I hope they roll back to Civ4 Style with better AI for CIV 7. Keep the Hex tiles, but no one unit per tile

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Everyone has a favorite version of the game Civilization. You may cheer for your version, but going after specific people is not allowed here. Please stop.

 

[Evie]

I love civilization 4 to bit, but I have no interest in purchasing a Civ 4-2, Civ 4-3 or Civ 4-4. 5, 6 and 7 need to thread their own ground, not merely be copies of Civ 4 (pale ones, because it's rare enough that a copy outshines the original).

An entertainment industry that is only able to rehash the old and never to thread new ground is creatively bankrupt, and unable to general anything in the least bit interesting.

Innovation, not clingy imitation, is what we need.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Titles says it all.

I want an AI that can conquer the world but not at the cost of 1UPT … I’d rather have Civ 6 City Skylines Ai again where they do nothing but build and have no army

 

[Patine]

I want an AI that can conquer the world but not at the cost of 1UPT … I’d rather have Civ 6 City Skylines Ai again where they do nothing but build and have no army

1UPT is a bigger problem and flaw with Civ6 than it's AI. It is a mess in game, and makes absolutely NO SENSE, and is utterly jarring, on a global strategic map. It only makes any sense, at all, on a purely, small-scale, tactical map.

 

[GeneralZift]

I'd rather the AI be incompetent than passive

 

[Disgustipated]

I love Civ 4, but I admit it's hard to go back and actually finish a game. I bought it on Steam (I have the original of course, but that's harder to install these days) and never finished my 1st game. As much as I love it, Civ 6 is the better game (yes I know it has its flaws as well). Mods were the only thing that could make Civ 4 better, but I'm just comparing the original games and expansions.

 

[UWHabs]

I love Civ 4, but I admit it's hard to go back and actually finish a game. I bought it on Steam (I have the original of course, but that's harder to install these days) and never finished my 1st game. As much as I love it, Civ 6 is the better game (yes I know it has its flaws as well). Mods were the only thing that could make Civ 4 better, but I'm just comparing the original games and expansions.

I'd probably still rank 4 as the best game of the series, and personally I think 5 was arguably my least favorite. But despite how much I didn't like 5, once it released, I just had trouble ever going back and trying 4 again.

I am definitely curious to see the direction 7 takes. I liked 6 enough that if 7 released as more of a 6.5 than anything else, I'll probably buy and not be too upset. But 6 definitely got fairly bulky in the end, I do wonder what they'll be able to do to de-clutter it a little bit without removing too much. I'd hate for it to release as like a civ 6.5, but missing a few key features that we have in 6.

 

[fantsu]

Yeah, would be sweet to have something more deep and strategic after two console civilizations, but I dont see how it would happen. Since Civ V they have pretty much copy pasted Civ:Rev and added stuff from random mobile games to cut costs and get younger players to buy the product.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Yeah, would be sweet to have something more deep and strategic after two console civilizations, but I dont see how it would happen. Since Civ V they have pretty much copy pasted Civ:Rev and added stuff from random mobile games to cut costs and get younger players to buy the product.

I wouldn’t say the last two have been as simplistic as Civ:Rev but also if you are hoping they aren’t going console again - the Civ 7 announcement included PlayStation and Xbox logos at the bottom of it.

I want something a bit deeper than Civ 6 personally but I think outside of the military AI being improved, what I’m looking for is systems that intersect and interact with each other more. I’d like to see culture and religion tie into loyalty (hoping loyalty returns in some capacity) for example among other things. At times, Civ 6 felt like each victory type was a wholly different game and you could often beeline or neglect other aspects with no consequences due to the AI being unable to punish you.

One of my biggest learning curves when I started playing multiplayer was the idea that I actually needed an army. Even on deity after the first 100 turns I could comfortably conquer cities with four units or completely isolationist builder as soon as I got walls.

 

[pokiehl]

I wouldn’t say the last two have been as simplistic as Civ:Rev but also if you are hoping they aren’t going console again - the Civ 7 announcement included PlayStation and Xbox logos at the bottom of it.

Being on console has zero to do with complexity. Stellaris is on console and that is a really complex game.

 

[TempusFugit]

Removing the 1 unit pr turn limit would absolutely be a great choice, because it is not that likely that they are going to make an AI that “understands” the current system well. Trying to recreate Civ 4 would not be such a good idea. Why not just play Civ 4, or one of its many mods instead? It is still a great game.

At one point in the series, it could perhaps be interesting with an entry that goes back to the gameplay in Civ3/Civ4, and combines it with some of the ideas and features of the newer games that would work well with those systems. But at this point I don’t think that is what a majority of the fans would want. And perhaps such a project, if it was ever undertaken, would be better to license out to some other non-Firaxis team, which were great fans of the series and the old games. And of course not released in the same year as a mainline entry in the series. As the series changes more and more, there will probably be a larger amount of players who yearns for similar gameplay as in the older games, and then such a project might be economically viable.

