Civ comparison

[Peteyboy]

Hi all,

Long term member, but haven't posted in years...!

Sorry for a generic comparison post too - I've posted into the Civ6 forum, hoping that posters, will have seen many of the other version.

I haven't played an awful lot of Civ full stop for the past couple of years, but have been getting back into it. Needless to say, I saw the launch of Civ6, and like with all previous versions, they get a great reception, then normally a bashing over some bad flaws, often AI or bug related, which then get sorted.

I'm looking at spending a bit of time with Civ, especially with Christmas coming up, and would like to know whether Civ6 is playable to a decent standard - where the flaws, aren't so pronounced. I hear the game functions are top-drawer, and options to the player are very good, but that the AI are so bad militarily that it wrecks the game.

Or whether I should invest my time/money in purchasing the add-ons to Civ5 (I only have the original, which I played for a while, and enjoyed (although found the AI very predictable.)) I hear the game is now very strong, and generally considered better then Civ4 which I've spent a lot of time playing over the years (I liked Civ5's war principle/City working better, but hated the inability to share a square blocking trade routes etc, plus the AIs happiness advantage felt more forced, compared to the Civ4 advantages.) Did BnW make the game a lot better (much like BTS I feel improved Civ4 a whole heap.)

Alternatively, does anyone know whether CivBE got any better with the expansion - I played this a number of times, but it wasn't very exciting, the bee-lining affinities didn't feel right, and when I stopped playing it there were still a number of bugs (espionage, and you couldn't even pick a player name, without scores messing up!) I suspect this hasn't been given the time by Firaxis, and never quite got going but, if told otherwise, I'd consider this.

Any feedback would be welcome.

Cheers,

Peter

 

[Archon_Wing]

I bought both Civ 5 with everything and Civ 6 at the same time. I stuck with 6 in the end.

I think 5 feels more like a complete product. It has more civ choices and variety, with a established diplomatic and culture system. Civ 6's diplomacy and culture feel like placeholders at best and also lacks a number of basic UI elements that make it somewhat clunky to play.

On the other hand, I preferred Civ 6 because the scale is larger and doesn't keep you down hard with global happiness, culture/science penalties, and maintenance. Personally, i hated that everything in Civ 5 cost maintenance, including roads which meant armies were small and the place was crowded even on larger maps. By emphasizing "tall", where the most common strategy was a couple of cities, it doesn't feel like an empire building game.

Civ 6's biggest point of interest is probably the wonder and district placement. Having to plan your city's tiles ahead of time vs balancing it for immediate game is an intresting choice; at least more intresting than dull choices like picking the tile with the biggest yield or trying to run specialists. Eurekas and great people also give alternate ways to going at it than just maximizing science and culture per turn, and the science/culture split is also an extra element that makes things a bit more involving and realistic.

Both games are held back by a useless AI which unfortunately allows players to really just ignore everything and play Solitaire, which stifles their potential greatly. Civ 6 suffers more because they added more complicated terrain rules involving hills and rough terrain, a throwback I'm not a huge fan of but given how powerful ranged units were in 5, I can sort of understand why.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Or whether I should invest my time/money in purchasing the add-ons to Civ5 (I only have the original, which I played for a while, and enjoyed (although found the AI very predictable.)) I hear the game is now very strong, and generally considered better then Civ4 which I've spent a lot of time playing over the years

The general consensus seems to be that the games are ranked Civ 6 > Civ 4 (with a Mod like BUG) > Civ 5, Civ 6 has some amazing developments (e.g. District / Wonder placement as has been mentioned) but some people find the AI a bit easy (the move to 1UPT has really hit the AI hard) and there are still quite a few bugs (to be expected at this stage of development). To be clear there are a lot of people that like Civ 5 a lot and it has been very succesful but if you feel you have had your fill of Civ 4 I would recommend going to Civ 6.

 

[rschissler]

I wouldn't agree that the general consensus is that Civ6 is better than Civ4. I still rank Civ4 better, because it just seems more fun, and had more strategy to engage in. Although I basically like Civ6 and think it has a lot of great features, I feel more and more like I'm playing a board game, instead of something more interactive. The individual unit icons that tend to dominate the landscape, the slow movement, and 1UPT, push that board game feeling for me.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I still rank Civ4 better, because it just seems more fun, and had more strategy to engage in.

