Lazarus_Cato
Chieftain
I'm new to the series but from all I've read Civ4 is considered the best?
Give me your 6 reasons why you're not playing it.
Give me your 6 reasons why you're not playing it.
Give me 6 reasons why you are playing Civ6 and not Civ4?
- Thread starter Lazarus_Cato
- Start date
HF22
Warlord
I've just reinstalled Civ 4, so I can't help!
PreLynMax
Your Lord and Master
Horrid slider system.
1UPT is superior.
Districts are superior.
Combat is much better.
Builders/workers are no longer useless.
Best vanilla in series.
1UPT is superior.
Districts are superior.
Combat is much better.
Builders/workers are no longer useless.
Best vanilla in series.
CivCube
Spicy.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2003
- Messages
- 5,824
Both games are great for different reasons.
Six reasons to play Civ 6
1) Ed Beach is the man. I think he's on a creative flourish after dealing with Civ 5's limitations. His detailed-but-fun approach to design does a great job of making mechanics feel thematic, especially in faction design.
2) Successfully takes inspiration from modern boardgaming design practices that create a more tight but flavorful experience. Makes sense, since Beach himself designed "Here I Stand" and "Virgin Queen".
3) The game spreads its mechanics literally on the map and exposes most of them to be potentially messed up by opponents. It leans into Civ 5's core strengths and expands them into better gameplay.
4) Very clean, stable game even on release day and patches have proven to be consistent and substantial.
5) Retains most of the mechanics from Civ 5 Brave New World while still feeling open to more expansions, which is very exciting.
6) It's a good-looking game with a decent framerate even on older computers. I don't feel a need to upgrade my 2011 PC. Loading time feels slightly faster than Civ 5.
Four reasons to play Civ 4
1) Best game for mods and will likely remain so long past future Civs in the series. Beyond the Sword is amazing for its mod showcase.
2) Good old-school Civ to just play around in for builders and roleplayers while still being a competitive ruleset. It's a great culmination of all that came before it, especially for diplomacy and stacking units.
3) Vibrant visual and musical presentation made Civ 4 the most human game in the series. Leonard Nimoy, Christopher Tin's music selection, "Baba Yetu"*, and the lovely little leaderheads were mindblowing after Civ 3.
4) Very quick game to load up, even in 2005. It's just easier to sneak in a few turns over the lunch hour, especially for PBEM and Pitboss.
*Soren Johnson asked his old roommate Christopher Tin to write an opening theme that would fit the tempo of the sun regularly rising over the Earth in the main menu. Pretty crazy that what was originally a design solution became the first videogame song to win a Grammy and go viral with choirs everywhere.
Here's an excellent talk by Soren about Civ 4's development process. The mutual respect between art and game design here is great, and informed much of the cool feeling that pervades Civ 4.
Six reasons to play Civ 6
1) Ed Beach is the man. I think he's on a creative flourish after dealing with Civ 5's limitations. His detailed-but-fun approach to design does a great job of making mechanics feel thematic, especially in faction design.
2) Successfully takes inspiration from modern boardgaming design practices that create a more tight but flavorful experience. Makes sense, since Beach himself designed "Here I Stand" and "Virgin Queen".
3) The game spreads its mechanics literally on the map and exposes most of them to be potentially messed up by opponents. It leans into Civ 5's core strengths and expands them into better gameplay.
4) Very clean, stable game even on release day and patches have proven to be consistent and substantial.
5) Retains most of the mechanics from Civ 5 Brave New World while still feeling open to more expansions, which is very exciting.
6) It's a good-looking game with a decent framerate even on older computers. I don't feel a need to upgrade my 2011 PC. Loading time feels slightly faster than Civ 5.
Four reasons to play Civ 4
1) Best game for mods and will likely remain so long past future Civs in the series. Beyond the Sword is amazing for its mod showcase.
2) Good old-school Civ to just play around in for builders and roleplayers while still being a competitive ruleset. It's a great culmination of all that came before it, especially for diplomacy and stacking units.
3) Vibrant visual and musical presentation made Civ 4 the most human game in the series. Leonard Nimoy, Christopher Tin's music selection, "Baba Yetu"*, and the lovely little leaderheads were mindblowing after Civ 3.
4) Very quick game to load up, even in 2005. It's just easier to sneak in a few turns over the lunch hour, especially for PBEM and Pitboss.
