Comparing civ6 to civ4

[Starwars]

I think Civ VI has introduced quite a lot of fun stuff into the series. But there is one thing that always kinda... impresses me whenever I play Civ IV and that is that... it just works? As a game to sink your teeth into and play competitively, it functions extremely well. In Civ VI, with all the fun stuff it introduces, I don't have a single game where there's not one *...sigh* moment. And in the end, I think a lot of that comes down to how the AI handles the systems. I mean, it's been beaten to death but 1 unit per tile and district placement are two things th the AI just does not handle well and it really creates ripples throughout the entire game.

Civ IV isn't perfect at all but it is a game where I stay on my toes as I play because the AI can be quite deadly. That alone, makes the game quite a lot more enjoyable for me even though there's a lot of features in VI that I enjoy a lot. When I feel challenged, I'm constantly diving into the various systems and really playing the game on a deeper level. In VI, it's more about challenging myself in various ways. If I make it through the early game (which *can* screw you up to be honest) it's very smooth sailing to the point where I feel like I barely have to pay attention.

I'm very glad both games exist and I will gladly play both of them but IV is more my jam in the end.

 

[Rup]

I started the series late with V.Then played 4 and rarely went back to V.With 6 release I never went back to 5 but used to jump between 4 and 6.After countless patches and Rise and Fall, I rarely go back to IV.But I still play IV because of the mods.I forgot V even exist at this point.

 

[Wizard-Bob]

For me, VI is now the very best of the series. So much variety, and I love the importance of the map. Looking forward to GS!!!

That said, I *do* go back to IV on occasion, but that is only to play Fall from Heaven 2.

 

[Sostratus]

Fall from Heaven 2.

If there's one way that 4 absolutely mops the floor with 6, it's the scenarios it had. So so many hours dumped into fall from heaven, nextwar, the chinese reunification... NextWar & Gods of old were also amazing rulesets for regular games. Gimme that old time religion!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I prefer the ability to shape religion in Civ5 & Civ6, but preferred Civ4's ability to choose a faith as a State Religion.

Though I liked the effect of religion on diplomacy in Civ4-in principle-I wasn't a fan of how binary it was.

My preference would be for the religious modifier on diplomacy to be dependant on the Civ (Spain & Arabia will care more than some other Civs) & dependant on the actions of the other Civs. Like how actively you spread or persecute a religion.

 

[Kamino]

Civ4 BTS and several of its great mods are by far my best experience with the Civ serie: the best UI, the best pace, the best overall feeling.

Of course, Civ5 and Civ6 have added a lot of very interesting concepts (city growth 1 tile per 1 tile, districts, caravans, 1UPT, 3 actions builders...) and GS will add more BUT a many of those new concepts don't work well at all (1UPT because of not good enough AI), don't work well together (religion not well integrated), and more important I deeply dislike some core mechanics (incremental costs of builders/settlers, lack of waste/corruption/disloyalty for large empires). UI is not vey good: slow, cluttured. Managing a large empire is tedious to the point I usually give up far before the end of the game when victory is already granted.

I am still waiting the Civ that would pack together all the good stuff created along those years into the ultimate experience.

 

[nzcamel]

My biggest problem when I go back to playing old civ games (for me, it's mostly civ III though) is that I'm really bad at defending since I'm so used to cities not being that easy to take. I actually don't remember how I did this back in the day most efficiently. Small garrisons don't help much (at least in III), you somehow need to have big stacks nearby any border...

This ^^^ was something I loved about IV. Working out the logistics of where to station troops effectively so as to be able to respond to a stack coming from any border! I'd have depot cities where a response group of catapults (yeah - that wasn't the most immersive bit lol) would be scattered throughout my empire; and just a few cities with contingents of cavalry that could head in any direction.
Scaling down ones army after any major war was always a hassle though lol. I have 150 odd units, and really 60 would be better for my budget! You wouldn't think of such an exercise in V or VI.

I'd like to see a system where:

• The first civ to research a tech (maybe the first two or three for larger maps) gets a bonus related to that tech.
• Every civ you've met that knows a technology gives you science per turn towards that technology.
• Same applies to the civics tree.

