Civ4 Lovers/Civ5 Haters Thoughts on Civ6

[polypheus]

- Middle ground between stacks of doom and 1UPT = WIN

We'll have to see how it works out. I am trying to be hopeful but the more I read about it the more it sounds like a tweak to 1UPT rather than being a true middle ground. That being the case, I don't know if Civ6 will solve the issues of 1UPT that were deal breakers for Civ5 haters. We'll see.

Personally if the tweaks don't solve the major problems people had with 1UPT in Civ5, then its probably a deal breaker.

- More focus in roleplaying and realism rather than "play to win" (AI personalities) and gamification concepts such as global happiness = WIN

The new diplomacy could be promising. A lot of people who enjoyed Civ4 hated Civ5 vanilla's opaque diplomacy model where all AIs were made to act like MP humans and be all aggressive and backstabbing all the time.

I am a history builder and that kind of AI behavior just completely ruins any kind of historical immersion. Civ4 mostly got that right. We'll see if Civ6 at least gets it as right as Civ6 if not improves on it.

 

[Callonia]

I liked civ4, I also liked civ5.

Pros of Civ4:
- Its city maintenance model is pretty good.
- Presence of Canals.
- Empires was empires.
- Have Slavery.
- Can plant forest!!!!!!!!
- Conscription. I miss conscription.

Cons of Civ4:
- Doomstacks.
- Suicidal Artillery.
- Roads/railroads in every single tile.

- Can conquer entire continent in a single turn if you have enough units thanks to railroads. (Pulled it off several times.) I consider it an brutal version of old Civ3's Right of Passage Rape. Just wait until railroads is up and you can do it.

I remember having obscene amount of doomstacks garrisoning my cities + watching the surrounding land + interior guards. Cities was usually on permanent production of units to achieve that. And then there was that good old hilarious conscription wave of mechanized infantry. Uh, actually i'm not really sure if civ4 had conscription or not, been too long for me.

I just found doomstack wars quite tiresome to be honest. Suicide your artillery onto the target, click onto the doomstack and forget until its done. Made wars very impersonal for me. I have never renamed a unit until Civ5 happened.

Pros of Civ5:
- City fights back!

- A single weakling barbarian warrior with 1 dude in it cannot raze a metropolis of few million in modern age anymore. Unless they was carrying nukes.

- Easy to become attached to a experienced unit, makes their deaths all more painful.

- Civ5 Gods n Kings Hiawatha has the honor of being the only AI that waged a successful naval battle that discouraged me from attempting to conquer him and called for a truce. (Hundreds of ships got sunk in process. Both sides. Took 3 or 4 hours.) Made me consider bringing nukes to the fight.

- No doomstacks. Carpet of doom made maneuvering quite important. Static front here, invade somewhere else to make your opponent feel the pain as the carpet of doom is tied or divided up for you to chew. Made wars more interesting and thoughtful instead of fire and forget.

- Artillery is not suicidal here.
- Made me explore XML.

- AI doesn't kiss your shoes. I like it when they try to fight and prevent you from achieving victory too easily. Opaque AI is very good. Subservient AI is boring. Super friends that has been friends with me since the dawn of time decide to fight me sometimes, and other times they are happy to watch me win peacefully because they decide they like me that much.



Cons of Civ5:
- Happiness system. My autocratic people is rioting in the streets because I just conquered evil Order civilization. They might be hippies in disguise. I suspect.

- I have used nukes as happiness bombs more than as a weapon of destruction. Explode the nukes in my cities and my civilization becomes happier and triggers a golden age!

- Happiness system forced me to learn xml and turn it off for gods n kings to bring back the extinct empires and have awesome wars.

- Disgusting 4 city empires being forced onto me.

- Cannot replant/grow forests.
- Cannot build canals.
- Lack of Sea fortresses.
- No Slavery.
- No Conscription.

- Culture AIs being stupid and not build military even when I threatened them with death after they almost dominated me in culture. So I invade and burn down their great works easily and save myself.

- Great empires is extinct.

Laziness of Firaxis Evidence:

- When you have rebels spawn. They are labeled as Barbarians instead of Rebels. Come on, its just a name change!

- Say, an Autocracy civilization has rebels spawn because of Order civilization dominating it in tourism? It should spawn Order rebels, not barbarians! I paid fifty dollars! At least finish the job!

- Cities is invincible to barbarians.

