MyOtherName
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,526
North is a direction. It is not one of the 6 special directions on the civ 6 hex grid.
Give me 6 reasons why you are playing Civ6 and not Civ4?
- Thread starter Lazarus_Cato
- Start date
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
I prefer the even movement of hexes over the differential movement of square tiles.
Even if that means that I can no longer go due north or due south as a direction. In the end given we aren't playing on a real globe said compass directions are pretty much meaningless. If a city is due north of me that is no different to it being another direction in which hexes force me to not take a direct route to.
Squares, too, force a staggered route to many destinations; so I don't think that is a failure of hexes v squares.
Whereas the squares retain the differential movement values, which hexes do not.
Even if that means that I can no longer go due north or due south as a direction. In the end given we aren't playing on a real globe said compass directions are pretty much meaningless. If a city is due north of me that is no different to it being another direction in which hexes force me to not take a direct route to.
Squares, too, force a staggered route to many destinations; so I don't think that is a failure of hexes v squares.
Whereas the squares retain the differential movement values, which hexes do not.
Last edited:
Felis Renidens
Prince
I think Civ2 (and probably also 3 and 4) tilted the map in a way that north-south and east-west were the diagonals. I still like hexes but don't see much reason in rationalizing it. If I loved squares I could have found rationalizations too, so there is no "proof".
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
II & III were in isometric, so you're correct that Nth etc were on the diagonal. IV returned from isometric so Nth etc were not on the diagonal.
Karlus
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 17
How can I play civ6 if I'm still in 24% of a game in Caveman2cosmos?
I have over ten thousand hours on civ4 (easily) and counting. I have 250h on civ6 and I have gave up after win almost everytime on immortal.
Civ6 has potencial (I said the same about civ5... and I was wrong) but right now it's... meh.
There is no reason to play it. Come and play civ4, the BEST GAME EVER.
I have over ten thousand hours on civ4 (easily) and counting. I have 250h on civ6 and I have gave up after win almost everytime on immortal.
Civ6 has potencial (I said the same about civ5... and I was wrong) but right now it's... meh.
There is no reason to play it. Come and play civ4, the BEST GAME EVER.
Felis Renidens
Prince
Been there, done it, not going back. I play chieftain usually (warlord in civ6) anyway and don't use mods.
Leyrann
Deity
What sense does this comment even make?
This thread it all about things like districts, 1 upt, split science and tech trees, etc being considered superior over civ4. I don't see how that has anything to do with ignorance, even ignoring the fact that most people who are around here have played thousands of hours of civ4.
And your second comment makes even less sense. Civ4 was released in 2005, Civ6 in late 2016. OF COURSE there's going to be more mods for civ4 than for civ6. It's been out some 25 times longer and it's not getting patched anymore, so people won't hold off because expansions or patches might break their mod or make it useless. On top of that, Civ 4 could load only one mod at a time, while civ6 can load as many as you want, allowing for already hundreds of different combinations.
TruthfulCake
Prince
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2016
- Messages
- 363
There are definitely way more than 6 to be listed. Let me list 8.
1. Hexes over square grids. Better map shapes. Consistent distance between cities, which is important for things like district radius. More things to fit on the map within the same space, hence more creative ways to use units within the context of 1UPT.
2. 1UPT. I have never once not enjoyed the challenges that 1UPT posed in tactical warfare. Having sky high production to spam units with does not equal victory in skirmishes. Makes multiplayer very interesting as well. It also rewards placing difficult-to-access cities.
3. Districts. The tactical aspects of the game just became so much better with this new addition. One has to consider more factors in city placement now, and also needs to allocate more military power or intelligence agents to defend key districts. Pillaging is also better by extension. Definitely the reason I can't go back to previous iterations.
4. Better espionage. Now that spy actions are district-based, there is a lot more effort and decision-making in placing offensive or defensive spies. There are new spy actions that add to the interesting choices you can have, including great work heists.
5. Tourism and great works or artifacts. They just add a whole new dimension to the game. More things to do such as securing great works from enemy spies, long-term plans for curating (theming bonuses), archeologists and excavations... Too bad the "influence" mechanic from Civ V has yet to return.
6. City state mechanics and unique bonuses. City states are better than ever. Which city state you befriend is a significant investment that can largely alter your strategy, thanks to the brilliant envoy systems. Smaller powers definitely make for a more interesting game.
7. Trade route mechanics. Having a tangible trade unit that can make roads, gain intelligence, be plundered, provide gold and internal bonuses, etc. is something that I would never give up in a Civ game. They are just that good.
