Comparing civ6 to civ4

[TheMeInTeam]

There is no doubt that 1upt in civ6, which is better than 1upt in civ5 IMO, adds a lot more tactical and strategic planning to war. You have to carefully plan unit movement and which units should attack which enemy units and when. In civ4, you just need to have a bigger stack and attack.

Try this in Civ 4 MP without more nuance and you're going to die. Even if you outnumber them 60-40.

If we're not talking MP, however, the Civ 5/6 AI don't require much in the way of tactics that's harder than 4.

4's real advantage is the UI when managing 30+ cities. Civ 5/6 are utterly pathetic in comparison. It's not even kind of sort of close. There's not a person alive that can consistently manage 20 civ 6 cities faster than I can manage 50 in Civ 4 turn to turn in the late game, all coming down to UI + game performance.

This definitely helps speed up the game. In civ6, the wait times between turns can get a bit long, especially in the late game.

Firaxis deserves some heavy blame for this. Not sure if it's still true now, but when the game released someone on this forum was able to find that animations were being performed off-screen during AI turns. That sort of thing isn't really excusable when it comes to optimization. They basically didn't try and it shows.

Couldn't imagine obsolete units overtaking/overwhelming contemporary units in civ6.

I've done it. Tech differential is more meaningful in Civ 4, not less. On deity against the AI's unit spam, doesn't matter. Artillery armies can 2-shot mech infantry, at 5 range.

Even before very late game, gg-boosted knights under oligarchy + oligarchic legacy have 61 strength, before promotions. If you shoot target with xbow you can have knights attacking at 66 strength with rout...this is more than renaissance cavalry have by default.

Similarly, with battlecry + above bonuses and one promotion muskets fight at 75 strength. This is more than infantry, and it's before involving corps. If you have corps and a few promotions muskets can 2-shot AI infantry, which rarely stacks these bonuses properly.

Speaking of xbows, 57 ranged attack is a lot and only needs two promotions. For players that can avoid losing units these scale up into monsters and you often have them after defending initial rush with archers. Field cannon upgrade + make them armies is pretty stupid, should be useful all game despite the obsolete nature of the unit, unless/until AI starts doing something in the air.

 

[Arent11]

I like the idea of being able to trade eurekas and inspirations instead of the actual techs/civics. That way you are just making it a little easier for the other civ to get the tech/civics but they still need to actually research it themselves. I think that is how it should be. Simply trading techs is bad because it weakens the need to even research techs at all. Why invest in science when you can just buy the tech from the person who did? It is better for civs to still need to invest in science but to be able to give each others boosts.

In alpha centauri they had a prototype system. If you trade eurekas, you could argue that you still have to actually build & test the blueprints other civs gave you. This would also prevent 1 turn tech trade + upgrade of units.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I think one of the great strengths of the Civilization series as a whole is that each entry is distinct enough that it's possible for each game to stand on its own merits. Everyone has their own favorite entry into the series, and I would wager that most of us could happily play several entries at any given moment. I love 2 and 6 particularly. This is why I don't understand people getting so upset that such-and-such a feature in a new entry is different from such-and-such a feature in their favorite entry. What would the point of a new civ game if it didn't do something different from earlier games? You can always play your favorite entry, and at this point there are probably zillions of mods for it anyways.

I will argue vehemently, however, that the even-numbered entries are superior to the odd-numbered entries. It seems to me that the odd-numbered entries introduce something that transforms the game, and the following even-numbered entry presents the matured, expanded, and improved version of that transforming element.

 

[whyidie]

I think one of the great strengths of the Civilization series as a whole is that each entry is distinct enough that it's possible for each game to stand on its own merits. Everyone has their own favorite entry into the series, and I would wager that most of us could happily play several entries at any given moment. I love 2 and 6 particularly. This is why I don't understand people getting so upset that such-and-such a feature in a new entry is different from such-and-such a feature in their favorite entry. What would the point of a new civ game if it didn't do something different from earlier games? You can always play your favorite entry, and at this point there are probably zillions of mods for it anyways..

Agree!

