Comparing civ6 to civ4

[SupremacyKing2]

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.

 

[Siptah]

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...

I agree that the older games are much faster paced - and what really helps is the short turn times as well. But you can paint the map really fast peacefully and by conquering. I'm not sure if it is overall preferable, however. I like that it matters much more in civ V and VI where I settle and what I'm building there instead of just expanding as fast and as wide as possible, with exact location being somewhat secondary.

Concerning 1UPT, I really like the endless legend approach: you can move units in stacks up to 6 units (with some units not being able to stack), but when you engage in fighting, it's 1upt in a special tactical version of the main map. Also, I remember that I didn't really like the dooms stacks even in civ III and civ IV and even back in the day wished they would do it like CTP did, with limited stacks and a back row and a front row.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I agree that the older games are much faster paced - and what really helps is the short turn times as well.

Yeah, I forgot about turn times as well. civ4, being an older game, the time between turns is zero. So I am not waiting at all in between turns. This definitely helps speed up the game. In civ6, the wait times between turns can get a bit long, especially in the late game.

Concerning 1UPT, I really like the endless legend approach: you can move units in stacks up to 6 units (with some units not being able to stack), but when you engage in fighting, it's 1upt in a special tactical version of the main map. Also, I remember that I didn't really like the dooms stacks even in civ III and civ IV and even back in the day wished they would do it like CTP did, with limited stacks and a back row and a front row.

Yes, Endless Legend has a very nice system that combines the best of both worlds. CtP had a good system too. Honestly, I think EL's combat system would be great for civ7. It is easy to move units around and you could have a lot of fun fighting your tactical battles. I agree with Firaxis with never going to back to stacks of doom but I do hope that they consider a way to take the best of both and do small stacks with the best of 1upt.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Interesting post, thanks!

Civ VI has its problems but whenever I go back to older games, I am reminded that VI is the best in the series. It may not be the most balanced or the hardest but it is the most fun and the most sophisticated, to the point where I struggle to enjoy the older games.

In my humble opinion, of course.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yeah, I forgot about turn times as well. civ4, being an older game, the time between turns is zero. So I am not waiting at all in between turns. This definitely helps speed up the game. In civ6, the wait times between turns can get a bit long, especially in the late game.
.

Funny how it wasn't the case at the time though. I remember ending a turn and then going into the kitchen to start food.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Funny how it wasn't the case at the time though. I remember ending a turn and then going into the kitchen to start food.

Maybe in 15 years, when we all have quantum computers in our homes, civ6's turn times will also be zero too?

 

[marius_kaparius]

I would like a system where you can stack warrior->scout->archer and then have combined arms stack mean something. But that would also be the limit.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I would like a system where you can stack warrior->scout->archer and then have combined arms stack mean something. But that would also be the limit.

I could see splitting off "Ranged" as their own type and allowing siege--melee--ranged would be okay, otherwise leaving it as it is currently. The bigger annoyance is how hard it is to move a large group of guys at once. A better method of doing this would solve most of my issues with the upt.

 

[Arent11]

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.

(1) The graphics are obviously bad. Would need an upgrade
(2) The civ traits are more straightforward. I don't like these weird conditional abilities
(3) Tech trade! Really, it's one of the most interactive features in multiplayer & singleplayer. By removing tech trade, they removed the most important reason why you should play peaceful/cooperative
(4) Religion. In Civ 4 giving your friends a religion was important for happiness. A friend once even asked me what religion I had, and when I answered confucianism and taoism, he was like: Ok, they are fine, you can spread them to me I'm sure if I had mentioned other religions, he would have closed his border :O
(5) Regarding the 1upt vs stacks of doom, I think the best would be a compromise: Armies. Simply make stacks of doom that consist of several units. Then you don't have to move every unit by itself, but you also have a little tactical challenge.
(6) Preventing unit spam: Simply use a support system like in master of orion. Give a support statistic for building certain buildings (encampments, barracks, castles) that allow you to support a number of units for free. If you go beyond that limit, you have to pay massive amounts of money.
(7) Districts are fine, but please stay away with micromanagement/this weird "adjecency" stuff. I'm playing grand strategy here.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Tech trading was an abusive exploit. I'm glad it's out barring a very large makeover. People talk about bad AI in the current game but it absolutely no idea how to do tech trading without handing the game over to the human player.

