Civ4 lovers/civ5 haters, thoughts on civ6?

[TheMeInTeam]

Overall a good summary here. I'm not a power user, so I'd say I'm probably slightly more than mildly irritated by the UI, but could certainly understand how it could infuriate people. I have to continuously mentally run the numbers in my head to figure out which cards to slot in (Ok, so I have 3 campuses with decent adjacency, so the double adjacency card is probably about +8 science. But I'm still building one settler, so how many hammers did that city get again? Oh, but I just unlocked the campus building bonus card, so which of those campuses were +3 or higher again? And then usually I just pick something and 3 turns later realize that I forgot to put the builder card back in, or that I didn't actually choose the card I wanted but had exited out of that menu and forgot to go back in...)

The problem is that it doesn't stop there.

• What's your amenity situation when trading for them? Can't see.
• For that matter, there's a number of decisions to be made in diplomacy contingent on information > 5 inputs away from having the trade screen up again.
• But not to stop there, simply figuring out what is acceptable in a peace deal requires trial and error spam sometimes.
  
• City has built all the buildings you're going to want for the next 20 turns, and you don't want units/wonders there. Queue units? Loop projects? Build wealth? ANYTHING to stop constant reprompting from this city 5x over the next 20 turns, multiplied by the 20 cities you have so that you're not getting hundreds of unnecessary prompts under a competent UI? LOL NO
• You're moving your units from one side of empire to the other. You right click each of them into their correct place, no double-orders onto same hex. You will then re-issue these orders several times as they collide into each other and the game can't handle it.
  
• Want to focus stuff in cities giving highest yield? Do it right from the ledger, after sorting by yield. Haha just kidding! That Civ 4 feature is too much to include in a game made over a decade later.
• For that matter, so are basic niceties like clicking on a city once and adding to queue with simple shift or control clicks.
• We now interrupt this IBT to spam you with a non-choice dialogue message. Just want to make sure you're paying attention while the AI plays its turn (complete with off-screen animations).
• Want to know how much WW you have and how much next action will give? Too bad, unless you look in the save file or ask a forum poster.
• You can't build X unit, because you lack the resource. You can't build Y unit, because:

The inaccessibility of information, hiding rules, and gouging of inputs far beyond what is necessary to do the exact same actions in game range from "poor job" to "pathetic for any purportedly AAA title" to "I know one man dev teams that do this better". It's really impressive just how bad it is. Civ 6 has actually managed to be more worse with its UI than some of the Paradox games, despite that those also have lying UI and 1000's more inputs than necessary.

Many of these are low hanging fruit fixes. In contrast with, say, making a solid AI that keeps up with good play using minimal bonuses...other games actually do manage competent or even good UIs. CQUI doesn't make the Civ 6 UI good, but despite limited tools at its disposal it's a marked improvement over the base game. Along with other games doing it much, much better this tells me that Firaxis is both aware of these issues and is fine with grossly underallocating resources towards end user experience and has done so for years. Along with Paradox's choice to do the same thing, I hold this choice by project management/design team in disdain.

Maybe the end game wouldn't be so slow paced if it didn't have > 2 hours of rote inputs baked into it. On maps larger than small, that's an underestimation of the time sink from this junk.

 

[ShakaKhan]

Overall a good summary here. I'm not a power user, so I'd say I'm probably slightly more than mildly irritated by the UI, but could certainly understand how it could infuriate people. I have to continuously mentally run the numbers in my head to figure out which cards to slot in (Ok, so I have 3 campuses with decent adjacency, so the double adjacency card is probably about +8 science. But I'm still building one settler, so how many hammers did that city get again? Oh, but I just unlocked the campus building bonus card, so which of those campuses were +3 or higher again? And then usually I just pick something and 3 turns later realize that I forgot to put the builder card back in, or that I didn't actually choose the card I wanted but had exited out of that menu and forgot to go back in...)

Despite what I said earlier about my love (more like compulsion) to micromanage, I'm actually OK with the policy card min/maxing that you and TMIT mentioned. Sure, I sometimes have an obsessive twitch about whether I'll get more out of an adjacency card or a buildings card, but if it's close enough that I'd need to do the math, it means that I'd get a pretty decent bonus either way and just pick one. The AI is poor at development/progression at deity and I can always slingshot ahead of them if I use these bonuses with proficient but not necessarily optimal planning.

