Civ IV anyone?

[historix69]

I think Civ VI handles the 1UPT better than Civ V did, but it isn’t perfect yet.

All the concepts, stacks (of doom), 1upt, paper-scissors-rock, are abstractions and gameplay mechanism which do not adequatedly represent real warfare.

If you consider a WW2 situation, you can place an anti-tank gun, a machine gun, a piece of artillery and an anti-aircraft gun close together within a few meters, protecting each other against different types of attackers.
In a game like Civ5 or Civ6, a hex represents dozens to hundreds of square km. Range 3-4 for modern artillery indicates that a hex is at least 5 km in diameter. In 1upt this means that a unit protecting another unit is placed in 5 km distance of that unit. 5 km is a (front) length for bigger (combined) formations like battalions, brigades, divisions or even corps. For example in the (in)famous battle of Kursk in 1943, the Germans used 3 Panzer Corps on a 15 km front line for attack. Each Panzer Corps had 3-4 divisions (tanks and infantry) and probably about 60-80.000 men. Such a corps usually included all types of weapons like tanks, machine guns, anti tank units, artillery, mortar, anti aircraft, supply units, etc.

There are different possibilities to improve realism for warfare in Civ :
- limited stacks forming combined units like armies in old times and brigades, divisions, corps and armies in modern times for hexes with a few or more km front length
or
- 1upt with smaller units and a realistic weapons range on hexes with maybe only a hundred meters front length ... an artillery would then have a (ballistic) range between 5 and 150 tiles, a tank between 1 and 20 tiles, a machine gun up to 10 tiles, a normal soldier up to 5 tiles, etc. all depending on terrain and line of sight and type of weapon (ballistic or direct fire)

For a global strategy game like civ, only the limited stacks (combined formations) make sense.
(See "Hearts of Iron" series ...)

 

[Uberfrog]

Civ IV BtS is a tremendous game, and one I sank many many hours into. But I don’t really feel any particular need to go back to it, save for nostalgia.

I think as many missing features would irk me as good old systems would charm me

If you’ve never played it, by all means go for it, but I feel it probably lacks something for people who didn’t experience it first time around.

 

[beorn]

Well, I'd never go back to Civ IV itself. But the mod Fall from Heaven II provided me with the best gaming I have ever had. Absolutely phenomenal game, but entirely different than your basic Civ IV.

 

[historix69]

Civ3 or Civ4 with the graphics of Civ5 or Civ6 would be nice.

 

[RealHuhn]

I easily spent at least 2000 hours playing Civ IV, which is over twice as much as Civ V and Civ VI combined. Civ IV was a great, great game, and I loved the complex strategy of it. I loved having to choose between cottages and farms, I loved the city specialization of it, it was just incredible. It'd be tough for me to go back to it now though, unfortunately. The square tiles and the stacks of doom seem too dated for me now.

The joy when you found that awesome GP farm with the philosophical trait. Good times.

 

[Xur]

When I remember back to my time in spent in civ games, then I'd say civ4 was the best. Civ4 is the last true civilization game in the sense that units stack, squared tiles, the AI doesn't suck and you could build large empires. Civ4 also had the best narrator, music and sound effects. Civ5/civ6 seems to get smaller and feature creep'ish. Civ6 especially got messy with all those districts. Civ6 is a better game though - it's a bit hard to explain.

Unit stacking is a bit boring, but it is better than the current carpet of doom that takes forever to move. Endgame in civ5 and civ6 is really tedious as a result of 1upt, and the AI obviously cant figure out how to play 1upt. So I prefer unit stacking.

There will always be small things that annoy you when switching from civgame to another. I was so tired of spaghetti roads in civ4 that it alone made me switch. I love building roads, so you can imagine I hate the traderoute/road thing in civ6. There's a lot of ideas that sound better in theory than they actually are in reality.

Civ6 is still missing:
1. A good minimap that doesn't color sea/coast tiles with civcolors.
2. Endgame map replay
3. Hall of Fame
4. Autobuild in cities that you dont care about - there's is zero automation in civ6 and that get's tiresome. A loooot of mindless clicking.
5. Modding support - civ6 was touted as the most modable civ game to date, but I must say I had an easier time modding civ5 and so far mods for civ5 are better.
6. World Builder that works.
7. Custom size maps.
8. Railroads... i mean... WTH...