*Soren Johnson asked his old roommate Christopher Tin to write an opening theme that would fit the tempo of the sun regularly rising over the Earth in the main menu. Pretty crazy that what was originally a design solution became the first videogame song to win a Grammy and go viral with choirs everywhere.
Here's an excellent talk by Soren about Civ 4's development process. The mutual respect between art and game design here is great, and informed much of the cool feeling that pervades Civ 4.
Last edited:
Why 6?
Alright, I'll play along
1.) Honestly, because it's new and I haven't experienced the ride as thoroughly. I have over 100 deity wins on Civ4, I've beaten Civ6 just a few times on emperor and immortal.
2.) Related to the first point, it may be due to lack of experience, but at this point in my development it does seem as if Civ6 has more options. I've mastered civ4 (and civ5) to the extent that upon scouting my immediate surroundings, I know exactly which victory path to pursue and which steps to take to achieve it and in what order. Diverting from this plan may lead to more variety in games, but also strays from optimum strategic choices. Civ6 seems (again, at this point in my development) to have more choices; the civilizations that are involved in a particular game and their placement on the map may suggest one victory path, but the city states that are involved in a game and where they are located (i.e. whether or not I can protect my investments) may suggest another path, and which great people are available in a game may suggest yet a different path.
3.) related to point #2, whether or not you appreciate the advancement, it's hard to argue that as the civilization games have progressed chronologically, they have also progressed in depth. Earlier iterations of the game allowed you to earn great people that gave you a benefit, now each great person gives you a specific benefit that other great people, even great people of the same class and prerequisite, cannot provide you with. Earlier iteration of the game had a progression tree that you had to advance in as the game unfolded, and you knew the sweet spots, but this game has two. Simpler is often better, but more complex leads to more options and more flexibility, and it's hard to argue that this game is not the most complex in the series so far.
4.) Ease of success. Since they have added more and more ways to engage in combat and players have broken down and identified the optimum way to engage in combat while the AI simply lacks the human advantage of free will and has to stick to its programming, it's very easy to overcome the AI, even if they are using superior level forces in superior numbers. It's as if you can approach each game with a different long term agenda and a different plan, but if ever your plan fails due to circumstantial events, you can always use the back door of, "the AI is unable to think."
5.) Districts. Man, they are cool. We've always wanted a way for our cities to increase their yields without having to adjust how we micromanage citizen placement but rather something that supplements that, and this new city concept provides exactly that.
6.) Especially when comparing to Civ4 (civ5 was better at this), the individuality of leaders. When selecting a leader of Civ4, the choice revolved around which 2 of a possible 8 generic traits each leader possessed, and then which starting techs they had (which would quickly even out anyway) and which unique units they had, which often had little impact on the decision. In Civ6, each civilization has 4 or 5 advantages each of which is specific to that particular leader.
Alright, I'll play along
1.) Honestly, because it's new and I haven't experienced the ride as thoroughly. I have over 100 deity wins on Civ4, I've beaten Civ6 just a few times on emperor and immortal.
2.) Related to the first point, it may be due to lack of experience, but at this point in my development it does seem as if Civ6 has more options. I've mastered civ4 (and civ5) to the extent that upon scouting my immediate surroundings, I know exactly which victory path to pursue and which steps to take to achieve it and in what order. Diverting from this plan may lead to more variety in games, but also strays from optimum strategic choices. Civ6 seems (again, at this point in my development) to have more choices; the civilizations that are involved in a particular game and their placement on the map may suggest one victory path, but the city states that are involved in a game and where they are located (i.e. whether or not I can protect my investments) may suggest another path, and which great people are available in a game may suggest yet a different path.
3.) related to point #2, whether or not you appreciate the advancement, it's hard to argue that as the civilization games have progressed chronologically, they have also progressed in depth. Earlier iterations of the game allowed you to earn great people that gave you a benefit, now each great person gives you a specific benefit that other great people, even great people of the same class and prerequisite, cannot provide you with. Earlier iteration of the game had a progression tree that you had to advance in as the game unfolded, and you knew the sweet spots, but this game has two. Simpler is often better, but more complex leads to more options and more flexibility, and it's hard to argue that this game is not the most complex in the series so far.
4.) Ease of success. Since they have added more and more ways to engage in combat and players have broken down and identified the optimum way to engage in combat while the AI simply lacks the human advantage of free will and has to stick to its programming, it's very easy to overcome the AI, even if they are using superior level forces in superior numbers. It's as if you can approach each game with a different long term agenda and a different plan, but if ever your plan fails due to circumstantial events, you can always use the back door of, "the AI is unable to think."
