1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civilization VI isn't a sequel to V; but instead to Civilization IV

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by salty mud, Aug 31, 2020.

  1. salty mud

    salty mud Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,883
    Location:
    die Schweiz
    Full disclaimer: I know Civ VI is a direct sequel to V. However, this thought popped into my head recently and it's made me re-evaluate the way I look at Civ VI. I was always an avid Civ IV player, playing it semi-regularly since it came out in 2005. I tried V, gave it a good old try, but just couldn't manage it. It took the Vox Populi mod to make it even playable for me, and even then, it's the same game underneath the fancy bells and whistles. Global happiness is still sort of present in VP. City States are annoying to deal with, with their influence ticker mechanics and blandness. A major complaint is that the map just isn't as important. Cities will seem to grow and prosper no matter where you put them. What good is an empire building game where you don't even have to plan out your empire?

    I've seen it mentioned a few times that Civilization IV players react more favourably to Civilization VI, whereas Civ V players are generally turned off. As a Civ IV player, I think I fit into this category, and I can see a few reasons why:

    1. City management is more indepth. At least, on the surface, with the continuing debate regarding the effectiveness of amenities. Cities in Civ IV had health and happiness requirements. Fail to meet these and city won't grow and won't work. Civ VI has housing and amenities. Without enough housing, your growth is crippled and without amenities, your tile yields are negatively affected. Compare this to Civ V with its simple, keep-global-happiness-above-0-at-all-times mechanic. Civ VI is clearly influenced by Civ IV in this area.

    2. Playing the map is more important. In Civ IV, city management was key and city specialisation was crucial on higher difficulties. You needed a production city, a floodplain cottage city, a GP farm and so on, and you had to scout and fight for these locations. In Civ V, cities are just generic places on the map. The best place to plop a city was next to a new resource and that was more or less the depth. No matter where I placed a city, I always seemed to get similar growth and production rates. Civ VI's districts demand specialisation. A mountain city is excellent for science. A city with plenty of hills can benefit enormously from mines and an industrial zone. Coastal cities seem to have a use at last.

    3. I see Civ VI's policy cards as a follow-on from Civ VI's civics. Civ V players complain that policy cards don't carry enough meaning as they can be easily changed, whereas Civ VI players complain social policies are too rigid and not representive of "real" government. Civ IV was, in fairness, fairly shallow in this area. There were five categories, each with five choices that could be changed around whenever the player wanted, and some options were clearly better than others. Some players never even left slavery once it was discovered. I feel Civ VI's return to a more flexible style of government is again emulating Civ IV.

    4. Return to a slightly "cartoony" style. Seems people have short memories, but Civilization IV could easily be described as cartoony. Leaderheads were almost caricatures, soldiers held way oversized weaponry and the map, pre-blue marble, was bright and bloomy. Civilization VI again emulates this, but probably takes it an extra step further, I will admit. That said, I like the style, and seem to be in the minority in that I adore the handdrawn map style FOW.

    5. Era by era music :thumbsup: Desperately missing from Civ V, and the soundtrack all around is a huge improvement with memorable jingles and more upbeat music to Civ V's more muted, serious soundtrack. Again, like Civ IV.

    Perhaps I've missed a few reasons. What are your thoughts? Civ VI obviously inherits a lot of feautres from Civ V such as city states, trade routes, 1UPT and so on, but I feel a lot of core design goes back to Civ IV. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
     
    nzcamel, TCBB, Ryansinbela and 7 others like this.
  2. xaiviax

    xaiviax Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    84
    As a huge Civ IV fan, I agree and feel 6 is much closer than 5. I still miss my highly specialized cities, and the graphical differences of worked tiles vs not worked.
     
    Duuk and 8housesofelixir like this.
  3. Noble Zarkon

    Noble Zarkon Elite Quattromaster - Emperor (BTS) Moderator Hall of Fame Staff Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,611
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Gibraltar
    I read the title and thought "no way" but you make a good argument - Civ IV is still my favourite and the game I play the most but I have 1700 hours in Civ VI compared to less than a hundred for Civ V!
     
    salty mud and Haig like this.
  4. salty mud

    salty mud Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,883
    Location:
    die Schweiz
    A further argument I could suggest is the return to wide play. A common complaint leveled at Civ V is that tall play is always the best option. In 99% of games, the best strategy is to plop four cities down, go Tradition, and click end turn until you win. Civ VI flipped this; wide play is now the superior option. Both sides argue their case that the other game "ruined" their favourite style of play, but I don't quite understand the argument. Tall or wide has never really been a choice in Civ. In VI, you go wide. In V, you go tall. Many people seem to forget that also in Civ IV, you had to go wide. City placement mattered, but more often than not, it was better to have an extra city in your empire than not in Civ IV. I would therefore argue this is another way Civ VI emulates IV.
     
  5. Haig

    Haig Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,529
    Location:
    Finland
    So it's like Star Trek where the even numbered ones are good films? ;)
     
    nzcamel, Naeshar, NCC-1701 and 5 others like this.
  6. Myomoto

    Myomoto Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2013
    Messages:
    409
    I would honestly love for VI to become MORE like IV. I go back every now and again, but the graphics and UI have not exactly aged well :undecide:
     
  7. suedenim

    suedenim Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    49
    I do think Civ VI is more of a spiritual successor to Civ IV than it is to V.