This would allow you to truly decide on whether you want to specialize on being a science civ or be pulled along by the other civs. It would make choosing your path through the tech tree a much more interesting process. You wouldn't just be racing for Wonders, you'd be racing for techs, too. Will you be the first to research Electricity, or will the AI beat you to it!

PS This system would tie well into eurekas/inspirations, too. If you have the boost, you're much more likely to be the civ that researches the tech first and gets the bonus.

Yeah, I feel the optimal system would be something like:
Eurekas do not give raw beakers, they just give a multiplier
You also get a multiplier from any civ you know that has the tech already, with an extra bonus for trade routes/alliances/friends/etc...

ie. A tech costs 100, you get 10 science per turn. Having the eureka gives you a 50% bonus to your tech rate, so with the eureka you research it at 15 per turn. Each civ you meet that knows it gives you 5%, doubling to 10% with a trade route. So if you meet 4 civs that have the tech, one of them you have a trade route to, then there's an extra 20%, so you then research it at 17 per turn (10+50%+20%). This sort of system would also work well if you wanted to give more eurekas for techs, or have eurekas with multiple levels (ie. each turn you own a knight, gain 2%, up to a max of 50%), and you would also not be able to "pre-research" a tech waiting for the boost to come in.

I like how you guys are thinking! That to me gives a catch up of sorts; but an immersive one.

The only truly core mechanic i think civ6 will be missing post GS is a proper "molasses & rubber band" for civs that have surged ahead/fallen behind. This is to finally break (or injure) the back of science spam in civ games.
We kinda have the 'molasses' now - science penalty for being ahead of the world era - I would probably have it ramp up but introduce compensation (like era score for each tech finished ahead of the world era.) But civ4's tech trading, while broken in that game in human hands, does make me yearn to have a rubber band that can pull civs that are really lagging back up close to the world era. It's a bit unfortunate that you can permanently cripple of a civ so easily and not only will they never recover in terms of land or resources - they will fall so far behind in tech they are wholly irrelevant. So some method of boosting science/culture on things that have been long research by the rest of the world - fulfilling the premise of tech trading- would be nice. then you'd end up with most of the empires being within 1-1.5 eras of each other, instead of the massive gaps that get created.

Maybe I'm misremembering but I also feel like you couldn't skip huge chunks of the tech tree.

I do kinda miss Civ4's specialist system though, if only because specialist economies were pretty fun. I also miss cottages - it was so cool watching them develop over time and becoming super powerful improvements; workshops too.

Rubber bands need to be worked in very carefully. I think the guys above are onto a great way to have it, without it feeling like an unfair penalty on success. What is the science penalty in VI out of interest? It doesn't seem to effect Korea that much lol. Is it just that they don't have the appropriate civics cards for any units they might be building etc?

Compared to past editions IV let you surge through the tree; but that it was one tree did make it obviously a different experience to VI.
Yeah, I loved the towns and that level of city planning. If nothing else that was what killed V for me. Zero thought going into improvement placement. It'll be interesting to see where VII goes on that level - whether they keep districts or do something more like IV. As long as they never return to the boredom of V, I'll be fine.

To near verbatim quote the civ4 game manual: "All religions have the exact same effects. We're game designers, not theologians"
Gods & Kings, 2011: Enter High Priest Ed Beach of the Temple of Meier

That was the "please don't kill us plea" lol. I think that really hasn't changed though. The religions in V & VI have different effects; but none that are hard wired like civ abilities.

Though I liked the effect of religion on diplomacy in Civ4-in principle-I wasn't a fan of how binary it was.

I think it was the most immersive conflict generator throughout the series; though I was amazed when they did it, and you'd never see it again (even less III's racial conflict generator!) I can agree it was a bit restrictive...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

This ^^^ was something I loved about IV. Working out the logistics of where to station troops effectively so as to be able to respond to a stack coming from any border! I'd have depot cities where a response group of catapults (yeah - that wasn't the most immersive bit lol) would be scattered throughout my empire; and just a few cities with contingents of cavalry that could head in any direction.
Scaling down ones army after any major war was always a hassle though lol. I have 150 odd units, and really 60 would be better for my budget! You wouldn't think of such an exercise in V or VI.