So do I personally, just don't think it's a majority view.

 

[w3rallmachines]

Civ IV is definitely better than Civ VI. With all its expansions.

Comparing the base game of Civ 6 against other Civ games with all their expansions is unfair.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Civ 4 is also better than Civ 6 without its expansions too.

/shrugs

Without its expansions, Civ 4 loses....

Espionage (But it sucked anyways). Civ 6 wins regardless.
Vassals/colonies (Which wasn't well designed, and mostly served to help you end the game faster).
The ability to defy votes (But at least the UN exists in vanilla, unlike Civ 6)
Corporations (came too late)
A Better AI (Not like Civ 6 has an edge regardless)
Some combat balance changes like grenadiers and siege..
Much less Civs (but only a few less than Civ 6)
Random Events (Which people in forum games always turned off)

The thing is most of these things just provide a different way to play the game. They're not essential by any means.

It doesn't really change the comparison at all, except Civ 6's AI and balance looks relatively better. Which means absolutely nothing. And finally, yes, I think we should have higher standards now than for a game made more than 10 years ago.

 

[Victoria]

If you were ok with doomstacks and loved playing civ IV then it will still probably rule the nest.
Many immersive players love VI, it is quite rich in this area once you get used to the graphics.
Many others who like VI like the tactical spread of 1UPT despite the fact that is makes the AI struggle seriously. It's similar to V in this regard but at least AI archers can now move and shoot.
Quite a few get annoyed at the GUI so if that's a point the often gets you then also think twice.

I personally hated IV and played abut 2k hours of V but it became very same after a while while I have no overtaken that amount in VI and am in no way bored in any shape or manner.

I am not sure if VI is the most popular as this is a VI forum but there is plenty of room for improvement we are seeing some promise of coming in expansion but not by Christmas. If you like a challenging AI and a slick GUI then do not come anywhere near it. if you like a game with lots of mechanics and do not mind some bugs then I think it's great... I mean people cannot even agree on an optimal opening build after 9 months.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

I just couldn't get to like 4. almost 4k hrs in V and closing in on 1k for 6 (too many games, so little time)

Remember we have not seen any expansions yet for 6 either. I have my own list of things I'd like to see added (see the Civ:CTP thread)
one can hope.

 

[trev1972]

I wouldn't agree that the general consensus is that Civ6 is better than Civ4. I still rank Civ4 better, because it just seems more fun, and had more strategy to engage in. Although I basically like Civ6 and think it has a lot of great features, I feel more and more like I'm playing a board game, instead of something more interactive. The individual unit icons that tend to dominate the landscape, the slow movement, and 1UPT, push that board game feeling for me.

For me it is Civ 4 > Civ 5 > Civ 6 > Civ 3 and i dont really remember 1 and 2 although i played them.

I went with civ 4 first mostly because i found the immersion better with the AI, they had very definite personalities (being sandwiched between monty and shaka at the start was always fun ) and you could build up strong 'friendships' with modifiers for years at peace etc. You had the leaders prone to backstabbing too (im looking at you catherine!)

It did have flaws, tech trading was crazy from what i remember and they should have had a limit on how many units per tile (i got hit with the most ridiculous stack every by a backstabbing catherine). People forget you had to build the infrastructure for these stacks though they didnt just appear

I spent well over 1000 hours on this version (and struggled on immortal).

Civ V
I like the idea of 1UPT but feel the maps tend to be a bit small for it causing annoying traffic jams, and feel they compromised on production speeds etc to incorporate it.
I bought this game with expansion packs though and according to steam i clocked up 500 hours so i must have enjoyed it!. I hated the way bonus resources became so generic though

Civ VI
Districts are a great idea, but the bipolar leader personalities, terrible tactical AI, and lack of niceties such as a hall of fame, working score calculator, are a problem. I hope all this will be sorted in an expansion though, i tend to buy complete editions not base games so thats probably why i feel this way. It is civ vi im playing right now though so it still keeps me interested.