5.) Districts. Man, they are cool. We've always wanted a way for our cities to increase their yields without having to adjust how we micromanage citizen placement but rather something that supplements that, and this new city concept provides exactly that.
6.) Especially when comparing to Civ4 (civ5 was better at this), the individuality of leaders. When selecting a leader of Civ4, the choice revolved around which 2 of a possible 8 generic traits each leader possessed, and then which starting techs they had (which would quickly even out anyway) and which unique units they had, which often had little impact on the decision. In Civ6, each civilization has 4 or 5 advantages each of which is specific to that particular leader.
Ferocitus
Deity
Compared to Civ6...
Civ4 maps are far too small.
Civ4 required strategy and tactics are primitive.
Civ4 is butt ugly.
Civ4 is clunky.
Civ4 lacks complexity and sophistication.
Civ4 is dead.
Civ4 maps are far too small.
Civ4 required strategy and tactics are primitive.
Civ4 is butt ugly.
Civ4 is clunky.
Civ4 lacks complexity and sophistication.
Civ4 is dead.
Esperr
King
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2012
- Messages
- 868
I played 4 to much already, but I do think it was just better. Something about VI just has a hollow flavorless feel, beyond earth had the same problem. The game feels lifeless, the leaders don't feel distinct. Its still a great game and I have 250+ hours now though.
w3rallmachines
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
- Messages
- 35
Civ 4 is my favourite Civ, but I couldn't go back. Districts, plus unique great people, plus policies, plus separation of cultural and science trees, plus hexes, plus civs that actually play/feel differently will make it my favourite Civ with time.
The thing is I did reinstalled Civilization 4 like 1 or 2 months ago but couldn't go back to it .
(All the points are my opinion and O can understand and respect if yours are different )
............................................................................
:-Because 1 UPT with limited Unit stacking is superior .
:-Districts .
:-Government and Civics tree and policies mechanics is a lot more deep and better .
:-Visual style , graphical fluidity , art style and day night cycle .
:-I like the active gameplay because it let us strategize more . (Eureka , Inspiration and Builders)
:-Better map and animations including leaders animations .
:-City states normal bonuses and suzerein bonus is awesome .
.......................………...............…............................
Why do I still reinstalled Civilization 4 after 6 . Because I still miss a lot of mechanics of Civilization 4 base and bts like .
:- State religion .
:-Culture bombing at a different level .
:- Vassal state (this mechanic is kinda broken but still nice to have as an option )
:-Random events .
:-Rhyse and fall of Civilization and other mods .
:- Corporation is nice .
:-Member elections .
Some other reasons I installed Civilization 4 is because of some broken stuffs of Civilization 6 like AI . Those of which has been fixed a lot . And will me more soon .
Civilization 6 is not really favoring tall play as much as I want it to . Because of tiles being so vital .
But regardless goodness of Civilization 6 overwhelmed the goodness of Civilization 4 even after both expansions and my nostalgia .
(All the points are my opinion and O can understand and respect if yours are different )
............................................................................
:-Because 1 UPT with limited Unit stacking is superior .
:-Districts .
:-Government and Civics tree and policies mechanics is a lot more deep and better .
:-Visual style , graphical fluidity , art style and day night cycle .
:-I like the active gameplay because it let us strategize more . (Eureka , Inspiration and Builders)
:-Better map and animations including leaders animations .
:-City states normal bonuses and suzerein bonus is awesome .
.......................………...............…............................
Why do I still reinstalled Civilization 4 after 6 . Because I still miss a lot of mechanics of Civilization 4 base and bts like .
:- State religion .
:-Culture bombing at a different level .
:- Vassal state (this mechanic is kinda broken but still nice to have as an option )
:-Random events .
:-Rhyse and fall of Civilization and other mods .
:- Corporation is nice .
:-Member elections .
Some other reasons I installed Civilization 4 is because of some broken stuffs of Civilization 6 like AI . Those of which has been fixed a lot . And will me more soon .
Civilization 6 is not really favoring tall play as much as I want it to . Because of tiles being so vital .
But regardless goodness of Civilization 6 overwhelmed the goodness of Civilization 4 even after both expansions and my nostalgia .