I like how you guys are thinking! That to me gives a catch up of sorts; but an immersive one.



Rubber bands need to be worked in very carefully. I think the guys above are onto a great way to have it, without it feeling like an unfair penalty on success. What is the science penalty in VI out of interest? It doesn't seem to effect Korea that much lol. Is it just that they don't have the appropriate civics cards for any units they might be building etc?

Compared to past editions IV let you surge through the tree; but that it was one tree did make it obviously a different experience to VI.
Yeah, I loved the towns and that level of city planning. If nothing else that was what killed V for me. Zero thought going into improvement placement. It'll be interesting to see where VII goes on that level - whether they keep districts or do something more like IV. As long as they never return to the boredom of V, I'll be fine.



That was the "please don't kill us plea" lol. I think that really hasn't changed though. The religions in V & VI have different effects; but none that are hard wired like civ abilities.



I think it was the most immersive conflict generator throughout the series; though I was amazed when they did it, and you'd never see it again (even less III's racial conflict generator!) I can agree it was a bit restrictive...

I think the best way for me to explain my thoughts on my preferred Religion-Diplomacy connection is by means of an example.

Say you've adopted Protestantism as your State Religion, & then meet the Buddhist Spanish Empire during the Classical Era. At first, this religious difference might be worth only -2 to your relations (-1 if it was a Civ that wasn't overly religious), this might then grow to -4 in the Medieval era & -6 in the Renaissance (or -3 for a non-religious Civ). Gaining certain Civics and/or adopting certain Social Policies could increase or reduce that base penalty.

Likewise, if you allowed Buddhism to spread naturally within your empire, then that might reduce the negative diplomatic penalty over time. However, if you choose to conduct an Inquisition against Buddhism, then the penalty might double overnight and/or you'd definitely gain a grievance.

If you choose to adopt Buddhism as your State Religion, you'd likewise only initially gain a +2 to your relations with Spain, a bonus that would grow over time. If you actively spread Buddhism to your cities, then the bonus would grow faster. Changing State Religion would also gain Favours with the other Civilisation.

I'd also like to see a similar system for different/same governments

 

[nzcamel]

I'd also like to see a similar system for different/same governments

Maybe with the religious one reducing in strength after the renaissance, and the government one increasing in strength from that point.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

This ^^^ was something I loved about IV. Working out the logistics of where to station troops effectively so as to be able to respond to a stack coming from any border! I'd have depot cities where a response group of catapults (yeah - that wasn't the most immersive bit lol) would be scattered throughout my empire; and just a few cities with contingents of cavalry that could head in any direction.
Scaling down ones army after any major war was always a hassle though lol. I have 150 odd units, and really 60 would be better for my budget! You wouldn't think of such an exercise in V or VI.





I like how you guys are thinking! That to me gives a catch up of sorts; but an immersive one.



Rubber bands need to be worked in very carefully. I think the guys above are onto a great way to have it, without it feeling like an unfair penalty on success. What is the science penalty in VI out of interest? It doesn't seem to effect Korea that much lol. Is it just that they don't have the appropriate civics cards for any units they might be building etc?

Compared to past editions IV let you surge through the tree; but that it was one tree did make it obviously a different experience to VI.
Yeah, I loved the towns and that level of city planning. If nothing else that was what killed V for me. Zero thought going into improvement placement. It'll be interesting to see where VII goes on that level - whether they keep districts or do something more like IV. As long as they never return to the boredom of V, I'll be fine.



That was the "please don't kill us plea" lol. I think that really hasn't changed though. The religions in V & VI have different effects; but none that are hard wired like civ abilities.



I think it was the most immersive conflict generator throughout the series; though I was amazed when they did it, and you'd never see it again (even less III's racial conflict generator!) I can agree it was a bit restrictive...

