Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Artifex1, Nov 5, 2016.
I know there are a lot of civ 4 die hards and wondering how they think civ 6 compares.
The civ 6 UI is a huge turnoff. (IIRC, I didn't like the civ 5 UI either, but then I think I've already played more Civ 6 than I have Civ 5, and I had bought Civ 5 near the launch date!)
The poor AI makes it impossible to really say much about the gameplay itself at this point in time. Even on day 1 I was already past the point of "Can I win at Deity?" and had already moved onto "How fast can I do so?"
(In civ 4, I am merely an immortal level player. Somewhere between emperor/immortal in K-mod)
I really didn't like the stacks of death, but it did keep the AI competitive. The one thing I miss from 4 BTS was the random events
VI adds a lot to the game which I would probably miss if going back to IV: districts, eurekas, city states, policy cards, culture actually doing anything, barbarian camps...I like most or all of those.
But, as said above, all those things don't count for much when the AI is bad enough to make diplomacy meaningless and conquest too easy. If (and that's a big if) the AI can be improved substantially, then I might actually prefer it over IV. If not, then IV will remain the game for people who want a challenging and strategic game, and VI will be the shiny but slightly stupid game to pass the time when you want a nice experience.
There are one or two other problematic things in VI that make it worse than it needs to be, like theological combat with Apostle spam from the AI. But overall, the quality of the decisions the AI takes (including upgrading units) will decide how well it holds up against other Civs.
I rather have doomstacks then a non excistent combat AI.
Beated Deity in 50 turns on a tiny map, quick speed, just to test out the AI.
Vanilla civ 6 is miles ahead of civ 5 vanilla but that says about all.
It's a bit early to say for sure, we'll have to see what they do in future patches. So far, I've been enjoying my time with Civ 6, but in its current state I wouldn't say it's better than Civ 4.
I think Civ 4 still has by far the better designed tech tree. It allows limited beelines and you generally have some choice about which direction to go, but there are also "gatekeeper" techs that eventually make you backfill older techs. Civ 6 tech tree feels too beeline-prone, plus you zoom through it so fast that individual techs don't feel very consequential.
Civ 6's district system is an interesting concept. One of my favorite parts of Civ 4 is planning city locations and deciding how to specialize them, and districts have brought that back to an extent. However, the fact that districts are all based on producing passive output independent of what citizens are working will tend to encourage cramming cities as close together as possible just to get more districts. I like that most buildings in Civ 4 are just multipliers, which keeps the emphasis on citizens and the tiles they're working. Lack of tile improvement variety is also an issue for Civ 6. I like how Civ 4 has completely different types of economy you can choose from: cottage heavy, farms / specialists, hammer-heavy with workshots/watermills, all with different pros/cons and different implications for your civics choices and your path through the tech tree. In Civ 6 you farm the flatlands and mine the hills, and that's it.
1upt vs. stacking is mostly a wash for me, I don't feel like one system is significantly more fun than the other. Civ 4's stacking certainly cuts down on unit micro and traffic jams, though.
Diplomacy in Civ 4 is more interesting, in Civ 6 it tends to devolve into everyone hating each other because there are too many things that can decrease relations. I assume this will be fixed up in future patches, though.
All that said, there are some things I definitely don't miss from Civ 4. Combat is too random. Culture pressure mechanics are wonky, it's generally not worth it to partially conquer another civ because the cities you take will just be culture pressed into uselessness until you eliminate the other civ entirely. The apostolic palace and UN resolutions are aggravating and AP victory is a joke with how early you can get it. The espionage system is full of bugs and is just generally annoying.
The policy cards system in Civ 6 is interesting enough that I think it's a match for Civ 4's civics. I like how Civ 6 handles spies, they managed to make them effective but not overly annoying.
I love Civ IV with mods. In my opinion, it's almost a perfect game minus the performance issues (turn times) on huge maps with lots of civs. Civ VI has a lot of potential, but it also needs a lot of mod work to get it to be fun. I have 74 hours in Civ VI and I think I'm ready to go play some Kerbal Space Program again.
Civ6 has good graphics but it's an unfinished game: AI, UI and game balance have serious issues. There are some good game design ideas, but they are currently crippled by a poor/unfinished implementation. Finally the game is not polished, there are hundreds of small issues that are a cause of frustration and ruin the flow of the game.
I think Civ IV is miles ahead in terms of challenge, AI performance, and diplomacy. There are several things Civ VI does better but in overall single player experience it just can't compete right now. I mean, Civ VI Deity is a joke. The AI can't fight and can't properly expand. The AI always hates you but those limitations mean it doesn't matter.
All that is the opposite of Civ IV Deity--where the AI expands fast and can raise huge and dangerous armies. That means diplomacy becomes important (and Civ IV's diplomacy is very good).
Since 6 is vanilla I can only compare it to the original IV without expansions.
6 is by far a better game.
After two expansions I am sure this game will probably be the best one in the series.
Tried a number of games of 6.
Much prefer 4.
Hard to say whether I prefer 6 over 5; it's improved in some areas, but worse in others.