Last edited:
Leyrann
Deity
1. Districts.
2. Districts.
3. Districts.
4. Districts.
5. Districts.
6. Districts.
There's more reasons, but those are in my opinion the six best reasons Civ 6 is better than Civ 4. Civ 4 is a good game though, and you'll probably be able to pick it up much cheaper right now, so if you're not sure yet wheter or not you like the Civilization series you're probably better off purchasing Civ 4 first and then waiting a while until Civ 6 is on sale or something. I can't go back to Civ 4 since playing Civ 6 though, for reasons mentioned above.
2. Districts.
3. Districts.
4. Districts.
5. Districts.
6. Districts.
There's more reasons, but those are in my opinion the six best reasons Civ 6 is better than Civ 4. Civ 4 is a good game though, and you'll probably be able to pick it up much cheaper right now, so if you're not sure yet wheter or not you like the Civilization series you're probably better off purchasing Civ 4 first and then waiting a while until Civ 6 is on sale or something. I can't go back to Civ 4 since playing Civ 6 though, for reasons mentioned above.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
Compared to civ 6? If you attempt any decently objective measure on this you're going to fall flat. The assertion that civ 6 has more strategy/tactics knowledge required to succeed at high levels right now is comical.
Can't help you @ OP. I gave civ 6 a chance but it's while mechanically designed decently there are major holes right now. The controls are in alpha, the AI is in beta. MP is more stable than 4 or 5 on release, but it isn't actually stable (de-sync spam in mid-late games oftentimes). Once you learn to build units and optimize for districts you're borderline deity level already, but this one is a chore to play and that's the #1 reason I'm playing other things.
If I had them side by side today I'd play 4 over 6 in a heart beat. But I've played 4 for several thousands hours. Civ 6 is just over 60, and is probably staying there until I see patch notes that address the alpha UI/controls or someone talks me into running a mod that sufficiently picks up up some of the developer's job that one would ordinarily expect to be ready before the beta. Even then, the replay ability isn't there right now. The early game choices are pretty similar game to game.
They are in many cases two pretty different cases, more like cousins than siblings, but both are great games. I've uninstalled Civ 5 but have both 4 and 6 although haven't played 4 after release of Civ 6. 
Reasons why I've moved to Civ 6:
1) So many good new features brought by releases after Civ 4 that it's hard to play without missing them
2) The slavery system of Civ 4 is pretty cheesy and stupid
3) Civ 6 is only six months old and constantly evolving so there's much fun ahead and new territories to discover
4) Civ 6 has actually inherited more cool stuff from Civ 4 compared to Civ 5, like war weariness, bombing districts, and no empire wide happiness like Civ 5
5) Visuals and audio are the greatest in Civ 6 compared to other Civs, ok it's a strategy game but it's still a pleasure
6) I hate the megastacks. Yeah - 1upt has problems, creating Corps and Armies is a step in right way
Reasons why I've moved to Civ 6:
1) So many good new features brought by releases after Civ 4 that it's hard to play without missing them
2) The slavery system of Civ 4 is pretty cheesy and stupid
3) Civ 6 is only six months old and constantly evolving so there's much fun ahead and new territories to discover
4) Civ 6 has actually inherited more cool stuff from Civ 4 compared to Civ 5, like war weariness, bombing districts, and no empire wide happiness like Civ 5
5) Visuals and audio are the greatest in Civ 6 compared to other Civs, ok it's a strategy game but it's still a pleasure
6) I hate the megastacks. Yeah - 1upt has problems, creating Corps and Armies is a step in right way
CivLuvah
Deity
I love Civ4. Heck my previous username in these forums was Civ4luvah2484 (2484 stands for Civ4). It was the only game in the series that I had so much attention to. I never got the hang of Civ5 for some reason, to be honest. However I have moved on from Civ4, and I have spent a lot of time on Civ6
My 6 reasons:
1. The District system/World Interaction Gameplay - The world that you play in feels more interactive than in Civ4. You really have to strategize where you should place districts so that you can have maximum benefits for your civ
2. The Government and Religion systems - They'e more complicated and dynamic than in Civ4. While the social policies system in Civ5 is also dynamic, as well as the religion system that's basically imported into Civ6.... I like Civ6's better... because it's Civ6, and not Civ5.
3. Dynamic civilizations and alternative leaders - Also another feature imported from Civ5, but more dynamic than in Civ5, and even more so than in Civ4. In Civ4 each alternate leader has a bunch of random traits that have no visible effect on the game whatsoever, at least for me. The UA of each civilization adds a lot of flavor that makes each civ look, well, unique. It really goes beyond your bland UU or UB in Civ4. Speaking of unique leaders..