I also loved Civ4's Ethnic Diversity system, & would love to see that make a return. Similarly, I'd love to see Civ4's Pollution/Health System come back. I know Housing kind of mimics the Civ4 Health System, but I'd like to see the connections between Health & Housing made more clear, especially as it relates to pollution in "Gathering Storm".

 

[footslogger]

Civ 4 was the last iteration in the series to give serious attention to a halfway decent AI. Since then there has been much fun stuff added, but it is far too complex for the AI to handle. The game is still enjoyable, for a while anyway, as a kind of sandbox experience, but everyone knows that the AI only appears to be competitive, if at all, as a result of behind-the-scenes number-crunching. The human player now needs an almost superhuman ability to 'pretend' that he is not seeing what daftness he is seeing in order to get prolonged pleasure from the game.

 

[Leathaface]

Part of me prefers stacks to 1UPT. I think a substantial part of that is that the AI in Civ VI is bad at attacking cities, whereas in Civ IV it was very easy to program the AI since it was just a stack on 1 tile. If the AI in Civ VI gets improved enough I might grow fond of 1UPT.

Though I like how ranged units in Civ VI are just that; ranged units. In Civ IV archers would go toe to toe with their enemies with the percentage split determining who would be victorious in battle. I like how you can place your Archers/Crossbowmen/Field Cannons on top of hills and shoot at the enemy melee units from 2 tiles away with no threat so long as a melee unit is on the tile in front of them.

 

[kaltorak]

Civ5 and 6 have better micro, while civ4 had better macro.
Also, civ5 and 6 are more a bit like a chess game, where the AI is trying to win a game. While civ4 was more of an empire simulator.

I loved civ4, and it has the best macro of all civs. Civ5, altho losing stuff in that regard, is just better. Just the 1upt makes worth the upgrade, but it's not the only thing. Civ6... I still dont know. I just havent been hooked to this civ like I did to all the others. But at the same time I dont really know why exactly.

But yeah, I miss a lot of things from civ4, like vassals, colonies, AI that focused much more on true leaders behaviour than on winning the game, a cool culture victory instead of stupid tourism, tons of stats and info displayed on windows that they somehow decided to hide, and some other things. But, Stack of doom cant compare to 1upt, so yeah, civ5 is indeed better. And i cant decide about 6, somehow I cant enjoy it, but it looks like it should be fun

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

My ideal Civilization Game would have *all* of the features of Civ6 (Unique Civs & leaders, Unique Religions, Cassus Belli etc), but with the following features from prior Civ titles:

-the health & pollution mechanics of Civ4 (esp. Food diversity effects).

-the diplomatic & domestic effects of different religions from Civ4....particularly the Apostolic Palace Wonder from BtS.

-the ability to steal tiles from neighbours via cultural pressure from Civ4, as well as the representation of ethnic diversity within cities.

-the event system from Civ4 BtS.

-the extra spy missions from BtS

-the additional abilities of Great Artists, Musicians & Writers from Civ5.

-the broader range of theming bonuses from Great Works, as well as the deeper tourism system of Civ5.

-the ability to "rig elections" & "engineer coups" in city states, from Civ5.

-the ideology system of Civ5.

 

[Heathcliff]

The AI is great in civ 4. Because the game is less complex than civ 5 which is less complex than civ 6.

Civ 6 is more fun to play and build up your civilization.
But when you design a game you have to look at the ai, if they ai cannot use that feature well then scrap that feature.

Compare the paradox games.
EU4 is their least complex games but it has the best AI is it is their most popular game.

EU4 has even better AI than civ 4 I think.

 

[Kamino]

The problem n°1 (for me) with civ6 design is the combo:
1) total lack of malus to have a big empire
2) incremental cost of settlers/builders/districts
3) fixed cost of military units
leading to an optimal unique strategy: spam units, conquer the world, then build your empire upon the ashes and chose your victory.

Conquering a city is more efficient than building a new one.

In Civ4, you have to pay for the size of your empire or your economy could collapse leading to the loss of your army. Nothing like this in Civ6, every conquered city is good for your economy, and a freshly conquered city is not happy for a while.