- Barbarians cannot conquer cities and raze them, or capture. They only pillage for fixed amount of gold, 200 something.

- The only time barbarians successful at pillaging a single city of mine, it was in Fall of Rome scenario where it spawns an army of barbarians at an city with no walls far away from my troops. lol That's it, barbarians has tried for years and years to pillage my cities, and that is their only single success in civ5. Clearly this needs rework.

Well, I think that's it.

 

[Thormodr]

We'll have to see how it works out. I am trying to be hopeful but the more I read about it the more it sounds like a tweak to 1UPT rather than being a true middle ground. That being the case, I don't know if Civ6 will solve the issues of 1UPT that were deal breakers for Civ5 haters. We'll see.

Personally if the tweaks don't solve the major problems people had with 1UPT in Civ5, then its probably a deal breaker.



The new diplomacy could be promising. A lot of people who enjoyed Civ4 hated Civ5 vanilla's opaque diplomacy model where all AIs were made to act like MP humans and be all aggressive and backstabbing all the time.

I am a history builder and that kind of AI behavior just completely ruins any kind of historical immersion. Civ4 mostly got that right. We'll see if Civ6 at least gets it as right as Civ6 if not improves on it.

We'll see how a modified 1UPT works out.

At least there won't be workers gumming up the works with traffic jams. Builders will certainly be less numerous, I would think. Plus, civilian units will be able to stack in some instances. Support units can stack so hopefully all this will add up to no carpets of doom.

How production and yields will be affected is another matter. Not sure on that yet.

I would much rather Ed Beach have gone much farther in getting rid of the terrible 1UPT and have had small stacks/armies but I remain hopeful that it will work. Wait and see, I guess.

 

[polypheus]

One thing that I should mention is that I don't just play vanilla Civ4:BTS. I only play w/historically immersive mods. One of my favorites is Legends of Revolution (LoR).

I won't list all the features of LoR but here are some key ones:

- Revolutions: Cities that become disenchanted with their empire's rule for various reasons (religious, economic, distance from your capitol -effected by communication technologies and trade networks) can rebel; spawning new civilizations and bringing about civil wars.

- Barbarian Civ: Barbarian cities that develop high culture or get large may settle down, spawning entire new civilizations.

- Start as Minor Tribes: Simulates the chaos of early history. All civs are treated by the game as barbarian (Unit color, flags and borders still show, you are aware of who is around you, they just cannot be peacefully interacted with) until they discover the technology of Writing, and may engage in diplomacy with other civilizations that have discovered writing.

These are not the only features but are what I consider core features for experiencing full historical immersion. I'm pretty sure vanilla Civ6 won't include them but it really should for people that want the most historically immersive play possible.

There are other ones too such as "Rise of Mankind" and "Invictus Realism" that I like as well.

I'll say this. If a modder can someday write a version of LoR for Civ6 that blows away Civ4:BTS w/LoR, that is when I know Civ6 is better than Civ4 and is even more historically immersive. Until then, Civ4:BTS w/LoR is still on top for me.

 

[Wulf38]

As a Civ 4 preferring player, what I've seen of Civ 6 so far looks pretty good.

The removal of global happiness alone is enough to get me pretty excited. That was the biggest factor that prevented Civ 5 from taking over as my favorite Civ game. Hopefully whatever expansion limiting mechanic they introduce will be as well balanced as Civ 4's city maintenance.

I like that they're bringing back at least some limited form of stacking. We'll once again be able to make some decisions about how much to spatially concentrate our forces, and turning support units like anti-tanks into attachments could make them actually useful.

The new government system looks great too. Looks like we'll get back the flexibility that was lost in the transition from civics to social policies.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

My three biggest complaints about Civ V were 1) way, way too harsh disincentives for expansion, 2) 1UPT (a total disaster because it asked way too much of the AI), and 3) too much economic simplification compared to Civ IV. I don't think any of these issues affect casual players at all, but between them they meant that high-level play was neither as challenging nor as fun as it was in Civ IV.

As for whether Civ VI will fix them... we just really don't know. Global happiness is gone, which is a great (unlike 1UPT, a decent idea done poorly, global happiness was a just a flat-out terrible idea). But for all we know they'll keep massive culture/science penalties per city.

As for 1UPT, we know they basically kept it, with a few tweaks to alleviate some traffic jams. It's still possible, though, that they'll do a better job with the combat AI this time. They certainly can't do worse. I'm not expecting miracles, but maybe the AI will be able to move and shoot with ranged units this time.