Anyway, I doubt I'll ever see a perfect civ game...

 

[Duuk]

There are different possibilities to improve realism for warfare in Civ :
- limited stacks forming combined units like armies in old times and brigades, divisions, corps and armies in modern times for hexes with a few or more km front length

Call to Power 2 still had the best (for me) army stacking system of any Civ game. Maximum of 12 units, all combined into 1 army that attacked as a combined "unit" which contained artillery, ranged, flankers, and melee. It actually determined (and simulated) what should attack when and how based on what the composition of your stack was (not Total War, just automated). It was awesome. So you needed to have a few artillery when attacking a city (to bring down walls), some ranged to kill off melee defenders, some flankers to hit them while your melee units held the line. It was great.

(of course... and your slavers to capture enemy units and add slave population to your cities... which could revolt if you didn't garrison your cities, or if your enemies sent abolitionists to stir them up...)

 

[Benzombie]

I actually just started getting into Civ4 BtS. I am not one who complains about graphics but Civ4's did take a little to get used to. But when I did, holy crap, I can see why most people love it so much. I can definitely see why Civ6 has elements from Civ4; From what I can see it's goodie huts, wonder movies, multi leaders( If we ever get more anytime soon >_>), city swamping, and others I don't want to clutter this post with. Civ Revolution and Civ5 were my first civ games back since 2011. I might only be getting into Civ4 now but I'm glad that I'm doing it.

 

[Arent11]

I actually just started getting into Civ4 BtS. I am not one who complains about graphics but Civ4's did take a little to get used to. But when I did, holy crap, I can see why most people love it so much. I can definitely see why Civ6 has elements from Civ4; From what I can see it's goodie huts, wonder movies, multi leaders( If we ever get more anytime soon >_>), city swamping, and others I don't want to clutter this post with. Civ Revolution and Civ5 were my first civ games back since 2011. I might only be getting into Civ4 now but I'm glad that I'm doing it.

The major point is probably the graphics. Sorry, but the graphics need to be better. Apart from that, the hex tiles. I just love hex tiles. On the downside, I don't care the least about districts, traders & 1upt. Just one example: Did you notice how *great* it is in civ 4 to explore the world? Not only can you exchange technologies with other civs - a nice incentive to play semi-peaceful by the way - you also gain lots of passive trade through simply meeting other civs. The tech exchange itself & the passive trade is - in my humble opinion - maybe the single best design choice of civ 4 over civ 6.

Edit: Oh, and you can build roads. I forgot that you can build your own little roads. Everywhere. On every damned tile

 

[magha77]

So, what are you waiting for, go for it? Civ IV is still the best in the series.

It’s simply a fun game, best of them all. Fun units- ax men and grenadiers. Vassals make the aftermath of conquest less annoying. Corporations and religion gives the game another layer. I prefer how they used the great general and obscenely promoted units. The only downside is the stacks of doom and bored builders that spread roads EVERYWHERE

 

[Disgustipated]

you could build large empires

You can in Civ6 as well. It's why I love this game so much. It moves away from the abomination of Civ5 and brings back large empires of Civ4.

Civ4 also had the best narrator

You mean Sid Meier? I kid, he did the narration in the expansions, not the base game.

I also like how the units respond in their native language when you click on them.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I also like how the units respond in their native language when you click on them.

Oh yea, why did they stop doing that?

"Impera!"

 

[isau]

I have to throw one more thing in there about Civ 6 vs Civ 4. One of the biggest differences is that back in Civ 4 the differences between each civ were fairly minimal. To the point where each civ just had a copy of a trait that was shared with a bunch of other leaders. It was fine for what it was... in fact, those "shared traits" might be a cool addition for Civ 6, alongside the rest of the bonuses and penalties. But, it also made the game much more repetitive and predictable. Financial trait was Financial trait. There was nothing like Kongo. Or Arabia. Or anything really outside of the 8 or so traits. And the "Spiritual" trait IMO was just annoying by encouraging constant policy swapping that later civ games eliminated.

Also, FWIW, it wasn't until the first expansion pack that the concept of unique buildings came about. In Civ 4 Vanilla we just had different units, so the differences between civs were even smaller.

Civ 4 is still a fantastic game, and there's stuff from it I hope will inspire future civ games. But there's also just less content there overall. I do wish some parts of Civ 6 were more like 4, but I'm also grateful the game evolved.

