Is Old World any fun?

[John.B.C]

I've watched this on youtube and has become quite intrigued (the UI seem very good):

How do you like Old World, is it any fun?

I'm also asking from the perspective of an experienced Civplayer, having played since 1991 (civ 1,2,3,4,5 not 6)
I'm currently playing Vox populi Civ 5 at the moment, on Diety and wonder if this game would give me any challange?

 

[Tiger Genocide]

I've watched this on youtube and has become quite intrigued (the UI seem very good):

How do you like Old World, is it any fun?

I'm also asking from the perspective of an experienced Civplayer, having played since 1991 (civ 1,2,3,4,5 not 6)
I'm currently playing Vox populi Civ 5 at the moment, on Diety and wonder if this game would give me any challange?

No idea on the challenge as I am still working on my first game, on the easiest setting (I am trying to learn the mechanics first), but I just finished spending 6 hours playing straight, forgetting about my work. I had no idea where the time went. That was scary to me. The game just got so dang interesting to me!

Like you I have hundreds if not a thousand plus hours playing Civ5 Vox Populi. I never played 4. I like how this game has the great aspect of Crusader Kings in it. I like CK, but I do not enjoy playing it, if that makes sense.

Hopefully someone can answer your question about difficulty. I have heard it can get ultra hard like Vox can. Games are not short though, so by the time I play a hard one, it will be a really long time.

 

[Stringer1313]

I love this game, except for the fact that it grinds to a halt around turn 80 such that I have to restart the game every 10 turns or so, and play on Small map. I've played every Civ since Civ 1 and this game is great. I do think it is very hard. You better have a lot of military units or pray the AI never declares war on you and if 2 AI are at war against you you're dead. The ambition system is the best. And unlike Civ i feel more like I'm competing against myself than against the AI so it doesn't matter that much how "good" the AI is. There are so many ways to influence everything and everything's always a tight balance.

I have reached a groove where the game has gotten easy and I'm on the 3rd-to-hardest mode but still I'm always on a knife's edge. It's great.

 

[Tiger Genocide]

I love this game, except for the fact that it grinds to a halt around turn 80 such that I have to restart the game every 10 turns or so, and play on Small map. I've played every Civ since Civ 1 and this game is great. I do think it is very hard. You better have a lot of military units or pray the AI never declares war on you and if 2 AI are at war against you you're dead. The ambition system is the best. And unlike Civ i feel more like I'm competing against myself than against the AI so it doesn't matter that much how "good" the AI is. There are so many ways to influence everything and everything's always a tight balance.

I have reached a groove where the game has gotten easy and I'm on the 3rd-to-hardest mode but still I'm always on a knife's edge. It's great.

Why does the game grind to a halt? Hardware constraints? My current game is around T200 or so.

 

[The Civs 6]

Other than performance issues I love this game

 

[John.B.C]

Thanks for your replies! I really liked the focus on a particular era.
I have now played a few games and currently find a good challange on the third difficulty level.

THE EVENT SYSTEM
I like the event system even though I think that it gets a little repitive (pretty much the same quest each time). Apparently there are many events and that's good, but I think more is needed and it would be really nice if some sort of 'check' towards previous games could be implemented to avoid this repitiveness of events.

THE AI
I'm not sure what to say about the AI yet. My first impression is that it does the job way better than vanilla civ 5 and 6.

 

[John.B.C]

I've noticed that the AI shows quite the respect if I just leave a few units at city (5-6). Persia was at war with me and I was afraid of an attack, but it never happened even though they had an massive well trained army. They sent single units 'over and over again' which I finished off easily. This could be improved, making the AI move larger armies and get off 'camping' their own cities; not being so scared (which in some cases are a good thing).

I now win the game on glorius quite easily. I will take a break playing now, since I get a bit bored by not ever being invaded by a real army that isn't scared of a few units. I just build my stuff and win the game.