Economically, again, we'll have to see. But I'm intrigued by the culture tree paralleling the tech tree. That might allow for many distinct, viable strategies of empire development.

 

[nzcamel]

I should probably elaborate a bit on what I mean by "historical immersion".

Although I have played MP, I am primarily a SP. I play on the largest maps possible with the most Civs possible with the most turns possible. What I am trying to do is not just build a civ to win the game, I am trying to build history on an alternate but Earth-like world from dawn of history to our modern age. So I want that historical development in the game to feel somewhat real and compelling. That is what appeals to me about playing Civ!

In building history, I want the game to progress and flow in a way that makes sense historically even if all the details and mechanics, when examined closely might be gamey and not be totally realistic. So what I mean is immersion in the "big picture" not in the details. Think about ASCII art. Look closely and you just see a bunch of gibberish but zoom out and you can sort of see the image of a person. Both Civ4 and Civ5 mechanics are like ASCII characters and flawed and unrealistic when viewed closely. But when zoomed out Civ4 has a vague semblance of a picture of historical immersion but Civ5 still looks like gibberish.

For example, let's consider 1UPT vs SoD:
If you look at each mechanic on its own, neither is more realistic than the other and one can argue for either. In fact you may even argue 1UPT is more "realistic" and "immersive". However you have to look at the mechanic in view of the overall game not just in isolation!

The way I play and view the game, 1UPT simply breaks down for me. The whole game is trying to force tactical level combat on a map that is too small for it to work even on the largest maps. So you are forced to maneuver and shuffle individual units on a world map, deal with constant congestion and fight one at a time on a scale that just doesn't make sense. Now all warfare becomes replays of Battle of Thermopylae on world map scales and a human can defeat far bigger armies over and over again just by channeling the enemy and picking them off one a time with ranged forces. And it leads to all sorts of other game breaking issues relating to having to nerf production and expansion to limit Carpets of Doom. For someone like me playing on world maps trying to "simulate" alt-world history, 1UPT just doesn't work for me.

Of course SoD has its own flaws and issues. But from a strategic-level POV and overall immersion, it fit much better to model warfare on a global strategic level. So here is an issue of when viewed in isolation 1UPT is better than SoD but when you zoom out, SoD better fits the historical immersion picture. People say to me that "suicide catapults" ruin immersion and I won't disagree. It was a gamey SoD balancer. But SoD with suicide catapults still is more immersive on the world scale than 1UPT with all its attendant issues.

In Post#33, Communisto explains best the issue in terms of diplomacy and expansion in terms of creating that historical immersion feel.


This gets to the heart of the matter. From the POV of an abstract board game, the Civ5 AI feel like they are just acting like human players would in just trying to "win the game". But when I play SP, I want to feel like I am a nation with relationships with other nations that makes historical sense. Civ4's diplomacy with its modifiers gave me that feel. Civ5 basically threw all that out in favor of making the AIs become like human MP style and all trying to "win" or "prevent human from winning". But while some people might find that more "challenging" overall it breaks historical immersion.



Couldn't agree more with the above sentiment!


Bottom line is I am considering the big picture of the game not the mechanics in isolation. And how they all fit together to make the game flow and feel like I am "building history". The way a Civ4 or even Civ3 game unfolds from beginning to end feels vaguely like history unfolding on an alt-world. The way a Civ5 game unfolds doesn't feel that way at all. I hope others can chime in and respond if they know what I mean because I can't explain it any better.

I think you've summed up my point of view too.
I play on the biggest maps possible with as many turns possible. I want to experience history writ large!
And 1UPT is tactical level, where the rest of the game is pretty much strategic.

I'm willing for them to try things out though.

Clearly the real world is not a game. There doesn't have to be only one winner; so a country isn't going to attack a more successful one just cos of they are more successful. I guess I do like that about IV. The relationships you build with long term allies feel pretty genuine.
But I get why some would say, well what's the point from a competitive standpoint.

I am torn between the historian, and the gamer.

 

[nzcamel]

Actually, conquest can bring instability and unhappiness. That was a major factor in the Roman Republic turning into an Empire. People aren't sad at the victories, of course. They can be upset by:
1. The need for soldiers to stay for long periods away from home, subjecting other people rather than tending their fields and protecting their homes will make people wonder what are they fighting for. It might be well if they get good salaries or enough loot.
2. Such empires tend to be less uniform in culture, religion, wealth distribution which may cause all sorts of problems.