8. Weight of decisions. As opposed to sliders where you can easily shift your cities' focus from one thing to the next each turn, your cities' focuses in Civ VI are largely decided by the districts you have them build, and their positioning relative to your other cities, etc. Sliders were detrimental to this aspect of strategy.
I can go further with better religions, tile-consuming world wonders, graphics, etc., but those above are my top reasons. Would be interesting to see more elaboration from posters who post one-liners like "Civ IV is better in every single aspect," especially concerning features that were not even there in past iterations.
1. Hexes over square grids. Better map shapes. Consistent distance between cities, which is important for things like district radius. More things to fit on the map within the same space, hence more creative ways to use units within the context of 1UPT.
2. 1UPT. I have never once not enjoyed the challenges that 1UPT posed in tactical warfare. Having sky high production to spam units with does not equal victory in skirmishes. Makes multiplayer very interesting as well. It also rewards placing difficult-to-access cities.
3. Districts. The tactical aspects of the game just became so much better with this new addition. One has to consider more factors in city placement now, and also needs to allocate more military power or intelligence agents to defend key districts. Pillaging is also better by extension. Definitely the reason I can't go back to previous iterations.
4. Better espionage. Now that spy actions are district-based, there is a lot more effort and decision-making in placing offensive or defensive spies. There are new spy actions that add to the interesting choices you can have, including great work heists.
5. Tourism and great works or artifacts. They just add a whole new dimension to the game. More things to do such as securing great works from enemy spies, long-term plans for curating (theming bonuses), archeologists and excavations... Too bad the "influence" mechanic from Civ V has yet to return.
6. City state mechanics and unique bonuses. City states are better than ever. Which city state you befriend is a significant investment that can largely alter your strategy, thanks to the brilliant envoy systems. Smaller powers definitely make for a more interesting game.
7. Trade route mechanics. Having a tangible trade unit that can make roads, gain intelligence, be plundered, provide gold and internal bonuses, etc. is something that I would never give up in a Civ game. They are just that good.
8. Weight of decisions. As opposed to sliders where you can easily shift your cities' focus from one thing to the next each turn, your cities' focuses in Civ VI are largely decided by the districts you have them build, and their positioning relative to your other cities, etc. Sliders were detrimental to this aspect of strategy.
I can go further with better religions, tile-consuming world wonders, graphics, etc., but those above are my top reasons. Would be interesting to see more elaboration from posters who post one-liners like "Civ IV is better in every single aspect," especially concerning features that were not even there in past iterations.
Hail
Satan's minion
1. One unit per tile
2. Hexes
3. Districts
4. Embarkation
5. Night/Day cycle
6. Denunciations
2. Hexes
3. Districts
4. Embarkation
5. Night/Day cycle
6. Denunciations
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
On the Hex vs tile thing, I had never really thought about movement. For me it was always about combat, getting the units in and I always knew it was unreal, that a square is likely a more realistic combat line but does not make for such good gameplay as hex combat.
More importantly I am about feeling rather than fact. There is just something about the corners of squares that always annoyed me, like they are a human invention I do not see in nature, a hex is more like a bubble, a good compromise.
More importantly I am about feeling rather than fact. There is just something about the corners of squares that always annoyed me, like they are a human invention I do not see in nature, a hex is more like a bubble, a good compromise.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Lol I forgot that! *sheepish grin*
I wonder how many people use this "feature".
Leyrann
Deity
It just looks awesome.
Like, I'm not even kidding, Civ 6 is the first game ever where graphics are a reason for me to play it. There's plenty of other reasons too, but I actually find myself wanting to play civ 6 because of what it looks like sometimes.
1UPT was proven broken already in civ5, there is no much to debate about it.
Districts, plit science and tech trees sure are new features, too bad AI is even more awful than in civ5 that you can lose game only in very specific situations. Most of other issues people are complaining and comparing are simply different features, are not really problems or there are mods fixing that issue already.
Hint: civ4 has mods to play using 1UPT but as I said, it is awful.
And about mods, sorry to disapoint you but civ6 will never have as many mods as civ4. Not to even mention complitely remakes like rise and fall. Civ5 already proved that firaxis dont really care about making game open to be modded, dare to look civ5 mods that list is very short. There isnt even a proper better AI mod.
Civ6 is like civ5, when it cant generate anymore cash new civ7 is released. It is not open to mod and AI is embarassing bad. It is not a game you will return 10 years later, civ4 is because modders are still developing it.