I will argue vehemently, however, that the even-numbered entries are superior to the odd-numbered entries. It seems to me that the odd-numbered entries introduce something that transforms the game, and the following even-numbered entry presents the matured, expanded, and improved version of that transforming element

I like the when they start fresh. Evens get too weighed down in moreness. Stay odd!

 

[acluewithout]

Try this in Civ 4 MP without more nuance and you're going to die. Even if you outnumber them 60-40.

If we're not talking MP, however, the Civ 5/6 AI don't require much in the way of tactics that's harder than 4.

4's real advantage is the UI when managing 30+ cities. Civ 5/6 are utterly pathetic in comparison. It's not even kind of sort of close. There's not a person alive that can consistently manage 20 civ 6 cities faster than I can manage 50 in Civ 4 turn to turn in the late game, all coming down to UI + game performance.



Firaxis deserves some heavy blame for this. Not sure if it's still true now, but when the game released someone on this forum was able to find that animations were being performed off-screen during AI turns. That sort of thing isn't really excusable when it comes to optimization. They basically didn't try and it shows.



I've done it. Tech differential is more meaningful in Civ 4, not less. On deity against the AI's unit spam, doesn't matter. Artillery armies can 2-shot mech infantry, at 5 range.

Even before very late game, gg-boosted knights under oligarchy + oligarchic legacy have 61 strength, before promotions. If you shoot target with xbow you can have knights attacking at 66 strength with rout...this is more than renaissance cavalry have by default.

Similarly, with battlecry + above bonuses and one promotion muskets fight at 75 strength. This is more than infantry, and it's before involving corps. If you have corps and a few promotions muskets can 2-shot AI infantry, which rarely stacks these bonuses properly.

Speaking of xbows, 57 ranged attack is a lot and only needs two promotions. For players that can avoid losing units these scale up into monsters and you often have them after defending initial rush with archers. Field cannon upgrade + make them armies is pretty stupid, should be useful all game despite the obsolete nature of the unit, unless/until AI starts doing something in the air.

But Oligarchy doesn’t work with Heavy Cav, or did I get this wrong?

AI needs more help with units. Yeah, better AI would help, but just flat out boosting the AI would help. eg free units, free upgrades, and or free upgrade to corps etc. Basically, give the AI for free what it would have built had it thought about it.

 

[Haig]

I think Civ 6 has surpassed Civ 4 / will surpass after Gathering Storm, as the deepest richest game in the series.

One thing that same time helps and hurts Civs 6 & 5 is 1UPT: Battles are more fun, but same time AI struggles with them more than with the ol' stack of doom.

...

And Civ 5 introduced one of the most stupid things in the series: Cities' ranged attack! Why cities are these crazy turrets that one-shot-kill units? Especially in Civ 5.
I hope they drop this feature and give cities more health instead..

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I recently loaded up a new game of civ4 for the first time in years. So I thought I would write a short post with a few thoughts about civ4 all these years later, compared to civ6 which I am playing regularly now.

Overall, I feel like civ6 has added a lot of good gameplay mechanics from districts and loyalty to governors and better civ unique abilities. civ6 just feels more mature or sophisticated. Districts are a big example of a good mechanic that civ6 added. With civ4, you are just picking another building to boost your science, culture, gold etc. Districts add more strategy by forcing the player to think about where on the map to put that district. You have to consider adjacency bonuses, yields on that tile that you will lose etc... There is more thought put into your city in civ6 than in civ4. And Gathering Storm will add even more good mechanics in civ6 like grievances, environmental effects, etc...

One thing I do like about civ4 is how "fast" things happen. I can spam settlers and get a wide empire going pretty quickly. I am meeting new civs and interacting with them quicker. I can spam units and go to war quicker. I can fight an entire war in civ4 in the same time it takes just to build a few units in civ6. Basically, I am getting to the good stuff of empire building faster. Whereas in civ5 and civ6, it feels like it just takes longer to get to the "good stuff" of empire building. It feels more deliberate and piece meal, slowly getting that extra city, slowly getting a few districts up, slowly meeting another civ, until eventually, you go "wow, I an starting to get a little empire here!".