Sure, but not as much as when it's your ass being handed to you on a plate by your enemies.
Smaller conquests (esp in first half of game) should bring happiness to your country, not anger.

I completely agree that suicide catapults are very gamey. But it was obviously necessary for balance. I try to rationalize it as my catapults represent not just catapults but consumable "supply lines" but bottom line is it is very gamey.

The point I made above though is which of the two mechanics overall fits better in a game meant to simulate world history on a planet-wide scale? For all the gamey-ness of SoD and suicide catapults, its still fits a lot better than 1UPT in terms of overall historic immersion. IOW, 1UPT is much more "gamey" than SoD when viewed from the POV of the style of game I play. That is a game meant to simulate an entire planet from beginning to end of history rather than one part of the planet and one point in history with games like Panzer General or Axis and Allies.

The real answer wasn't 1UPT as an antidote to SoD. The real answer is improving on SoD and coming up with some other mechanic.

John Schafer, Civ5 designer, himself even admitted all this about 1UPT!



So Schafer himself sums up all the issues of 1UPT. So it is a disappointment that rather that fix it, it seems Ed Beach is keeping it. I'm not saying he needs to go back to SoD but tweaking 1UPT doesn't fundamentally fix the issue. Beach recognized the issue of global happiness and ditched it. I wish he would have ditched 1UPT or heavily modified it but it sounds like he just tweaked it.

Can't agree more.

My three biggest complaints about Civ V were 1) way, way too harsh disincentives for expansion, 2) 1UPT (a total disaster because it asked way too much of the AI), and 3) too much economic simplification compared to Civ IV. I don't think any of these issues affect casual players at all, but between them they meant that high-level play was neither as challenging nor as fun as it was in Civ IV.

I forgot to mention economics. I'm glad you added it.
Sorry about all these quotes just to agree with people. We need a like button here!

Moderator Action: Merged three posts. Don't need a like button, please use the "multi" quote button in the lower right hand corner.

 

[_hero_]

Firstly, I am very heartened to hear that Civ6 is getting rid of one of the horrible concept of global happiness back to city happiness of Civ4.

This one was huge for me too. Global happiness and just the general overemphasis on tall empires rather than wide was my least favorite aspect of Civ 5.

It also seems that Civ6 is trying to find some middle ground between stacks of doom vs carpets of doom. Whether it works or not, we'll see. I can tell you that I hated 1UPT and the carpets of doom and making Civ5 function on a tactical level on world sized maps was just something I could never get into!

Stacks of doom and 1UPT both always sucked IMO. I think the Civ 6 setup is a step in the right direction, though I personally wish they'd replace the concept of units and health with army population.

although I still am not crazy about CS in general

This seems odd coming from someone who claims to want historical immersion. Minor nations having a small yet not insignificant impact on the world and global politics is something that was severely lacking in Civ 1-4.

Where I think Civ6 might fall short is in trade and diplomacy. Civ6 diplomacy was horrible and extremely historically immersion "breaking" as all the AIs basically were acting way too "gamey". Civ6 seems to try to improve that but will it do it enough for us Civ4ers?

Civ 4's diplomacy was something that I always felt was gamey and immersion breaking. In fact, diplomacy in every Civ game has felt that way to me. That said, Civ 5's was especially bad IMO, although I think removing tech trading/brokering was one positive that it had over Civ 4.

I think ultimately though, Civ6 really sounds more live Civ5.5 to me. I don't think I'll hate it as much as I did Civ5. But will a Civ4 lover like me ever feel like it is a step up from Civ4? I'm very skeptical.

Probably not. Sometimes you find the perfect game and nothing is ever going to top that. I think that if you're looking for new versions to be "steps up" you're taking the wrong approach. New versions are meant to be unique twists. They are meant to keep the franchise fresh. Expansions and patches are for stepping up. Maybe you'd be fine playing Civ 4 for 20 years with minor tweaks every once in a while, but personally I'd rather have a new gameplay experience periodically. The measure for me isn't "is it better than Civ 4?" but "is it fun? has it made Civ fun and exciting for me again?"