    I agree with most of the points made by a player named Sulla in his analysis of Civ V, particularly this one:

    As an aside, it's interesting that Civ VI does, of course, have Dark Ages, but the consensus seems to be that on balance they actually are fun, because the Heroic Age that may follow is a much bigger positive than the Dark Age was a negative.

    Sorry for the long quotes, but for me, Civ VI very much went back on this design decision. For the most part, it feels like you have a lot of interesting decisions between "good" options.

    But while avoiding the worst mistakes of Civ V, Civ VI does a nice job of integrating the good stuff, like having a one-unit-per-tile system that works. I don't think I ever want to go back to stack-of-doom style play.
     
  8. Vandlys

    Vandlys Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    505
    Location:
    New Atlantis
    You mean graphical differences in IV? Because in VI they are present in all improvements. Cows locked in their pastures when worked, vs an open gate and them roaming freely when not worked, mine carts driving back and forth, fires being lit, etc. etc.
     
    Meluhhan, nzcamel, pokiehl and 4 others like this.
  9. cylenalag

    cylenalag Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 11, 2020
    Messages:
    54
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska
    ... Civ VI is the love-child of both Civ IV and V. Sure, it looks closer to IV, because VI got more of IV’s genes. (Yes I know that’s not how it works exactly) :D:D
     
    nzcamel and salty mud like this.
  10. _hero_

    _hero_ King

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    768
    Odd-numbered is when they introduce big philosophical changes and even-numbered is where they fine-tune the ideas.

    Civ I introduced the game.
    Civ II was basically the same game but with everything improved/expanded upon and better balanced.
    Civ III introduced UUs and leader traits and concepts like dedicated worker units and alternate victory conditions besides conquest and space.
    Civ IV made the leader traits for more interesting, the victory conditions more balanced, give workers far more functionality and added features.
    Civ V introduced 1UPT, truly unique game-changing civ traits, city-states, and changed the way city borders/tiles worked.
    Civ VI largely kept most of Civ Vs changes and improved upon them while cleaning up many of the poor design decisions that made many people not like V.

    The way I would put it is Civ VI "looks" more like V but it "feels" more like IV. When I say "looks" I don't mean graphically so much as how the world tends to be painted with fewer, more spread out cities and units all over the place vs the larger number of cities that were closer together in IV and the stacks of units.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2020
  11. Leucarum

    Leucarum King

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2018
    Messages:
    798
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm definitely someone who played 4 to death but just found 5 impenetrable.

    I think there's a lot of truth in the post @suedenim shared and it was definitely worth a read.
     
    salty mud likes this.
  12. Lily_Lancer

    Lily_Lancer Deity

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,188
    Location:
    Berkeley,CA
    It is neither 4 or 5, just 6. And in fact I think the system worse than 4 or 5, the insane CS bonuses, the very weak AIs, the crazy yields from chopping and pillaging, the low cost of mid-late game tech/civics...(and more trade bugs)
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
    KayAU, glider1, Elhoim and 6 others like this.
  13. hhhhhh

    hhhhhh Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2020
    Messages:
    381
    I've never seen Civ VI's problem summarized so well in one sentence.

    The last point (the low cost of mid-late game tech/civics) is actually new to me, somehow I didn't realize this although it should have been obvious to me. Rocketry costs 1480 science right now, but maybe 4000 is a better cost. That's 170% more than what it is now. I was so used to hear people say at one point you should do 1 turn per tech and the key to speed run is achieve that early.

    But if the cost is adjusted to make it harder, will the late game be more boring?
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2020
    Myomoto likes this.
  14. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,331
    Civ 6 is very clearly Civ 5.5. Civ 6 is basically almost all of the mechanics from Civ 5, just done better. Even Social Policies are in the game - it’s just they’ve been implemented via Governors.

    Indeed, I think Civ 6’s biggest problems are where it’s left out mechanics that were in Civ 5. Everything from big stuff like Ideology and Ideological Pressure down to little things like sending Spies as Ambassadors or Reformation Beliefs.

    But yes, there is also a Civ 4 influence. Governments and Gov Policies are explicitly based on early versions where you could swap in or out of governments to adapt to your situation (Ed said that in an interview I think). Disasters are also inspired by disasters in earlier versions too.

    If Civ 6 had another proper expansion, I think it would be best, indeed definitive, version on Civ. As it is, it’s a really great iteration of the franchise, heavily based on Civ 5, but perhaps falling short of greatness.
     
    Myomoto and 8housesofelixir like this.
  15. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,868
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, I dunno about that. Nemesis (10) was pretty awful, 8 (First Contact) was good and I loved it as a kid but then I realized how shoddy the writing was. It was more winning by default since all the other TNG movies were crap.

    l and as much as I don't like 5 it's nowhere as bad as Final Frontier. Also 3 wasn't bad, I mean Captain Kirk fights Klingon Doc Brown.

    Though Civ IV had Leonard Nimoy sooo maybe.
     
  16. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,331
    I was hoping is was more like Daniel Craig James Bond, were odd numbers are good.

    So, Vanilla / Casino Royal good
    RnF / Quantum of Solace rubbish
    GS / Skyfall good
    NFP / Spectre rubbish
    Next expansion / No time to die...?
     
    raen likes this.

Share This Page