My problem with the policy card setup is the "one and done" cards that you can use for a single cycle (i.e. until you hit the next opportunity to change the cards) and then be done with them. Most notorious is the pro army upgrades, but there are several others as well:

Professional Army: save up some cash, pick an outdated civic to research that will take you one turn to complete, upgrade all units and switch back.
Colonization: switch to this policy after beating up your nearest neighbor, switch production in all cities to settler, double the size of your empire.
Serfdom: pre-build a builder in all cities until one turn remains, switch to something else. When many (or all) of your cities are there, switch to this, then switch back.
Public Transport: select this policy, pick a site in each city for a neighborhood (don't even need to finish), switch back. Gain 50g X your number of cities.
Land Surveyors: save up some cash, pick an outdated civic to research that you can complete in one turn, buy all the tiles in all cities that help you, switch back.
Veterancy: when a new encampment building becomes available, switch production in all your cities (with an encampment) to it, then remove the card when complete.
Limes: same as above, now that walls provide tourism, this can be a powerful tourism boost for wider empires.

Using these tactics are very powerful, but make you feel that, to some degree, you're cheating the system. Particularly the Colonization trick- just about every game, I found my capital, build one settler for a second city, beat up my nearest neighbor for my 3rd to 5th city, and then (once the new cities are developed a little) expand to 10 cities before turn 80 or so.

 

[acluewithout]

The cards you can slot in and out for one turn do feel a bit silly.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Using these tactics are very powerful, but make you feel that, to some degree, you're cheating the system. Particularly the Colonization trick- just about every game, I found my capital, build one settler for a second city, beat up my nearest neighbor for my 3rd to 5th city, and then (once the new cities are developed a little) expand to 10 cities before turn 80 or so.

They're all but made for this purpose. The better you can time your ability to switch cards while also setting up the requisite resources or situation to use them, the less time you spend running these cards over alternatives that give consistent bonuses. It's a design incentive to make players think about when to switch, an extra thing to consider with a substantial reward if timed well.

In contrast to not knowing whether you're getting +10 science or +27 science from the policy card without exiting the screen and manually looking at each campus you own, cards made to be temporary are workable design and force players to plan around several things in tandem. The former is a major QoL inadequacy with zero decision point difference between current implementation and a competent UI. The latter boosts your output from effective micro. Big difference.

You can make a case that the cards aren't balanced too well, and I'd agree (and make a similar case for unit type and upgrade progression), but the CONCEPT of these temporary cards is actually pretty solid.

 

[UWHabs]

They're all but made for this purpose. The better you can time your ability to switch cards while also setting up the requisite resources or situation to use them, the less time you spend running these cards over alternatives that give consistent bonuses. It's a design incentive to make players think about when to switch, an extra thing to consider with a substantial reward if timed well.

In contrast to not knowing whether you're getting +10 science or +27 science from the policy card without exiting the screen and manually looking at each campus you own, cards made to be temporary are workable design and force players to plan around several things in tandem. The former is a major QoL inadequacy with zero decision point difference between current implementation and a competent UI. The latter boosts your output from effective micro. Big difference.

You can make a case that the cards aren't balanced too well, and I'd agree (and make a similar case for unit type and upgrade progression), but the CONCEPT of these temporary cards is actually pretty solid.

Certain cards are just too unbalanced for single-turn yields. Colonization, for example, I have no problem with. Because settlers do take time to build, and if I'm seriously taking a 10-turn break in all my cities to build a settler, that's a perfect time to "slot in" a card to help me in that quest.

Professional army or Public Transport, though, make no sense. I just realized now that I screwed up in my current game - I should have bought a builder (with the golden age bonus, would be ~500g), planted a farm for 1 charge, switched to public transport, and then planted my neighbourhood for 600g (remember - they doubled that bonus), and still had 2-5 charges left on my builder (depending on what other cards were in play at the time). I mean, I'm actually stupidly going to try building this neighbourhood anyways, but you don't even have to finish the neighbourhood to get that money.

But yes, all this stuff is a balance/design decision. It's not like when the AI asks if I want to swap silk for incense, and I have no way to tell if I'm already getting silk from a city-state, or already trading for it from someone else.