4. Agenda system - this makes diplomacy less boring and the leaders that you interact with more interactive and "alive"
5. Ancient and classical eras are no longer boring. Although the barbarians are a bit annoying, which makes the early game more interesting
6. Eureka boosts - In every civ game I always wanted to reach an era according to the year/s that's shown on the screen, and the eureka boosts give me an opportunity to, say, "fine-tune" my tech.
There's a few more, but these stand out for me. I do miss the music, Spock's voice, and the quality of the quotes and the civilopedia in Civ4 but that's manageable.
My 6 reasons:
1. The District system/World Interaction Gameplay - The world that you play in feels more interactive than in Civ4. You really have to strategize where you should place districts so that you can have maximum benefits for your civ
2. The Government and Religion systems - They'e more complicated and dynamic than in Civ4. While the social policies system in Civ5 is also dynamic, as well as the religion system that's basically imported into Civ6.... I like Civ6's better... because it's Civ6, and not Civ5.
3. Dynamic civilizations and alternative leaders - Also another feature imported from Civ5, but more dynamic than in Civ5, and even more so than in Civ4. In Civ4 each alternate leader has a bunch of random traits that have no visible effect on the game whatsoever, at least for me. The UA of each civilization adds a lot of flavor that makes each civ look, well, unique. It really goes beyond your bland UU or UB in Civ4. Speaking of unique leaders..
4. Agenda system - this makes diplomacy less boring and the leaders that you interact with more interactive and "alive"
5. Ancient and classical eras are no longer boring. Although the barbarians are a bit annoying, which makes the early game more interesting
6. Eureka boosts - In every civ game I always wanted to reach an era according to the year/s that's shown on the screen, and the eureka boosts give me an opportunity to, say, "fine-tune" my tech.
There's a few more, but these stand out for me. I do miss the music, Spock's voice, and the quality of the quotes and the civilopedia in Civ4 but that's manageable.
Roald Amundsen
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 136
Civ 4 is superior in all aspects to 6. Its just a much better game. And the best thing: loading times between turns. The difference between the two is huge. I mean, civ6 is kind of fun, but its unfinished, hollow and poorly made as of now. The exception is graphics. Civ 6 has better graphics. Then again civ6 graphics Are nothing to write home about.
1. As mentioned before, Districts are the way to go. They are flavourful and give a whole new dimension to the game with the tile-puzzle coming with them
2. Together with Districts, and a little bit also tied to the new inspiration/eureka system, I love how the map now has a real impact on the gamestyle. You need to adapt more to your surroundings, which is a new challenge each time you create a new map
3. City states, especially the differentiated ones from CIV6 (opposed to the more generic ones of CIV5) are a great addition to the game
4. Competing for Great Persons is both challenging and fun (especially if you need a very specific one for your main victory condition, or a great prophet in the starting phase)
5. Even if the AI still is not in the state I would want it to see, I think the development is promising and there is a long way still to go until the (probably) 2 expansions made their way into the game (and the developers will probably not put too much effort into an AI for an unfinished game before those expansions are out). Having said this, I love the different characters and Agendas the leaders have. It makes them distinct and much easier to like/hate
6. I prefer the religious system of CIV5/6 very much over the one from CIV4
2. Together with Districts, and a little bit also tied to the new inspiration/eureka system, I love how the map now has a real impact on the gamestyle. You need to adapt more to your surroundings, which is a new challenge each time you create a new map
3. City states, especially the differentiated ones from CIV6 (opposed to the more generic ones of CIV5) are a great addition to the game
4. Competing for Great Persons is both challenging and fun (especially if you need a very specific one for your main victory condition, or a great prophet in the starting phase)
5. Even if the AI still is not in the state I would want it to see, I think the development is promising and there is a long way still to go until the (probably) 2 expansions made their way into the game (and the developers will probably not put too much effort into an AI for an unfinished game before those expansions are out). Having said this, I love the different characters and Agendas the leaders have. It makes them distinct and much easier to like/hate
6. I prefer the religious system of CIV5/6 very much over the one from CIV4
Roald Amundsen
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 136
Actually, given it more thought, the graphics in 4 Are actually superior. In civ6 they have messed it all up with unclear terrain, ugly and unclear fog-of-war and messy unclear icons. Yes i know you have lenses. In civ4 you don't need lenses.