Would you bet on that ?
TruthfulCake
Prince
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2016
- Messages
- 363
Excuse me, who proved what? And there is so much debate about it that one cannot take such cursory statements seriously.
These "simply different features" are some of the "reasons why one is playing Civ 6 and not Civ 4," as the thread prompts. Whatever "not really problems" that you perceive does not warrant you calling people's preference "based on ignorance", as you originally claimed. Certainly Civ 4 was functional with square grids instead of hexes, but that does not stop some vast majority (in this thread) to prefer hexes over that system, and there is nothing ignorant about that.
And if you would raise "mods fixing that issue already," I look forward to how you would explain how "1UPT was proven broken already in civ5" so that I could point you to a mod that fixed said perceived brokenness. If, of course, you could give a more elaborated response than just "there is no much to debate about it."
Leyrann
Deity
How about we DONT turn this into yet another 1 upt discussion? Both got their merits. Civ4 has no carpet of doom, Civ5 and 6 have tactical gameplay. It depends on what you prefer: a clean screen or tactical combat.
In general, please stop hating so much for no reason at all. This thread is not to tell people that they're ignorant if they like Civ6, it's there to tell people what reasons there are to play Civ6 instead of Civ4. Wheter or not those reasons are better than the reasons to play Civ4 instead of Civ6 is NOT a part of this thread, or the OP would have called it "tell me wheter I should play civ 6 or civ 4".
For me there are lots of reasons why I prefer civ VI. Some of them also apply to civ V as well.
1. new ideas in general: I've played all the civs since the first one. The 2, 3 & 4 added lots of stuff to the game. 4 had some nice ideas: unique buildings, splitting governments apart, adding religion, health, improvements evolving over time etc. But it still felt very similar to the older games, just with more stuff added. civ V shook things up and it felt really fresh to me. VI even more so. SMAC was the same for me, it felt different and great. If I want to play older games (and I do that a lot, just not often a civ game), I prefer 2 and 3, since I have more fond memories of them and emotions tied to them. If you like playing older games, read some scientific texts about nostalgia in connection with music, films, games etc. and how it works. Great Stuff!
2. Wonders occupying tiles! They just need to be stronger. But I really love the concept and the graphics. And the graphics in general.
3. Districts. This changes so much of the game, it makes playing civ V a sad thing for me. (You may summarize #2 and #3 as unstacking cities)
4. Cities defending themselves and 1upt which are connected in my opinion. Both are more fun for me, for a variety of reasons I don't want to go into. Came with V, better in VI. Cities needing walls to defend and the new movement rules are very welcome.
5. Leaders with personality and agendas. This came with V as well. Feels great.
6. Scenarios. They are great this time, all 3 that we have so far (haven't played the new one). A welcome change from the base game. Of course, civ IV has lots of mods and those fulfill that purpose as well. But I'm not that much of a mod person - at least not content mods.
There's a lot more, but only 6 to name and #1, #5 and #6 have not come up that often yet.
1. new ideas in general: I've played all the civs since the first one. The 2, 3 & 4 added lots of stuff to the game. 4 had some nice ideas: unique buildings, splitting governments apart, adding religion, health, improvements evolving over time etc. But it still felt very similar to the older games, just with more stuff added. civ V shook things up and it felt really fresh to me. VI even more so. SMAC was the same for me, it felt different and great. If I want to play older games (and I do that a lot, just not often a civ game), I prefer 2 and 3, since I have more fond memories of them and emotions tied to them. If you like playing older games, read some scientific texts about nostalgia in connection with music, films, games etc. and how it works. Great Stuff!
2. Wonders occupying tiles! They just need to be stronger. But I really love the concept and the graphics. And the graphics in general.
3. Districts. This changes so much of the game, it makes playing civ V a sad thing for me. (You may summarize #2 and #3 as unstacking cities)
4. Cities defending themselves and 1upt which are connected in my opinion. Both are more fun for me, for a variety of reasons I don't want to go into. Came with V, better in VI. Cities needing walls to defend and the new movement rules are very welcome.
5. Leaders with personality and agendas. This came with V as well. Feels great.
6. Scenarios. They are great this time, all 3 that we have so far (haven't played the new one). A welcome change from the base game. Of course, civ IV has lots of mods and those fulfill that purpose as well. But I'm not that much of a mod person - at least not content mods.
There's a lot more, but only 6 to name and #1, #5 and #6 have not come up that often yet.
Similar threads