 

[Core Imposter]

Removing the 1 unit pr turn limit would absolutely be a great choice, because it is not that likely that they are going to make an AI that “understands” the current system well. Trying to recreate Civ 4 would not be such a good idea. Why not just play Civ 4, or one of its many mods instead? It is still a great game.

Well, that's exactly what I am doing, playing Civ 4 with house rules to give it a different flavor. And I will continue to do that, or mods, until someone makes an equivalent or better game.

Different people want different things out of different games. Makes it complicated. I think maybe the best games come from people who are making the game they want to play rather than from people who are just doing their job to make something to meet someone else's ideas. But what do I know.

Strike lightning, roll thunder, make a great game, not a blunder.

 

[TempusFugit]

Well, that's exactly what I am doing, playing Civ 4 with house rules to give it a different flavor. And I will continue to do that, or mods, until someone makes an equivalent or better game.

Different people want different things out of different games. Makes it complicated. I think maybe the best games come from people who are making the game they want to play rather than from people who are just doing their job to make something to meet someone else's ideas. But what do I know.

Strike lightning, roll thunder, make a great game, not a blunder.

Making rules for yourself, or house rules in multiplayer, is something that can add a lot both to enjoyment and variety. And when you combine it with all the different settings and replayability that is inherent in these games, you get a really replayable game.

Just one game in the Civilization series would actually be enough for a lifetime. At least if not played all the time. And when I read discussion about the series outside of these forums, or talk with someone in real life, it seems like most people stick to one game at a time and play only that. Whether that is the latest entry or one of the older ones varies. Because of that I feel lucky that I am able to enjoy all the games in the series so far. Even Civ 6, which I do have some problems with. So I vary what I play from time to time, but tend to stick to one game in one period of play. When I grow tired of that, or don't have the time anymore, it usually takes some time until I return to the series, and then it could be to another entry.

On the other hand, all that time spent playing Civilization and other strategy games, is also time that could have been spent on playing different types of games, and I do like quite a lot of different genres. So maybe it is better to just be fixated upon one game as the pinnacle of the series

While I do like Civ 4 quite a lot, my personal favorite is Civ 3, and then Civ 5 as number two. I'm not really sure if I think Civ 2 or 4 belongs on third place. Civ 4 is clearly the better game of the two, but I have more nostalgia for Civ 2. What is clear though, is that all of these games have different advantages and disadvantages and none of them could be described as perfect. With that said, Civ 4 feels like the more rounded game, and certainly more so than Civ 3 and 5 which both are more extreme, but in different ways.

 

[Countmonte8242]

I think surely, they won't release another game with one unit per tile. It would seem so pointless.

I agree with this from a personal perspective. I foresee no point in me buying Civ VII if it still has 1UPT. That said, most who play V and VI exclusively wouldn't agree with that - many either never played earlier games or even prefer the ease of a gimped AI. I'm hopeful Firaxis goes back to some form of stacks, but would be surprised if they announce that in a couple days.

I'll also say though... its encouraging to see that enough old schoolers are around still that played IV and earlier games, that a majority of voters would prefer to see 1UPT gone in the recent thread on that.

 

[Countmonte8242]

Within 5 years you might be able to tell AI "Build me a version of Civ IV with updated graphics" and then be able to tweak things however you like. $25 million not needed.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Spam post removed. Please stay on topic.

 

[Disgustipated]

Within 5 years you might be able to tell AI "Build me a version of Civ IV with updated graphics" and then be able to tweak things however you like. $25 million not needed.

Ummm, no. AI still sucks in its current form. There's a reason there's talk of the bubble beginning to burst already.

 

[Countmonte8242]

Ummm, no. AI still sucks in its current form. There's a reason there's talk of the bubble beginning to burst already.

It doesn't - and the bubble bursting has little to do with how good it is going to be in the near future. When the .com bubble burst did that mean that internet wasn't going to change the world? Rhetorical question obviously.

The AI experts largely believe it is going to disrupt things in a big way in the near future. It can already make basic games for you with a simple text prompt - more complex games are only a matter of when, not if. And to me the when question is something like 5 years? or 10 years ?

 

[GeneralZift]

Right... You will tell it to make Civ4 and I'm sure it'll copy all assets and mechanics perfectly with no problem and no legal issues whatsoever...
Yeah right

What's more funny, imagine you tell it to improve Civ4 and it just adds 1UPT

 

[user330977]

Despite years of practice and millions of training images, generative AI is still struggling to put five fingers on human hands. I think we're a very, VERY long way away from AI even being remotely close to producing a coherent, functioning and fun game. Gen AI is a massively overhyped piece of technology.