 

[Gedemon]

For me it's a very simple equation: Civ5 is maybe a good game. Civ6 is maybe a good (board) game.

But IMO both miss something that was in Civ4: the feeling of leading a Civilization to stand the test of time, now I'm just playing "another game"

 

[trev1972]

For me it's a very simple equation: Civ5 is maybe a good game. Civ6 is maybe a good (board) game.

But IMO both miss something that was in Civ4: the feeling of leading a Civilization to stand the test of time, now I'm just playing "another game"

Yeh it was the feeling of the opponents having real personalities i think? and the feeling of true enemies/allies.

I havent played civ iv for some time now so cant remember everything, but i can remember monty coming for me very early on, i can remember playing a huge earth map as the english, neglecting troops and having my coast ravaged by the vikings!!, remember catherine pretending to be an ally then launching a MASSIVE surprise attack on me, she must have been plotting it for ages as the force was obscene and i lost a capital with a tonne of infantry stationed there. I actually went to bed with my mind full of plans to get my revenge

I can remember being allied to the americans for most of the game, and almost feeling regret when i backstabbed them . I recall the excitement at spawning next to food and gold on normal maps too .

In other words it was easier to become immersed and pretend your a leader against other leaders.

The 'yet another maps pack mod' is keeping me interested in civ vi at the moment, its brilliant.

I get your 'board game' comment totally.. and for people into that civ vi is definitely the superior game...for me though ive always treated civ as a sandbox - world builder game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The games are quite different:

Civ4 with expansions:
- Huge pile of features barely joined together. Some people like this, because the game has more "features", some don't because actual replayability (variety of strategies) is not improved with it.
- Nearly zero tactical combat. For some it's bad, because tactical combat is fun. For others it's good, because AI can't match human players in pure tactical game, so in Civ4 AI needs less bonuses to compete. That's generally a personal immersion question - whether you ok with AI playing using bonuses or not.
- Least unique civs from all 3 games.

Civ5 with expansions:
- Tactical combat (see above).
- Balance leaning towards wide, peaceful development as measure developed to balance the tactical combat problems.
- Average civ uniqueness.

Civ6 without expansion:
- Least features than 2 previous games with expansion, but more than those without expansions.
- Best balance in all games (both with and without expansions). This those achieved by basing new features on Civ5 experience.
- Most unique civs.
- More replayability due to this and more variety.
- Not as polished as previous Civ games.

In general, after playing Civ6 I can't return to Civ5, because Civ6 looks like all-around upgrade. I can play Civ4 for a change, because it feels different enough, but it feels inferior.

 

[trev1972]

I think how you view civ 6 compared to civ iv depends on what your looking for from the game.

If you want a tactical game, kind of like chess but with civs then your going to love civ 6 for the 1upt as it gives options to outsmart the AI, you probably view the old features such as palaces, wonder movies, map replays and halls of fame as useless guff. When it comes to diplomacy i imagine people into tactical board games treat modifiers as purely numbers so - they wont care if a 'friend' auto joins an allied war against you despite no military etc as it is numbers to modify, whereas to a sandbox player it reminds you that it is 'a game' . In otherwords i think to some players immersion is well behind tactical game play in importance. You probably dont even mind the AI ineptness at 1upt since difficulty can give enough bonus's to compensate.

If your a sandbox/immersion player then the lack of depth in diplomacy, the bipolar leaders, the lack of AI upgrading units and the lack of 'guff' is dissapointing (i cant be the only person who used to replay the map and watch key moments back on my route to victory?). Also the extreme beelining possible is immersion breaking.

I think in previous iterations there was a lot less 'tactical board game' feel and a lot more immersion, personally i like immersion first- but i may well be in the minority now.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think in previous iterations there was a lot less 'tactical board game' feel and a lot more immersion, personally i like immersion first- but i may well be in the minority now.

Immersion is quite subjective thing. To me diplomacy in 3-4 to be far less immersive than in Civ6, because in Civ3-4 you could easily manipulate AI to do what you want through trade. The AI leaders in those games are more "tools" than opponents. Only Civ5 with its disabling of most exploitable trades - tech and map, the diplomacy started to look sane.