Trying to conquer others isn't really necessary, but at least there's a challange to this since the AI is camping his own cities and does a pretty good job defending. Going on the offensive is what needs some attention by the developers (then I'd be hooked for years to come).

 

[John.B.C]

I've tried to play the game a few times more, but I simply lose interest when the other AI civilizations never try to invade me. So if this isn't fixed in some way, I can't see myself playing this [sandbox] anymore. Hopefully it will, since it's the most interesting game I've played in years.

 

[bamdorf]

My comments.

(1) I have been using a new comp that I build in Dec '20. 32gb mem, i7 cpu, storage on 2 ss drives. Anyway, I haven't had any problem with the game, and I have played nearly to turn 200 (I won then, lol). standard settings.
(2) I play tested a lot on gal civ 3, which is a 4x game that makes it possible to play a gargantuan size. While in dev the game acted like you described for Old World.
However it got a LOT better at launch and for some time after, as the game was optimized. On my new comp I can play at the largest size without problems, except you just can't win on those settings, as some AI will steamroller a big part of the galaxy before you even meet them.
(3) I suggest that OW will get a lot better, as the devs are pretty good. That said, newer games that do a ton of calculating need some HP. I have a 1060 Video card...ho hum. But on these games graphic display isn't the problem, it is the enormous calculations for the AI once the game gets rolling.

I suggest waiting to play until release and try again, and/or upgrade the storage/processing components of your comp. My 2c.

edit: (release day) On prime day I bought an nvme SSD to use it only for "big" games, to reduce load/save time, etc. I can definitely see a big difference in load times, etc. I have 3 ssd now (256g for system, 500g (new) for big games, 1 TB for misc. At full release HOWEVER I have been trying to play at "Strong" and, I mean, like the AI is much smarter than it used to be. It is particularly irritatimg to have it focus fire at the same time it retreats damaged units to repair. Grr. Going to have to lower the diff level to work on upping my game. I haven't managed to get near 100 turns before suing for an arnistice,(i.e. ragequit). I don't anticipate that the new SSD will help much on turn lag, but that's not been a big problem so far.

 

[Stringer1313]

I've noticed that the slowdown seems to happen when i've revealed more territory - mainly, when my spymaster has infiltrated territories, the game gets slower by a lot. I've reduced my framerate to nothing. Right now, if I play on Small maps and don't infiltrate territory, I can actually progress semi decently (with the yellow text about overflows happening every 30 minutes, after which I restart).

I agree that I win on the highest difficulty level relatively easily, something I have never achieved with Civ, and yet this game is still more fun. Still, I agree that the AI can be very shy about invading sometimes. It's kind of hit or miss, sometimes they ROFLstomp me, sometimes they are super scared. I have a sense that it has to do with how your units are grouped. I think the AI is programed to *surround* your units, so if you have a lone person it's dead. But when you group your units in a way that's hard to surround, that's when they get shy. Which is understandable. But then that's when you have to bring out the catapults.

And I think we all agree we want 100000000 more random events k thx

 

[bamdorf]

I suppose I should reply to the OP question. Yes, is fun, but it's hard to compare with Civ. I mean I remember games of Civ 1 with some detail with particularly the tension that could be generated (We back up our threats with Nuclear Weapons just when I thought things might be under control). Old World does have a tendency to fall into the same late game trap that almost any 4x I have ever played - you get to a certain strength and you start button mashing until the game gives up and gives you the win. I guess I could solve a lot of it by going for focused alternate win like ambitions - there is that. The game has several innovative ideas that are worth a look, as well as the dynastic business, although I haven't gotten into the role playing mode much: as a previous poster says they need a ton more events (they have a lot but need a lot more) .The mechanics are somewhat byzantine so I haven't figured our how to achieve certain goals efficiently. It is noteworthy that at the start of EA the game was more polished than a lot of games are a year after release, in my opinion. It has a solid team behind it, just as Humankind does (the Amplitude Studios). so we shall see. I believe that all the Civ games are fun to play, but after IV its attempts at innovating didn't hit it the target squarely. It's unusual for me to plunk down for an EA game, but I think i have already got my money's worth which is even more unusual. If you like 4x such as Civ, it's worth a try.

