not just play EU instead if that's want you want?

You misread, it is not a simple complain that "game X is not game Y". Quite the opposite. My main issue with civ 6 is that it does not produce any level of thrill or engagement for me, but the systems are there to achieve just that. In other words, and this is my main theme for a while now (and will continue to be), civ 6 is not thrilling mainly because the AI does not play half of the game the human does. I am convinced that if the AI in civ 6 could use all the systems, and provide some partial challenge at least (at pair with EU, let's say), then the game would be also on pair with the thrill that EU4 produces, even if they are very different.

See? The lack of a thrilling experience, mainly due to AI, is the complaint. Big difference.

And why do I complain about that? Because I know that civ 6 could be there, easily, with all the mechanisms in place, if only the devs put a little more effort into the AI (or gave us the tools to do so, already).

 

[isau]

I could never get into Paradox games for the reasons mentioned.

One game I don't think gets near enough credit is Age of Wonders 3. It was quite well done and had (to me) a very clear interface. A Civilization/Age of Wonders mashup that grabs the best of both games would be a dream for me.

Even outside of the "tactical map" portion, what I specifically love about Age of Wonders is the spell casting system and the threat enemy players constantly pose of hurling fireballs and acid rain at you, plus spells that do things like cause a particular terrain to spread around your borders. It really makes the conflict with enemy AIs feel dynamic. It's one feature I seriously wish existed in Civ 6 in some form (maybe as "edicts" or something and not "spells.")

 

[Isengardtom]

(I think Birth of the Federation was my first--if you ever want a wonderful game with a steep learning curve... )

Loved Birth of the Federation. Ok the graphics weren’t great even for the time but I had great dept to it.
That game is more than 20 years old. I’m getting old lol

But I agree. This game has enough complexity to stay interesting but you can learn things quickly.

 

[AmazonQueen]

You misread, it is not a simple complain that "game X is not game Y". Quite the opposite. My main issue with civ 6 is that it does not produce any level of thrill or engagement for me, but the systems are there to achieve just that. In other words, and this is my main theme for a while now (and will continue to be), civ 6 is not thrilling mainly because the AI does not play half of the game the human does. I am convinced that if the AI in civ 6 could use all the systems, and provide some partial challenge at least (at pair with EU, let's say), then the game would be also on pair with the thrill that EU4 produces, even if they are very different.

See? The lack of a thrilling experience, mainly due to AI, is the complaint. Big difference.

And why do I complain about that? Because I know that civ 6 could be there, easily, with all the mechanisms in place, if only the devs put a little more effort into the AI (or gave us the tools to do so, already).

I'd agree with this to some extent. Not totally because I still enjoy Civ VI, but in CK II i have a choice. Not based on difficulty level. If I want a romp I play the Magyars in 867, if I want a hard game there are plenty of choices. In Civ VI if you get past the early stage (which is very well done for the most part) every game is a romp. Sometimes I want a romp, sometimes I want a challange. Civ VI isn't great at providing the latter.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd agree with this to some extent. Not totally because I still enjoy Civ VI, but in CK II i have a choice. Not based on difficulty level. If I want a romp I play the Magyars in 867, if I want a hard game there are plenty of choices. In Civ VI if you get past the early stage (which is very well done for the most part) every game is a romp. Sometimes I want a romp, sometimes I want a challange. Civ VI isn't great at providing the latter.

I don't play Civ6 for a challenge, so that's fine for me. My bigger issue is that at a certain point in the game it becomes less...engaging. Here's hoping the world congress and natural disasters help a little...

 

[slo]

Accessible….yes...
but the lack of skill in the AI is game braking....
It feels like beating my 6 year old at checkers and being proud of it.

Just to add to the conversation....Victoria is the best game I have ever played....Hearts of Iron is good, but poor AI....EU..well...the concept of EU is good, but I get bored of it....in 6 hrs of playing you are still more or less in the same time period, game never really goes anywhere....but the mechanics are great.....AI is average....

slo

 

[AmazonQueen]

I don't play Civ6 for a challenge, so that's fine for me. My bigger issue is that at a certain point in the game it becomes less...engaging. Here's hoping the world congress and natural disasters help a little...

I don't think the 4x mechinism helps there. Although it can be a problem with Paradox games too. Get to a certain level of power and nothing really threatens you.
Not so much with CK2 since it can all go horribly wrong when your idiot son inherits the throne but some people hate the high random element that involves.