One more thing. I would be remiss if I did not mention the big difference between civ4 and civ6: 1upt.

There is no doubt that 1upt in civ6, which is better than 1upt in civ5 IMO, adds a lot more tactical and strategic planning to war. You have to carefully plan unit movement and which units should attack which enemy units and when. In civ4, you just need to have a bigger stack and attack. One thing I do like about stacks in civ4, is that it does make it easier to move units. You can stack the units that you need for an invasion and move them together with one click instead of moving each unit individually. Moving a lot of units in civ6 can be a pain in the you-know-what. I also really like that feeling I get in civ4, that I have a large army marching off to war. It feels epic. In civ5/6, it never really feels like I have a large army.

Last but not least, it occurred to me that the real problem is not stacks per se. Having a stack of say 5-6 units would not necessarily be bad. The issue with so-called "stacks of doom" is not the "stacks" part, it's the "doom" part. The problem is that there is no serious game mechanic to discourage the player from ever stop building more military units. So the player has every incentive to just keep spamming units. The economic cost does not work because if the player is duly improving their civ's economy, they should always be able to afford a bigger army. This will create the dreaded "stacks of doom" because players will want to keep building more units ad infinitum. I actually think we could have stacks (just 4-5 units) in a civ game as long as there was a serious mechanic to prevent unit spamming in order to prevent super huge stacks.

I absolutely loved Civ4 "Back in the Day", but definitely love Civ6 a whole lot more. That said, 2 things I would definitely add back in-from Civ4-would be "Distance from Capital" & "Number of Cities" modifiers for City Maintenance costs-with all the associated buildings that can allow you to reduce those costs significantly.

The other thing is to bring back the impact of shared religions on Diplomacy-though in a somewhat more watered down & dynamic form.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But Oligarchy doesn’t work with Heavy Cav, or did I get this wrong?

AI needs more help with units. Yeah, better AI would help, but just flat out boosting the AI would help. eg free units, free upgrades, and or free upgrade to corps etc. Basically, give the AI for free what it would have built had it thought about it.

Heavy cav doesn't benefit from oligarchy? I was under the impression it did. Was that changed, or was I getting numbers from something else in game? If that's true then for strength stacking the sword --> musket path might make more sense since just making it to muskets lets you win fights until the AI gets walls that resist battering rams and units better than infantry, which is a long time in #turns.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Oligarchy only works with melee units.

You might have gotten extra stats from intel bonus, or maybe you were trashing the AI so badly none of it really matters. =p There's also that Dark Age policy that adds +5 but you can't heal outside your land.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

The Oligarchy buff only applies to Melee, Anti-Cavalry, & Warrior Monk classes.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Oligarchy only works with melee units.

You might have gotten extra stats from intel bonus, or maybe you were trashing the AI so badly none of it really matters. =p There's also that Dark Age policy that adds +5 but you can't heal outside your land.

Probably just trashing the AI. I usually roll with warrior + archer upgrades after defending initial aggression and add on from there. Melee with GG and promotions to get 4 moves is respectable, and with the later policy card giving +1 for starting in own territory (including just-conquered) they're pretty fast on roads later.

 

[Scrabbler]

I absolutely loved Civ4 "Back in the Day", but definitely love Civ6 a whole lot more. That said, 2 things I would definitely add back in-from Civ4-would be "Distance from Capital" & "Number of Cities" modifiers for City Maintenance costs-with all the associated buildings that can allow you to reduce those costs significantly.

The other thing is to bring back the impact of shared religions on Diplomacy-though in a somewhat more watered down & dynamic form.

I think you have hit on the head two of the reasons that Civ 4 still stands up as perhaps the most immersive of the series.

When you try to expand too fast, you can really feel it hurting your gold and science rate. There just isn't the same drawback to settling lots of cities in Civ 6.