 

[Solver]

Old World does have a tendency to fall into the same late game trap that almost any 4x I have ever played - you get to a certain strength and you start button mashing until the game gives up and gives you the win.

How do you think this could be handled better?

This is definitely a problem in Civ and 4X games in general, but that's partially why OW avoids having set victory conditions, and goes for VPs and ambitions. There's also the double victory specifically to address this. You don't have to actually reach the VP threshold, the double victory is supposed to kick in at about the time you're so strong that nobody else can pose a threat to you. Do you find it still comes too late, or do you not actually go for VPs that much?

 

[Stringer1313]

How do you think this could be handled better?

This is definitely a problem in Civ and 4X games in general, but that's partially why OW avoids having set victory conditions, and goes for VPs and ambitions. There's also the double victory specifically to address this. You don't have to actually reach the VP threshold, the double victory is supposed to kick in at about the time you're so strong that nobody else can pose a threat to you. Do you find it still comes too late, or do you not actually go for VPs that much?

I think the issue is not as pronounced in OW compared to other games. I start hitting button mashing phase at about Ambition #7 or #8. I play regularly on hardest and second-hardest (edit: also I almost always play on Small maps). I think the double victory (which I've never achieved except once around when OW was launched) doesn't really solve the problem for non-warmongers like me. Maybe more VPs for Wonders (or increasing them as they get more expensive). When I'm on a conquering spree, then double victory does solve the problem.

I think the solution is just in having more devastating / consequential random events that happen when near the end game. Maybe everyone declares war on you, maybe tons of rebels appear everywhere at once. Maybe one family loses their mind and each of their cities rebel. Maybe each AI gets tons of free units. Maybe there's a religious schism where half of your cities convert to a diff religion and that new religion gets a -150 modifier in its attitude towards you. Or maybe there are more severe consequences to conquering too quickly. I also think there should be more felt consequences negative random events for people who are "Upset" or really don't like you. Maybe there should be more random events that require expending huge amounts of resources, or giant chunks of resources get siphoned off.

To avoid having such random negative events feel too random and frustrating, the seeds for these events can be planted by things the player tends to easily neglect. The most obvious culprit is Discontent. I reach Level 7-9 routinely before I am able to bend the curve, and never really feel the consequences (the rebels are bad/annoying but there should be more random event consequences I think). Maybe a family or a religion or an AI has been in "upset" territory for X years. Or a family has never had someone sit on the throne or be on the council. Or a family has not been directly given both their luxuries for X years. Maybe you never built a wonder. Maybe your leaders always have low charisma. Maybe you have the biggest military but never declare war (this is basically me LOL), and they get pissed and something happens.

I'm loving this game and I think the 4X late game problem is already less, in my opinion, when compared to others. I've also noticed all the little changes week by week and find them to be really smart. Great work!

 

[Stringer1313]

Oh also, the Legitimacy penalties from Influence and other such actions should steadily increase the more you incur them. In the late game, -1 to Legitimacy is child's play.

 

[Solver]

I think the solution is just in having more devastating / consequential random events that happen when near the end game. Maybe everyone declares war on you

For this part in particular, I wonder if you're playing with the "Play to Win" AI setting? That's basically the intention with it - the AI will try to prevent you from winning. They won't launch suicidal invasions, but they will be much more willing to fight you if you're getting close to victory.

 

[Stringer1313]

For this part in particular, I wonder if you're playing with the "Play to Win" AI setting? That's basically the intention with it - the AI will try to prevent you from winning. They won't launch suicidal invasions, but they will be much more willing to fight you if you're getting close to victory.

Oh, I wasn't even aware of this option! Will try it.