Dumb AI, broken diplomacy, and tediously unnecessary micro caused by 1upt plague both.
Have since gone back to replay ME2:TW too.
I'm hooked on the maps made by Gedemon for Civ5 and 6.
Going back to Civ4 would be like trying to get drunk on the little bottles they have in hotel minibars.
In many ways, Civ IV was just "Civ III Conquests done right."
It was essentially the same game as III with one or two new gimmicks. If you read the designer notes by Soren, he doesn't really seem to have had any ambitions for the game other than to patch the macro design problems of III like ICS, then add a religion subsystem, and finally make the game moddable.
However, that by itself was enough to make a great game. Because after 5 years of playing III, a bunch of people, both designers and playtesters, understood the system really well and they came together to make a "version 2" that was just great. That's why IV is often called the best of the series. In many ways it's the culmination of 10 years of design, not 5 or 6.
Now compare with Civ VI.
Well, first, it's clear that VI is V with a lot of add-ons. There are so many GOOD, new ideas here. The civics tree, policy cards, districts, AI agendas. Some of the ideas, like Eureka boosts, are such a natural and perfect fit for this series that it makes you wonder why nobody invented them 15 years ago. There's a lot of great stuff.
The problem is that they built VI on top of V, and V (despite what people say about BNW) was never even close to being the equal of IV in terms of being an actual, deep, strategic game. So VI is plagued with all the problems V had - black box diplomacy (half fixed, to be fair), AI that can't handle 1UPT (clearly not fixed at all).
And this is doubly bewildering because the gap from V to VI was the LONGEST gap in the entire series. Lessons should have been learned from V and applied to VI, the way IV fixed III, but instead VI looks to be V unfixed but with a whole bunch of new stuff.
4 vanilla? Or 4 complete/BTS?
Yeah, no, IV is overrated. It was doo-doo.
Everyone gets almost the same exact resources - without end.
It was just too easy too win.
Did I mention it was ugly? Was ugly when it was released and it's still ugly.
The only thing I liked in IV was the 'globe view' that was cool.
VI has abysmal AI, is just not worth playing right now in SP. Maybe interesting in MP if you like Civ MP, however.
Even the diplomacy AI is broken. Agendas are mostly ok, but AIs denounce everyone all over, and warmongering penalties are ridiculous. The enemy of your enemy should be your friend, for instance.
It's also possible to complain someone settled near you but not to warn them not to settle near you, which forces reactive gameplay and is overall bad.
City states are still quite lame. Everyone will get envoys everywhere very easily, so only suzerain bonus matters. The bonus is usually insignificant, enough except for rights of passage, and every other civ benefits from their envoys, so you're probably better off conquering city states rahter than investing diplomacy into them. The AI tends to do that, and it's rather beneficial, so this feature is also a bit of a failure.
The religious war thing needs some tweaking, because right now it's a pain.
The UI is simply very bad, not telling you most of the information you need or requiring lots of useless scrolling.
There is a lot of potential, though, as most defects require only small adjustments to make the game enjoyable.
it has the potential, but not yet, by far not yet. In fact it can become a civ5 clone just as well, depending on how they patch it.
That's my biggest concern of VI. It's like they didn't even try to fix those huge issues that plagued V, though V diplomacy was slightly somewhat later. Some people will say: "Oh, give Firaxis or modders time, they can fix the AI." But, I'm not so sure.
This makes sense. It seems the globe view hook the best part of your playing time onto the surface of the game.
This post is eerily similar to my experience. I could actually have wrote it word for word and it still would be accurate.
After 11 years and literally thousands of games I was still only playing Civ4 on immortal. I've been playing Civ6 a week and can win on Deity. I'll never enjoy 1UPT, it was implemented entirely with combat in mind. Why can't I move my scout on the same tile as someone I'm not at war with. Especially annoying within my own territory.
I definitely prefer the game to Civ5, but it has a long way to go for me to enjoy it as much as Civ4.
Overall, I think AI agendas were an interesting idea but should be eliminated.
Sid Meier (or Soren Johnson? I forget) said something about this during a game design talk. He said that it's not fair to make the AI react according to rules that the player would not value.
So like let's say you're designing Spain and you make it an AI rule that Spain will never DOW a civ with the same religion. The player can exploit this rule to control the AI's behavior. If he doesn't want to fight Spain, he can be the same religion. Now imagine it's a multiplayer match and your neighbor civ is a human playing Spain. He is just trying to win. He doesn't care what religion you are.
Same deal with Germany. A human German player is not more likely to declare war on you just because you are sovereign of several city states. He just cares if you're in the lead.
The AI should be programmed to just try to win. There are too many AI behavior rules that are in the game purely to show off the "flavor" of each civilization
It was cool in Civ 3, when civs would have different aggressiveness levels or pursued different victory types. That was just making sure you would face a variety of AI strategies instead of every AI pursuing the same beeline. But now after 3 more sequels, the game is cluttered with AI behavior controls that make them behave crazy.
This stuff should be constrained to the city states. Because they are NPCs, they can't win, but they can give quests and favors. It makes sense to give them thematic behavior & motivations.
Separate names with a comma.