 

[mitsho]

The micromanaging tedious part of moving your units around is the main argument working against 1upt for me. But I do like the smaller number of units I have in civ6. So for me, I would like an army system where you can have X armies depending on tech etc. and each one has Y slots. Cities with walls also have slots. And you can teleport your units between these armies and garrisons as you do with works of art currently.

As yes, turns take up just way too much time in civ6...

 

[Kurtbob]

Like OP, I have started playing civ4 again, but mostly the Realism Invictus 3.4 mod. Definitely love the turn times! Even though RI does a good job 'correcting' stacks of doom with negative modifiers if a stack becomes too large, I do prefer 1up. Wars can also be a real slug fest, even if you are ahead in tech...8 riflemen in a city being annihilated by a stack of 20+ medieval units is rough. Couldn't imagine obsolete units overtaking/overwhelming contemporary units in civ6.

 

[Arent11]

Tech trading was an abusive exploit. I'm glad it's out barring a very large makeover. People talk about bad AI in the current game but it absolutely no idea how to do tech trading without handing the game over to the human player.

Simple:

(1) Only trade eurekas/"blueprints".
(2) Make it optional

 

[Archon_Wing]

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.

But here's the thing. In Civ 4, capturing cities too rapidly(especially far away ones) will destroy your economy. You need to slow down to consolidate and unit spam/capturing cities isn't really possible unless you're going to win anyways.

Also, it's not always about having the biggest stack. Siege units greatly equalize numbers, but if you have too much siege units, your stack will be destroyed by horses. This isn't the deepest thing in the world, but it's not that simple. If anything is bad about stack combat, it's more about rolling dice and how RNG can have large effects on outcome, especially early game. Cities being able to defend themselves is also better.


In Civ 6, you don't worry about that because capturing cities always improves your economy. There is never a reason to really stop besides war weariness. Civ 6's economy is actually the easiest to manage and actually encourages the most unit spam-- there's a reason why Civ 6's early game nearly completely consists of making units. But I don't really want to go back to Civ 5 which penalizes you for doing well, anything, really.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Tech trading was an abusive exploit. I'm glad it's out barring a very large makeover. People talk about bad AI in the current game but it absolutely no idea how to do tech trading without handing the game over to the human player.

Tech trading was a problem, but removing it created a new issue. Now every civ needs to research every tech on their own.

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.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

Tech trading was an abusive exploit. I'm glad it's out barring a very large makeover.

Agreed! I took it out of, or severely limited it, in every mod I made for Civ III.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Tech trading was a problem, but removing it created a new issue. Now every civ needs to research every tech on their own.

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.

I think they wanted Research Agreements to fill the tech trading role, but it was never really the same.

I kind of miss the "race to tech x" from the past. I like it.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I like the concept of research agreements, but the thing was it worked in Civ 5 because the tech tree was so long. As Civ 6's tree is short from the civic/science split, and agreements just take too long, things would have to be tweaked.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Simple:

(1) Only trade eurekas/"blueprints".
(2) Make it optional

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.

 

[UWHabs]

Tech trading was a problem, but removing it created a new issue. Now every civ needs to research every tech on their own.

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.

But anyways, this isn't related to civ4 vs civ6. I would basically agree with the above - while 4 was an amazing game back in the day, it just doesn't have the extra things that you have now in the game. I do definitely miss the diplomacy system, seeing Monty get that little fist on my diplo screen meaning that I knew I had a few turns to get my military in place at most before the hammer came down. It was the only game where I would actually pay attention when a neighbour demanded tribute, because I knew refusing would drop them below the happy line. If only we could bring the diplomacy system from there forward to the current game, it would be amazing.