 

[bamdorf]

@Solver Having had a fews days to think, I will offer a couple ideas (which are likely not original). First, others are correct I think that OW is better at avoiding the end game doldrums than the competition. Still the problem remains: how to speed the result when there is little actual "play" left in the game? There is one solution (SP) that is easy yet a bit unsatisfying, because one intrinsically wants an unbiased determination of the result, and e.g. achievements. That is, the player can judge accurately that it is "game over". I am perhaps a noble/prince player on civ 4 and yet I think I can judge this. Then declare oneself the winner. (I would be amazed if many MP games don't end this way). A plausible variant of this would be a mechanic that allows the player to declare victory, and that then the program does a comprehensive check whether this is plausible (massive CPU crunching). For a quick check there might be a measure based (using OW) on such things as total citizens, total net production per turn, military strength, technology level, and so forth vis-a-vis the AI. On a smaller scale midgame, a mechanic could allow you to choose the "Genghis Khan" option. You declare a war on one of the AIs and allow them to surrender or be totally destroyed. If the AI concedes they instantly become a vassal state giving a steady income of resouces (albeit from a drastically gimped economy). Did civ 5 have vassalage? If the AI resists the player is then required on winning (course another issue how to determine this) to completely destroy the particular AI i.e all cities and units gone. Maybe even give the player a wonder called "The Skull Pile"! ) If the AI decides to resist and survives (for a certain number of turns) the player takes a massive hit of some kind. Maybe unrest, loss of military unit experience perks, etc. Also when the AI is given an ultimatum that AI may be given a "desperation" perk, increased miitary perks and/or chance of third party intervention, etc. Think the siege of vienna in the 17th century. It's a most difficult problem, started with Civ 1. 2c worth? Or less.

 

[Taefin]

I’m curious if I didn’t miss a really fun “in decline” phase of the game when I ended my first game after capturing the bulk of two empires and crossing the VP of the strongest AI. I had 7/10 ambitions but sort of lost interest given how long it took to use ~50 orders and that it might take another full day of playing to finish an already resolved game.

At difficulty 4 or 5 (whichever has 4 cities and +25% war) the AI did not seem to adequately press their advantage when they declared war and my army was busy fighting across the map. They massed at my border and sent just a few units across that were evenly matched against who I had in the area. Then when my army arrived I massed about 10-15 tiles away along this border and began fighting their smaller force there. Here they sent some units to keep the fighting numbers roughly even with mine, which resulted in me losing ~30% of my army. But at one point they chose to retreat these units back to where their army was massed, rather than reinforce with an army that probably would have forced me to retreat, or at the very least, broken my ability to invade. I was able to divide my force and slowly capture the quarter of their empire cut off from their army. Even though this gave them an opening to overwhelm my smaller force left lined up against theirs they never pressed the advantage, and when I finally covered my entire army against theirs it was no contest.

I suspect the AI needs to be balanced a bit toward moving entire forces together to form a line rather than marching 3 units at a time across the map with forced march. Sure it kills a player unit every turn but it robs them of a lot of free hits with range units or other units who could make an attack with only 2-3 orders each.

Also, they had just developed crossbows which few of my units could meaningfully damage, but they were struggling to upgrade their archers. They were also spending way too many orders/units tracking down rebels deeper in their empire and moving workers around.

I’m playing my next game at the lower 5 city +50% war difficulty and I’m guessing a larger AI force may just balance these lapses in tactics.

Overall, I love the AI’s ability to force me mass 5-10 tiles away from their army, and wait to press an advantage, but it seems a few changes could help them press their own advantages back against me.

 

[Stringer1313]

Just finished my first game with "Play to Win" on. Thanks so much for pointing out that feature! It definitely made the game more fun as the AI started declaring war on me left and right. I played on the third-hardest difficulty on Medium map. (My game started freezing in between turns when I was only 2-3 turns away from winning so I just quit - I've noticed consider improvement in the slowdown problem, given that I can now play on Medium maps, but it's still an issue and i still get that yellow overflow text.) In addition, and this may have just been a coincidence, my families and my religions started turning on me. It may have just been a coincidence b/c unlike AI, there weren't any modifiers based on my closeness to victory. Maybe the "Discontent" negative modifiers on the families have increased (which I strongly approve of), and I think more negative random events triggered by upset/angry are definitely in order.