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

Building settlers in all your cities is a strategic choice and there is an opportunity cost for doing so (for example you can easily forego this and just pump them out with monementality + Goddess of the Harvest while building up your army for domination). I have no issues with Colonization. I generally find serfdom worth slotting long term or often because you need a constant supply of builders. The one that really bothers me is professional army and they really need to rethink how the upgrade system works and maybe have encampments play a bigger role. Limes and press gangs are both cheesy because of overflow but it's really the latter that's more the issue than the cards themselves. A more pressing issue for me is that there are a lot of policies that I just don't use at all because they are so weak so I would like to see some improved balance here.

I enjoy switching policies and I think the short use cards add some strategic depth. Public transit can go though - that one just seems like an exploit though it does at least give you reason to build neighborhoods.

 

[Zuizgond]

Problem is AI is far too stupid to handle those cards properly and it's a significant factor in AI inability to offer a challenge without huge bonuses.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Problem is AI is far too stupid to handle those cards properly and it's a significant factor in AI inability to offer a challenge without huge bonuses.

Maybe the Deity AI should get the benefit of all of its known cards, at once? That would be one way to ramp up its bonuses gradually over time, rather than front loading them.

Reduce the number of cards at each difficulty level until, at Prince, the AI gets the same number of active cards as the human player.

 

[ZubieMaster]

My answer to the original question goes back to the big picture. To me, the difference between Civ IV and the series starting with Civ V is like the difference between football (or futbol) and golf. Like football, Civ IV was about overcoming a defense to win. It always felt like there were opponents trying to stop you from doing what you wanted, and you needed a game plan, strategy, and execution to overcome their defense and beat them.

Starting with Civ V, however, that defense factor faded. The game became more about what you could build, while your opponents focused on what they could build, and at some point somebody won based on how best they did their own thing -- like how a golfer competes against the course and self to post the best round, but doesn't actually beat an opponent directly.

Civ VI takes that philosophy even further than Civ V, which is why if you play to beat the hapless AI directly it is by far the easiest iteration of the Civ series to beat. But if you enjoy golf and want a walk in the fresh air on a sunny day on the green grass and compete against yourself while enjoying all the nuances of the game -- mixed with moments of wanting to break your club over your knee in frustration -- that's Civ VI.

 

[Disgustipated]

I like Civ 6 a lot better than Civ 5. Even though Civ 5 is easily the more challenging game. While I am not a Civ 5 hater, I eventually ignored the haters and gave the game a chance after expansions, I clearly felt Civ 4 was the better game. Civ 5 too often feels boring to me, but at least the expansions gave more things to do. I can't exactly pin down why I like Civ 6 over 5, but I do. I think a big reason is the district system, unrealistic as it is, makes city development more fun.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I can't exactly pin down why I like Civ 6 over 5, but I do. I think a big reason is the district system, unrealistic as it is, makes city development more fun.

As a Civ 5 lover, I, too, far prefer the city district system in Civ 6. It makes city placement more fun, as well as city development.

 

[Arent11]

Starting with Civ V, however, that defense factor faded. The game became more about what you could build, while your opponents focused on what they could build, and at some point somebody won based on how best they did their own thing -- like how a golfer competes against the course and self to post the best round, but doesn't actually beat an opponent directly.

That's actually a major issue I have with multiplayer/LAN games/cooperative in civ VI. Since I cannot anymore trade tech with my friends, I'm not really playing together with them, but only "alongside" them. There is no meaningful interaction, aside from teaming up for war. In civ IV it was very important to quickly meet your friends & start trading tech to survive, or to gift them a religion so they could get happiness.

 

[lafittejean]

My experience going from Civ IV to V was very jarring missing what felt like basic systems like culture flipping and the initial simplicity of combat (when health was measured in whole number units) kind of threw me off and then the seeming lack of truly crazy overhaul mods over time left me with a dull feeling and kept me returning to Civ IV to play with mods like Fall From Heaven or the Three Kingdoms. Also cool if challenging experiences like Rhyse and Fall. Civ VI seems to have matured V's formula enough that while it has created a new place it feels like it is almost on an even footing with Civ IV in variety in standard gameplay. But I admit I do crave the exotic mods that Civ IV allowed and really hope that VI will see the reappearance of total overhauls that bring the game to strange new places, new junctures in time, and new ways of reinterpeting its rules.