 

[Chinese American]

The decision to go 1UPT seems amateur mistake. Just copying features from other games without understanding why it was done in the first place, and how those other games made it work. one difference is other 1UPT tactical games units usually have between 4 to 9 moves, not a tedious 2-4 moves. Moerover is the smaller maps to confine the units. They arent taking 50 turns to move across an entire map. That would be boring and pointless as hell.

 

[isau]

Smaller conquests (esp in first half of game) should bring happiness to your country, not anger.

"Happiness" was probably just a bad name for it. What it means in practice is more like "Order" or "Control." Happiness is factor in that (you can distract the populace with bread and circuses, as they say) but not all of it.

Even if "global happiness" is gone, there will be some system to keep ICS from being too effective. I do think the Global Happiness system didn't pan out entirely. However, this is not because such a system can't work. They didn't do enough tuning to it to make it viable, and it became much too punishing. This is at least partly the fault of the map scripts and the way Luxuries work as much as anything else, because even finding a location on the map worth settling often made it not worth the effort. This, on top of the myriad other penalties wide empires suffered made them less worth it.

But with mods, it works fine. The concept of an empire-limiting mechanic is a good one, and no doubt there will be something in Civ VI that achieves the same effects, even if it is not called "Global Happiness." And with the right tuning so that you didn't come up bust on Happiness so easily, totally could have worked in Civ V. So too could the idea of "tall versus wide," had the Policy trees been done differently (one of the easiest fixes when modding for example is to change the one policy in Liberty so that the cost of each city is lower. Do this to a few Policies scattered about and bam--wide empires are now competitive with tall ones).

More than anything though, they just didn't invest enough in fine tuning the final version of the game. A game this complicated really needs multiple balance passes after release.

EDIT: Also worth noting, by the time BNW came out, the team really needed to have killed off or significantly changed the National College. That single National Wonder has a strangehold on Civ V that no single building or improvement should. All of the gameplay revolves around obtaining it--was seriously disappointed that that was never addressed.

 

[master__jj]

This seems odd coming from someone who claims to want historical immersion. Minor nations having a small yet not insignificant impact on the world and global politics is something that was severely lacking in Civ 1-4.

you are right that minor nations had a significant impact on history. After all, that's how Carthage and Rome started. But in CiV, these city states never get a faire chance. They just exist without a real future. They can't expand, even if there's are plenty fertile lands around them. It's this restriction that turns me off. In Civ 4, CS did not exist, but at the end of the game, you had smaller nations that had organically grown (due to lack of space, wars,...)

 

[Pepo]

I think that covers 6 will probably sucks for me. Why? Because they aren't taking any risk. Instead of trying to make a new game that fixed the real problems with Civ(combat, diplo, lack of an interconnect world were research spread, combat) they are making Civ 5.1. Why take risk when the predecessor was a huge success?. Although the real question is why they didn't do that with Civ IV and Civ V

 

[polypheus]

Even if "global happiness" is gone, there will be some system to keep ICS from being too effective. I do think the Global Happiness system didn't pan out entirely. However, this is not because such a system can't work. They didn't do enough tuning to it to make it viable, and it became much too punishing...

The concept of an empire-limiting mechanic is a good one, and no doubt there will be something in Civ VI that achieves the same effects, even if it is not called "Global Happiness."

Right but Civ4 already had a great system of combating ICS. It was called local happiness and per city maintenance. If you expanded too quickly too soon, you'd have all of these small pop cities that weren't developed enough to provide the income and happiness needed and your development would severely stall. So ICS style expansion was severely curtailed. You had to grow tall and wide at the same time and thus expansion was natural and balanced.

It was a great mechanic and very historical and realistic too in a broad way.

Civ5 changed to a completely different mechanic that was inferior. That is what is so infuriating. If Civ5 developers had come up with a completely different mechanic but that was at least as good as Civ4, I'd be okay with it. But they made a change for the worse! Changes in Civ should be either an improvement or at least to be different but just as good!

 

[Socrates99]

I think that covers 6 will probably sucks for me. Why? Because they aren't taking any risk. Instead of trying to make a new game that fixed the real problems with Civ(combat, diplo, lack of an interconnect world were research spread, combat) they are making Civ 5.1. Why take risk when the predecessor was a huge success?. Although the real question is why they didn't do that with Civ IV and Civ V

There are a lot of rather large changes in VI. From the looks of it they will be every bit as game changing this time around as well. Have you not been following the news?

