Civilization VI versus IV in 2021

[user330977]

Hello folks,

I would assume this has been discussed before but I'm interested in the opinions of folks here. How does Civilization VI compare to IV in its current state? I played VI a while ago and enjoyed some feature but were turned off by others, such as the diplomacy and poor AI. I wonder how these have changed in recent months.

The reason I compare IV to VI is because the claim is often made that Civ IV fans generally dislike V but prefer the direction VI took. I'm one of these - I like that city placement matters again and the map is important!

How would you compare the games right now?

 

[bbbt]

Yes, I think there's a number of players that like some of the new mechanics but feel like the AI fails to provide the challenge the pre-1UPT AI did.

The AI has been improving, but unlikely a significant challenge still. On deity it can be a challenge early game, but if you survive early game you are likely to win (if you are playing efficiently).

 

[Socrates99]

The mechanics of VI are great and the policy cards give you a feel of customization that was lacking in V compared to IV. The map really matters in VI which is awesome. The only problem with VI is that the AI is pretty bad at going for a VC. So once you get past that initial hump the AI's early advantage gives them the game becomes noncompetitive which makes the end game boring.

I dont care so much about the combat AI that people constantly whine about. I've never played a 4X with good combat AI. Every game makes up for that with extra units(production) or a strength bonus. Even IV gave the AI increased benefits as you scaled up in difficulty. In V you had hordes to deal with on deity which made unit positioning extremely important and that made 1upt fun. In VI the AI just under produces. Once I get past the classical my army is almost always bigger and more powerful than my neighbors. The only exception is when an AI is scripted to beeline and produce a certain UU. The Mapuche is the best example. They beeline their UU and can really wreck a knight rush. But if you're patient and wait for contemporary units you can crush Lautaro easy because he just stalls after his raiders go obsolete. The encampment would have been an amazing district v the V AI for defense but in VI it's mostly just about the GG points and increased exp.

TLDR I'd be satisfied with V's AI using VI's mechanics. Pursue a VC and build a solid army. I'd be super happy with that.

 

[Menocchio]

The AI has certainly become better at managing to stay ahead or on par in science after the past few patches, which keeps them competitive for longer at difficulties below Deity. What really hampers them is their inability to coordinate armies: while they are good at singling out dangerous units (archers, siege, etc.), they tend to move their own units around as single pieces, making it pitifully easy to flank and destroy them. If they grouped up their units to create solid fronts and made use of flanking and support bonuses, the combat AI could be quite fearsome.

Not to mention how incapable the AI is at dealing with any halfway-decent walled city defense on part of the player. Especially if you play Gaul or Vietnam, once you have walls set up your cities are almost uncrackable.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Poor AI in VI is indeed a problem for me.
However there are a lot of small things that compensate since it adds to the immersion as compared to IV. Like for example having a great person with biography and unique bonus that I can lure with additional gold to join in competition to other civs is much better than getting a generic one that I can't even choose. (I believe in IV there was some randomness based on which GPP were produced in a city). The whole border changes between empires because of cultural pressure in IV was also a little bit unrealistic at least for me.

And as for comparison to V - the AI was at least producing decent amount of units so it was some kind of challenge. However my main problem was that I was somehow always streamed to get "rationalism" and as well to play 3-4 city "tradition" on Deity. Founding or getting more cities was penalized with higher culture costs, higher science costs and as well harder to build national wonders. I guess good players could manage it and have some liberty Deity wins, but I am not among them. I like much better VI with regards to the flexible policy cards and the wider empires.