 

[Archon_Wing]

If I were to rate them where, maybe...

Civ 4 = 95
Civ 5 = 65
Civ 6 Vanilla = 60
Civ 6 R&F= 75

5 BNW I actually enjoyed a bit and was pretty impressed by its feature list. Certainly much better than the initial impression of Vanilla. But I dunno, it really doesn't feel like Civ. Tall meta, and nickel and diming you for everything you built including roads, plus those long production times to compensate for 1UPT made the scale seem really small, and I'd say even my Sim City 4 regions felt bigger. 5 I think has a lot of roleplaying value though, given the variety in civs, dynamic leader interactions that are not really existent in 6.

If we're talking about AI and strategic depth, then no, it doesn't come close to 4. Especially distant is the diplomacy which is still very simplistic which is kinda sad since diplomacy in Civ was hardly deep to begin with. But with the addition of a couple of features there's some interesting things to do.

I also have to agree with the notion that the UI is pretty awful. I can finish a game of 4 or 5 in nearly half the time of one in 6, and that definitely is a problem.

But 6 is fun anyways. I like do like the art style, and tile management with districts is a very novel feature that encourages me to care about managing tiles a lot more than in the past. The expansion is a good step in the right direction with loyalty and golden age.

The best thing about 6 is the choice of civs. I think they did a very good job of making each civ a distinct experience, but not so much that you have to learn a different game.

 

[Arent11]

If I were to rate them where, maybe...

Civ 4 = 95
Civ 5 = 65
Civ 6 Vanilla = 60
Civ 6 R&F= 75

That's about my views as well. I'm a diehard civ fan, but if there was a remake of civ IV I would probably prefer that, mainly because I like the civ traits better. Militaristic, scientific, imperialist, protective - it's just way more cool & has much more flavor than the stuff I have right now.

 

[petey]

I was a huge fan of Civ IV, but was seriously underwhelmed by Civ V and dropped the series. Just picked up Civ VI this weekend on the Steam summer sale, since there was no way I was going to bother with the game until after at least a year's worth of patches.

It's clearly a large step up from Civ V, but there seems to be something … missing … from what they made with Civ IV. They seem to have made it overly complex for the sake of having extra complexity instead of because that complexity makes for better gameplay. It's interesting and fun enough that I think it will be worthwhile to go through the learning curve to figure all the new stuff out, but really my main impression is that it makes me wonder when Civ VII will come out because maybe the next iteration will get the magic back.

 

[Arent11]

They seem to have made it overly complex for the sake of having extra complexity instead of because that complexity makes for better gameplay.

I think it's more about being able to have a long list of "features" that can be presented by the PR department. Which is also a reason why independent games are sometimes so much more successful than AAA games. Games like stardew valley, FTL, Shadowrun or Bannersaga are simply more sleek & elegant.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I think it's more about being able to have a long list of "features" that can be presented by the PR department. Which is also a reason why independent games are sometimes so much more successful than AAA games. Games like stardew valley, FTL, Shadowrun or Bannersaga are simply more sleek & elegant.

I'm not so sure it's explicitly PR related, so much as it's a legacy of incremental additions: vanilla game, then add new features to expansion #1, then more new features for expansion #2, now repeat again with a new base vanilla version, new expansion #1, etc.

The end results is a web of interlocking systems that I'm sure the development team has done it's best to try and integrate, but that weren't designed from the ground up with a consistent vision of how they would work together to each contribute to game play, simply because some systems were implemented before other ones had been greenlighted.

I've never been able to properly convey my thoughts on this, but it's a bit like a house after seven rounds of renovations. It may have all the same features, but everything fits together a little awkwardly compared to a new house designed from the foundation up with all those same features in mind.

 

[Arent11]

I've never been able to properly convey my thoughts on this, but it's a bit like a house after seven rounds of renovations. It may have all the same features, but everything fits together a little awkwardly compared to a new house designed from the foundation up with all those same features in mind.

Maybe they also changed how their internal game design worked. Civ 1 surely was designed by Sid Meier only. But today you probably don't have a single mastermind that designs everything, but a team, or even several teams. Maybe you just need an almighty dictator that rules the masses

 

[petey]

Ya, I think that both of those responses sum it up better than how I said it. The development seems to be more focused on dealing with bureaucracy and marketing hype than providing a streamlined gameplay experience.