 

[Morningcalm]

The differences between Civ IV civs were less pronounced, but quite significant. There's a reason Mansa Musa in Civ IV was something of a tech leader too (the powerful Financial trait means you often don't need to downcast your science during warfare). There was also all the world of difference between playing a leader with an Aggressive trait and someone with a Philosophical trait who lacked that extra promotion for units.

And each civ still had its own unique unit and building, and several had multiple leaders too (Turkey, China, Mongolia, the US, Egypt, Persia, France, etc).

For me, the game being that much more dynamic and complex turn-by-turn compared to V and VI makes IV like a fine wine--just betters with age, unless you've played it to death I suppose (I still haven't; I haven't even beaten all the scenarios yet and it's been a favorite game for years).

 

[BrotherInJah]

i loved civ IV.. that was my first encounter of civ series after civ 1, which btw i didn't get as i was too young back then.. on top of that i had german copy, which also to this day i don't get at all (german language) , but tried to play it anyway.. so IV was nostalgic moment of my struggles.. same long intro (civ1 actually needed that time to load..) but it was bringing so much new stuff vs 1.. everything was new.. leaders had traits.. civs had UU UB.. fantastic (good i have skipped other iterations....
and when all have played cotton eco or specialist eco i was sticking to my communism and hammers spam..! late game warfare was indeed exiting, pumping new SOD every turn (once again.. communism!!!).. i remember one game when all AI civ jumped on me when i was slightly behind (civ IV AI had no mercy with a some official HOF MOD from this site!!!!) my infantry vs they mech inf.. lone border city with lone infantry unit against the world.. in the end it had all possible promotions on that unit..!!!!! enemy SOD after SOD were dismantled by loyal defender.. i lost that game finally as i was constantly on D.. but that is what make game to be remembered..

also civ IV had old world start.. my fav (civ 5 had that too, but IV had barb cities!!!)

civ V and civ VI i do like a lot.. but nothing such exciting ever happened in both games.. and to be honest i rarely end games in both..

but i tried after years take another chance at IV.. to bring back memories.. installed.. started new game.. and lost capital in few first turns.. uninstalled..

since V and its concepts of 1upt plus cities that can defend themselves i simple can't play IV anymore.. and it's good, better leave it on nostalgia shelf..

 

[Morningcalm]

i loved civ IV.. that was my first encounter of civ series after civ 1, which btw i didn't get as i was too young back then.. on top of that i had german copy, which also to this day i don't get at all (german language) , but tried to play it anyway.. so IV was nostalgic moment of my struggles.. same long intro (civ1 actually needed that time to load..) but it was bringing so much new stuff vs 1.. everything was new.. leaders had traits.. civs had UU UB.. fantastic (good i have skipped other iterations....
and when all have played cotton eco or specialist eco i was sticking to my communism and hammers spam..! late game warfare was indeed exiting, pumping new SOD every turn (once again.. communism!!!).. i remember one game when all AI civ jumped on me when i was slightly behind (civ IV AI had no mercy with a some official HOF MOD from this site!!!!) my infantry vs they mech inf.. lone border city with lone infantry unit against the world.. in the end it had all possible promotions on that unit..!!!!! enemy SOD after SOD were dismantled by loyal defender.. i lost that game finally as i was constantly on D.. but that is what make game to be remembered..

also civ IV had old world start.. my fav (civ 5 had that too, but IV had barb cities!!!)

civ V and civ VI i do like a lot.. but nothing such exciting ever happened in both games.. and to be honest i rarely end games in both..

but i tried after years take another chance at IV.. to bring back memories.. installed.. started new game.. and lost capital in few first turns.. uninstalled..

since V and its concepts of 1upt plus cities that can defend themselves i simple can't play IV anymore.. and it's good, better leave it on nostalgia shelf..

I agree Civ IV games were more exciting--the backstabs and betrayals felt more organic and potent in Civ IV, and the AI was not uniformly going to declare on you just because you were a neighbor in the Ancient Age (unlike in V and VI). Many tales of wheeling and dealing to become the Hindu Pope and wage a sacred war to aid a beset Hindu leader inspire glee to this day. And some of the most powerful and dangerous AI opponents in Civ IV were entirely peaceful towards me, leaving me with the tough choice of when and how to break these (nominally allied) civs.