I also much prefer the religious system in Civ 4, where civs do not "own" religions and the same civ can found two or more religions. This leads to more interesting decisions about which religion to spread and which to select as your state religion, either for diplomatic reasons or the happiness. Even though Civ 6's mechanism for how religions exert pressure and spread is much better than Civ 4's binary system, I just find the religious gameplay more immersive and "real" in Civ 4. In Civ 6, unless I am going for a religious victory I find I essentially ignore the whole religious mechanic completely as it doesn't feel historical or interesting.

In summary, although on paper I would judge most aspects of Civ 6 to be better, in practice Civ 4 often feels just that bit more real, like you are immersed in an actual geopolitical situation where anything could happen.

 

[VainApocalypse]

You're looking too closely at their differences; they actually have a lot in common. Every Civilization introduces new features, so of course there are differences, but VI feels like a homage to IV in ways that V doesn't. Consider what VI shares with IV but not with V.

• Canals
• Aerial bombarding of tile improvements
• A colorful color palette and stylized character models.
• Random events
• Climate change
• Alternate leaders

I'm sure there are others. These are things that didn't have to be carried over from IV but were. Meanwhile, I can only think of a couple mechanics that were in IV and aren't represented in VI (Vassals and corporations).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Some of Civ 4's mistakes should stay in Civ 4 though. It's UI is miles in front of the newer games, but still had problems. Its game throwing and early-game RNG screw potential are not design elements a good designer should seek to mimic.

 

[Sostratus]

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. I don't miss the commerce system though, it was just too flexible with how you could science, or culture (aka happiness) or espionage whenever you wanted. IMO the best expression of civ4's government system was in that chinese scenario. They had some neat civics you could run. I think one even let you extend the "food goes to settler production" to military units. Feudal levy? something like that.

Civ4 did have the massive gold scythe that killed empires. There was something about being so gold constrained in 4&5 that isn't in 6, a bit of extra thought into your actions when you expand, perhaps.

 

[fantsu]

I miss tech trading from IV. It enabled espionage game, where you could just trade bunch of techs you needed to the expensive one you stole from others. Also religions/corporations were much better in IV. And winning conditions. And stacks, and AI. And voting in Apostolic Palace and U.N. And game actually punishing you overexpanding.

I doubt VI will ever get even close to IV, its just too simple and its poorly designed UI will not help the case.

Both are part of the series sure and both are really good games, I just dont see any way out from these huge problems (like AI) civ VI has.

Both are slow games, if you run them on a hardware from their time. Sure IV is faster now.

 

[acluewithout]

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. I don't miss the commerce system though, it was just too flexible with how you could science, or culture (aka happiness) or espionage whenever you wanted. IMO the best expression of civ4's government system was in that chinese scenario. They had some neat civics you could run. I think one even let you extend the "food goes to settler production" to military units. Feudal levy? something like that.

Civ4 did have the massive gold scythe that killed empires. There was something about being so gold constrained in 4&5 that isn't in 6, a bit of extra thought into your actions when you expand, perhaps.

I agree on the catch up slow down mechanics. Ideally, any catch up Mechanic should be somewhat geographical or linked to trade, so if you’re next to a technological partner you’ll catch up faster.

What bugs me though is that as you spread out you never really encounter civilisations which are more primitive. I’ve never had a game where I encounter a new world populated by primitive peoples. A rubber band Mechanic etc. would make that worse.

I don’t see an easy solution to that. One idea is to maybe develop barbs more, so they actually have cities or pseudo cities, with farms etc. They would sometimes be adverse - spawning more warriors - or peaceful - acting like goody huts - and eventually you’d have to either destroy them or absorb them.

Another idea might be to have continents have some control measure. Each continent keeps spawning barbs until you settle enough cities or something that you’re deemed to “control” the continent. Barbs already sort of work like that because they spawn on land where you don’t have visibility, but it’s not a strong Mechanic.

 

[DWilson]

I just want to say that I notably enjoy the religion system in 6 and 5 far more than in 4. It is quite gamey, but I don't mind that. I just didn't like how impersonal religion was in 4.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Its game throwing and early-game RNG screw potential are not design elements a good designer should seek to mimic.

And they got mimic'd.

:S

 

[Sostratus]

I just didn't like how impersonal religion was in 4.

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