 

[isau]

Right but Civ4 already had a great system of combating ICS. It was called local happiness and per city maintenance. If you expanded too quickly too soon, you'd have all of these small pop cities that weren't developed enough to provide the income and happiness needed and your development would severely stall. So ICS style expansion was severely curtailed. You had to grow tall and wide at the same time and thus expansion was natural and balanced.

It was a great mechanic and very historical and realistic too in a broad way.

Civ5 changed to a completely different mechanic that was inferior. That is what is so infuriating. If Civ5 developers had come up with a completely different mechanic but that was at least as good as Civ4, I'd be okay with it. But they made a change for the worse! Changes in Civ should be either an improvement or at least to be different but just as good!

The Civ IV system was simply better tuned. Without proper tuning it could have been as punishing as Civ V's. There's nothing inherently broken about a global happiness mechanic, its just a problem when its not balanced properly. They thought religion was going to cover it and overestimated what luxuries could do. They also didn't account for the squash effect caused by the National College.

IMO just removing the National College from the game entirely makes it much more enjoyable (and also harder). You still need to adjust the penalties for going wide, but since the player is no longer forced to stay small to get the College there is more freedom. Also the AI's lack of knowledge that the college is the essential route to victory no longer makes it so easy to catch up to them. I'm surprised that comments about the NC aren't more common--it is for me the single most broken thing in Civ V. All strategies revolve around it.

 

[Magil]

The Civ IV system was simply better tuned. Without proper tuning it could have been as punishing as Civ V's. There's nothing inherently broken about a global happiness mechanic, its just a problem when its not balanced properly. They thought religion was going to cover it and overestimated what luxuries could do. They also didn't account for the squash effect caused by the National College.

IMO just removing the National College from the game entirely makes it much more enjoyable (and also harder). You still need to adjust the penalties for going wide, but since the player is no longer forced to stay small to get the College there is more freedom. Also the AI's lack of knowledge that the college is the essential route to victory no longer makes it so easy to catch up to them. I'm surprised that comments about the NC aren't more common--it is for me the single most broken thing in Civ V. All strategies revolve around it.

I don't know, I think the very same mechanic constraining both growth and expansion is a bad idea, because it's very likely you'll have to almost totally give up one to push the other to its fullest extent. It'd be like if for each science building you built, you could build 1 less culture building in the city. Early on in Civ V, people would expand like crazy and turn off growth in every city once it could work 4-6 tiles, because that was the best way to do it. In BNW, it's rush out to 4 cities and then grow them without expanding, opposite effect.

In IV, maintenance costs didn't affect and were not affected very much by city population, it was mostly new cities that maintenance controlled. We don't actually know VI's mechanic for restraining expansion yet, but growth seems to be controlled by amenities, housing, and food. Hopefully it's not those things which limit your expansion too.

 

[MkLh]

The Civ IV system was simply better tuned. Without proper tuning it could have been as punishing as Civ V's. There's nothing inherently broken about a global happiness mechanic, its just a problem when its not balanced properly. They thought religion was going to cover it and overestimated what luxuries could do. They also didn't account for the squash effect caused by the National College.

The maintenance system with a slider gives you a much better tuning precision than GH points. I don't know if GH was inherently broken (although they never fully succeeded in repairing it), but it was vastly inferior mechanism to the city and civic maintenance cost of IV.

 

[nzcamel]

Sorry about all these quotes just to agree with people. We need a like button here!

Moderator Action: Merged three posts. Don't need a like button, please use the "multi" quote button in the lower right hand corner.

You'll see me use a multiquote earlier in this thread.
But it was late at night, I was on my phone, not my pc, and I wasn't paying close attention to what I wanted to quote.

Under those circumstances; can I edit a quote to turn it into a multiquote?
Other sites (other than facebook) have a 'like' type button that works well. I still think one would save a bit of needless quoting.

 

[JeszKar]

I don't know it ever been mentioned but I think the reason why I find CIV4 better than V because in V they started to focus on the micro scale instead of the macro. A good example is the battle system. The 1UPT is good for a war-game but not really for a 4x game. If the game would have a different map for the battles and a different map for the world than it might would work. But the CIV 5 system was not immersive and not practical (not to mention the AI couldn't handle it).

Actually I fear the the district-system will be the same. For me it feels like a generic RTS where you build the building manually. And I wouldn't find it immersive either. Technically there are city districts in real life but they created within the city borders not miles and miles away from the cities.