Civ V and VI have comparatively simple and less dynamic diplomacy, though I note VI efforts to make alliances somewhat more valuable.

 

[isau]

IV did keep you under threat, I agree. Though one thing I don't miss at all is rogue barbarians just casually strolling into cities you forgot to garrison and destroying them on the same turn. I never understood how it took 3 "wacks" to destroy cottages but a city of millions could instantly leveled by one leftover barbarian with a club.

 

[Esperr]

Civ IV is the perfect form of I,II and III.

Civ V and VI are like a new series.

I still think IV its the best by miles. VI is fine, i play it a lot to.

I would really love it if they would remake IV with a better UI and some of the concepts of VI.

 

[Morningcalm]

IV did keep you under threat, I agree. Though one thing I don't miss at all is rogue barbarians just casually strolling into cities you forgot to garrison and destroying them on the same turn. I never understood how it took 3 "wacks" to destroy cottages but a city of millions could instantly leveled by one leftover barbarian with a club.

Fair enough--I do think V's hexes and innate city defenses were a step up from IV. However for IV I did like how barbarians made their own cities and conquering them became quite important in some early phases of the game. But also Civ IV's AI is so much scarier than anything VI Deity can hurl at you, so that adds some realism and drama to IV that is lacking in VI.

Re: the cottages, they were so important in IV because they grew after being worked for multiple turns--cottages that were destroyed were devastating in IV, whereas in VI even ransacked districts can simply be repaired and fully functional in a few turns. IV did better at simulating the costs of war.

 

[Duuk]

I have to throw one more thing in there about Civ 6 vs Civ 4. One of the biggest differences is that back in Civ 4 the differences between each civ were fairly minimal. To the point where each civ just had a copy of a trait that was shared with a bunch of other leaders. It was fine for what it was... in fact, those "shared traits" might be a cool addition for Civ 6, alongside the rest of the bonuses and penalties. But, it also made the game much more repetitive and predictable. Financial trait was Financial trait. There was nothing like Kongo. Or Arabia. Or anything really outside of the 8 or so traits. And the "Spiritual" trait IMO was just annoying by encouraging constant policy swapping that later civ games eliminated.

Also, FWIW, it wasn't until the first expansion pack that the concept of unique buildings came about. In Civ 4 Vanilla we just had different units, so the differences between civs were even smaller.

Civ 4 is still a fantastic game, and there's stuff from it I hope will inspire future civ games. But there's also just less content there overall. I do wish some parts of Civ 6 were more like 4, but I'm also grateful the game evolved.

See, I think the "shared traits" made it MORE friendly and fun.

Right now, when a new civ comes out, the first thing everyone does it try to figure out what Cool New Whizbang the civ has to have, and with each civ it has to be shiny and new, so that each civ has gotten progressively "Differently overpowered" for lack of a better word, to the point that some original release civs (lookin' at you here @Victoria ) are massively underpowered. In Civ4, you had a set of base traits, a unique building that usually made a minor bonus or two, a unique unit that (except for Rome) wasn't massively overpowered, and you ran with it.

Imagine if Civ6's "slate" was less "What way will each civ break all of the rules?! OMG! !!! 111 !!!" and instead was:

Each civ will have a Unique District ability that: Culture Bombs, Grants access to a building 2 eras early (and priced for the new era), or adds a bonus trade route.

Each civ will have a Unique Unit that: Grants gold, culture, or science from victories, Is 2 eras early (and priced for the new era), or has a ranged or bombard attack but can still capture cities. (Bonus: does not require resources if the unit it replaces would otherwise require them).

That might LOOK boring, but that's a (civ6 modified) version of how civ4 worked, and let me translate it for you and show you the balance:

Shaka has Ilkanda, a unique district encampment that grants access to armories early (complete with their ability to build armies/corps!) and the armory is priced based on the economies of the current era. His UU is the impi, which (lets say) replaces pikemen and grants science for military victories. Dude builds 1 campus to get going and then rolls with impi armies and prays he wins a domination victory before anyone can build infantry.

Using those EXACT SAME cookie cutter rules, you can build every single civ in the game, without needing to build 8000 permutations of rules.

The best part? You just allowed a set of rules modders can kick out modded civs by the dozen with (Civ4 was ridiculously easy to mod)