A few additional suggestions:

- Perhaps the competing AIs should stop warring with each other as you approach victory. My military strength was "similar" to my competitors but because they were at war with each other, it was not hard to deal with. If they had all ganged up on me, it would have been super difficult.

- I have never played a game where I made it to the end of the tech tree, not even on a single branch (furthest I ever get is Cohorts). I'm not saying one should complete the entire tech tree in every game - i like how the game forces you to choose, but i think the player should at least get to the end of one branch. I know you don't want to unnecessarily drag the game out, but perhaps more of the end game ambitions should depend in some way on later techs; I always avoid those like the get all laws one.

- I always pick "Six Cathedrals": it's the easiest win to me by far. I wonder if that shouldn't be modified to also require you to have at least two (or three?) Holy Site buildings (whatever they are called, like the Cao'an or Temple of Solomon). So if you don't have the birthplace of 2-3 religions, you gotta conquer neighbors (kinda like the Wonder ambition)

- I would scrap "Most VPs" as an ambition victory. It has often been a Free Ambition for me b/c I'm already leading in VPs. To me, the VPs and Ambitions should be considered two separate tracks.

- As said above, the negative penalties for influencing/intercessing/pacifying while exposing our weakness should increase with time, or at least increase temporarily only to cool back down. I spam these things end game b/c -1 Legitimacy is simply a non-issue. I think if you are repeatedly doing these actions exposing your weakness, it's only natural that people should start quickly losing respect for you.

Minor suggestions:

- When promoting characters and selecting between traits, it'd be nice to see whether a particular trait will make the character hate or like you more, b/c you have the same/opposite trait. Of course, I should be less lazy and just look my own ruler's traits and figure it out...

- I've never chosen Iconography: +2 growth on temples seem incredibly weak. I tend to always choose the law that reduces discontent (except for Slavery at the beginning), so the competing option should be really powerful. For me, Tolerance versus Orthodoxy is always a hard choice to make b/c the Orthodoxy benefits are incredibly good - more choices like that are great.

- I think the resistance to Slavery event that gives you the free switch to Freedom should come later in the game (or not at all, though I do like the flavor). That event always comes right at the moment where I'd love to switch to Freedom, and then I get to do it for free (granted, the family hit is good, maybe that should increase). I think the player should feel a little bit more pain before that happens. Before this event was introduced, I always had to struggle over whether it was worth amassing civics to switch to Freedom, or to use them for new laws/other reasons. That was a very interesting choice that this new random event has deprived me of.

- I'd increase the VPs on the Wonders depending on what culture level they are at, for sure.

 

[Stringer1313]

I just lost my first Glorious-level difficulty game, with "Play to Win" turned on. It was fantastic. I only had two ambitions left, and suddenly 3 out of 4 AIs declared war on me (over the course of 3 turns) because I was close to winning, even though I had been at peace with them the entire game. Literally every Civ was Jewish so we were getting along so great, but turns out religion hates you if you're at war with others of the same religion. Because I was at peace the entire game, I neglected my military and focused entirely on domestic things. After they declared war on me They stormed my cities and I was done.

This reminded me a lot of what made Colonization so fun - that you had this looming gigantic military threat the entire game that you had to gear up to prepare for. And yet, had I properly geared up, my progress would've been a lot slower. That's the exciting kind of trade off that makes a game fun.

To put the final touches on this, there should definitely be some roleplaying scripts/events related to the fact that you are close to winning, so there's some story-based reason for people starting to gang up on you, maybe you're the crown jewel or the envy of the world or something.

Great job!