 

[trev1972]

Immersion is quite subjective thing. To me diplomacy in 3-4 to be far less immersive than in Civ6, because in Civ3-4 you could easily manipulate AI to do what you want through trade. The AI leaders in those games are more "tools" than opponents. Only Civ5 with its disabling of most exploitable trades - tech and map, the diplomacy started to look sane.

Yup its true that it is a subjective thing, and yes you could eventually work out the AI on civ iv diplomacy. But acting in a manner that makes sense is not a bad thing
That also doesnt mean irrational psychopath is better and thats how the AI feels.

Ive played well under 100 hours civ vi so far, and already ive seen so many stupid diplomacy things

My best buddy telling me im a great ally and friend, then declaring in a joint war next turn...the 'joint war' consideration of the AI is a complete mess.
Civs that i have dominated but left alive with a token city and vastly inferior military 'demanding' luxuries
Civs with friendly modifiers and less military just randomly declaring, then not sending a single troop to fight. Or if they do send troops and lose them, offering loads of concessions when making peace.
Gorgo popping up at what feels like every third turn to tell me 'where is your honor etc etc'...it gets sooo old
Civs warning me off city states i haven't even met!
AI modifiers showing good plus scores, yet status unfriendly (with the inevitable unfathomable denounce and declaration)

I just dont think the agendas thing works personally, and think that in joint wars especially - the military strength and relationship doesnt seem to be factored in.

But like i said we all want different things

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Immersion is quite subjective thing. .....Only Civ5 with its disabling of most exploitable trades - tech and map, the diplomacy started to look sane.

It must be very subjective because "sane" is the last way I would describe diplomacy in Civ 5 lol.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Immersion is quite subjective thing. To me diplomacy in 3-4 to be far less immersive than in Civ6, because in Civ3-4 you could easily manipulate AI to do what you want through trade. The AI leaders in those games are more "tools" than opponents. Only Civ5 with its disabling of most exploitable trades - tech and map, the diplomacy started to look sane.

Here's 5 GPT, go to war with that guy, while I slowly assemble troops near your border.

And hey would you like to vote for me? No? *Comes back every other turn*

That's Civ 5 diplomacy for you. I acutally think it's the easiest out of the 3 games even though Civ 4's tech trades were quite broken.

Although to be fair, the context based conversations for Civ 5 are much more immersive than any of the other games. Leaders coming in to tell you that you have a mutual friend or the fact you have aligned with their foes, or just asking about how you're doing in your war are touches that were sadly lost.

 

[Esperr]

For me it's a very simple equation: Civ5 is maybe a good game. Civ6 is maybe a good (board) game.

But IMO both miss something that was in Civ4: the feeling of leading a Civilization to stand the test of time, now I'm just playing "another game"

This is what I always say. V and VI feel like im just playing a game, when I play II and IV the flavor is just so much better. Flavor alone can make up for a lot of sins, just look at SMAC. That stupid game was a mess game play wise, but the atmosphere really helped carry it. I like V and VI, but I havn't touched V since VI came out and I don't even miss it, whereas I still go back and play IV. The only reason I don't still play IV all the time is because I put 1k hours into it.

 

[trev1972]

Here's 5 GPT, go to war with that guy, while I slowly assemble troops near your border.

And hey would you like to vote for me? No? *Comes back every other turn*

That's Civ 5 diplomacy for you. I acutally think it's the easiest out of the 3 games even though Civ 4's tech trades were quite broken.

Although to be fair, the context based conversations for Civ 5 are much more immersive than any of the other games. Leaders coming in to tell you that you have a mutual friend or the fact you have aligned with their foes, or just asking about how you're doing in your war are touches that were sadly lost.

Yup i suppose people could argue that civ vi diplomacy is harder to manipulate, but it makes no sense

My current game

cleopatra +14 relationship modifiers, trajan +12

no shared boundaries, i have a bigger military

but- bam declaration of war, and as expected no actual troops were sent to fight.

10 turns later peace, and i know this will repeat itself in 30 or 40 turns.

No it cant be manipulated but it makes no sense whatsoever either...other than being mildly annoying.