Felis Renidens
Prince
1. I like the hex grid
2. I like cities that can defend themselves
3. I like 1UPT
4. Religion in 4 was kinda bland, I stopped playing 4 when I got Gods and Kings which had a much better system.
5. Re-learning civ4 tactics will take me some time now.
Now all those things where true to civ5. I consider 6 an improvement over 5 with districts, tougher barbs and generally better balance. Also, Brave New Worlds had the annoying science penalty to building many cities.
Actually of all the games I think it would be easier for me to go back to 3, 2 and 1 than to 4.
I do miss the civ4 soundtrack though.
Also - I did not have any extensions to civ4, but then there aren't any for civ6 yet except a few DLCs (which I did not buy yet).
2. I like cities that can defend themselves
3. I like 1UPT
4. Religion in 4 was kinda bland, I stopped playing 4 when I got Gods and Kings which had a much better system.
5. Re-learning civ4 tactics will take me some time now.
Now all those things where true to civ5. I consider 6 an improvement over 5 with districts, tougher barbs and generally better balance. Also, Brave New Worlds had the annoying science penalty to building many cities.
Actually of all the games I think it would be easier for me to go back to 3, 2 and 1 than to 4.
I do miss the civ4 soundtrack though.
Also - I did not have any extensions to civ4, but then there aren't any for civ6 yet except a few DLCs (which I did not buy yet).
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
Lets compare an evolving game with a fully evolved game?
1. Stacks stopped my playing 4, they just took the fun out of war for me. Reverse that for 6 with support units working better ... to a degree.
2. The options open and the flexibility, while there are optimum ways you do not have to play them to win. Its about districts, tiles, build paths and cards, its just great. So often I want to build 4 things at once and none of them are optimum. Often people think one thing is optimum but its about circumstances, your strategy has to change like the wind sometimes.
3. The diplomacy system has great potential and I know more is coming, its written in the xml.
4. The city states are implemented better, stronger and more meaningful with tasks to get more envoys.
5. I really like the corps/army/fleet/armada concept... the combat difference concept works well.
6. The culture victory options are so varied.
Even in its current "broken" state its playable. It is however becoming less playable as there is more requirement to be aggressive. It may even end up that it becomes more fixed for everyone else but more broken for me. I like to play war but i also like to play peace. Civ for me was primarily a build and explore game as I could get my violence elsewhere.
1. Stacks stopped my playing 4, they just took the fun out of war for me. Reverse that for 6 with support units working better ... to a degree.
2. The options open and the flexibility, while there are optimum ways you do not have to play them to win. Its about districts, tiles, build paths and cards, its just great. So often I want to build 4 things at once and none of them are optimum. Often people think one thing is optimum but its about circumstances, your strategy has to change like the wind sometimes.
3. The diplomacy system has great potential and I know more is coming, its written in the xml.
4. The city states are implemented better, stronger and more meaningful with tasks to get more envoys.
5. I really like the corps/army/fleet/armada concept... the combat difference concept works well.
6. The culture victory options are so varied.
Even in its current "broken" state its playable. It is however becoming less playable as there is more requirement to be aggressive. It may even end up that it becomes more fixed for everyone else but more broken for me. I like to play war but i also like to play peace. Civ for me was primarily a build and explore game as I could get my violence elsewhere.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Lemme say that I love CIV. Much more so than V. But:
1. There is no optimal way through the tech tree. Beach & co have succeeded at making the game have greater replayability with the many things in the game tugging the player here and there with different oppotunities.
2. Hexes.
3. 1UPT. I don't hate stacks, and the carpet can annoy me (though less so in VI than V), but 1UPT is better for tactical play. Admittedly the AI struggles more with that, but I'm not that good that it is a problem for me.
4. Movement. Following on from 1UPT; the movement in VI is the best it has ever been. Tactically there is far more going on there than there was in any previous version of Civ.
5. Graphics - just beautiful
6. The leader's personalities. IV was pretty good with this, but VI is even better.
1. There is no optimal way through the tech tree. Beach & co have succeeded at making the game have greater replayability with the many things in the game tugging the player here and there with different oppotunities.
2. Hexes.
3. 1UPT. I don't hate stacks, and the carpet can annoy me (though less so in VI than V), but 1UPT is better for tactical play. Admittedly the AI struggles more with that, but I'm not that good that it is a problem for me.
4. Movement. Following on from 1UPT; the movement in VI is the best it has ever been. Tactically there is far more going on there than there was in any previous version of Civ.
5. Graphics - just beautiful
6. The leader's personalities. IV was pretty good with this, but VI is even better.
Similar threads
