Long-time Civilization player, should I return?

[CommanderM21]

I've been playing Civilization since Civ II and I've put an unbelievable amount of time into the series. To me, it felt like the series peaked with Civ IV and the many mods that were available. I did buy Civ V when it came out and played its expansions, but it just didn't feel anywhere near as engaging as something like Civ IV RoM. On paper, I love the ideas that Civ V and VI have introduced to the series, but Civ V felt comparatively empty to me.

I've seen that Civ VI is on sale this week, so I had a few questions to see if it's worth getting for me:

• How does the base game compare to Civ IV?
• How active is the modding scene?
• Is AI still broken like it was in Civ V?
• If there are major issues, are there mods around that fix them?

I want to get Civ VI, I just lost a lot of faith in the series after Civ V. Have things gotten better?

 

[DeckerdJames]

I think you should try it. Opinions vary and skills levels differ among players. I think the game is very challenging. I liked IV but it has been a long time since I played. There seems to be a lot of mods.

 

[vorlon_mi]

1. It's a totally different game from Civ IV, just as Civ V was. It has many different, interesting systems. No sliders, but a distinct culture tree and the ability to change one's policy cards and government aspects often. Diplomacy and espionage are very different from Civ IV.
2. Lots of mods, although none are as universally adopted as the BUG/BULL/BUFFY mods were for Civ IV. Many interesting UI mods, many tweaks to AI and diplomacy.
3. Many folks report that the AI doesn't pose much of a military threat, in terms of invading your lands. Barbarians are harder in the early game than in Civ IV.
4. Again, lots of mods addressing lots of issues.

If you didn't like Civ V because of 1UPT, then Civ VI still has that. If you didn't like Civ V because of global unhappiness forced you to always play "Tall", 4 cities, then Civ VI fixed that. Civ VI encourages wide play and building new districts that can allow city specialization more than Civ V.

Give it a try, if you can find it on sale.

 

[rschissler]

I started with Civ III, and had a great time with it, despite its flaws. I totally loved Civ IV and played it to death. Sitting here, I can't think of any complaints I had about it, it was that good. When V came out, I was excited at first, but soon lost interest, and only played a few games before I gave it up for good. With VI, I found it fun and actually liked it for awhile. The district system is interesting and a good concept. But, I still had issues with the slow movement of units and the 1UPT. I've never liked the embarkation concept either, and naval warfare in general is uninspiring. Since they were of little use, I would build few naval units. Civ IV had tons of strategy involved with transporting troops and protecting them, but with Civ VI, none of that. Religion is kind of a dud for me as well, and except for founding a religion, I wouldn't bother building any religious units, and ignored all the AI hordes of them. It seems to me, like the slow movement of units is a bandaid approach to 1UPT, but makes the game tedious and boring when you have a lot of units to move and the logjams that occur. Of course, the AI is inept with 1UPT, whereas in Civ IV, the AI did much better with its stacks. I've had other complaints about the game as well. I've played with the faster movement Rocketboots mod, and it does help a lot, but still not enough to me. Also, I've used the Multiple Units Per Tile mod, with limits, but each patch would break it, and the AI can't use it, so not really fair.

Anyway, Civ VI is no substitute for Civ IV, but if you can get VI for a cheap price, it will probably give you a bit of fun...for awhile.

 

[uhu]

I totally loved Civ IV and played it to death. Sitting here, I can't think of any complaints I had about it, it was that good.

For me Civ4 is easily the all_time_high of the franchise. Vanilla & BeyondTheSword & BetterBtsAI mod offered simply excellent gameplay and openness to custom modding in a nonpareil way!
(Still I missed HEXtiles since we discussed _proposals for Civ2_ and naively dreamed about being able to play PzGeneral-like scenarios on civ maps ...)

the slow movement of units is a bandaid approach to 1UPT, but makes the game tedious and boring when you have a lot of units to move and the logjams that occur. Of course, the AI is inept with 1UPT

Maybe you want to have a (quarter-hour) look onto this FilthyRobot video @ 6:16:46 featuring LongMoves and TacticalAI in OldWorld (straight spiritual successor of Civ4 and sibling of Civ6 - just a bit more "polished" already)

PS. Filthy turned all screws to max difficulty and has to sweat indeed a lot

 

[SLGray]

I got the anthology around November 12 and have enjoyed playing it. Each version of the game will be different. I hate when people compare them. Just watch videos of someone playing the games or get it yourself. I believe it is worth getting it when it is cheap.

The first version I purchased was Civ 3: Complete Edition, but I have played the first 2 on sites that update old games. The versions I have now are 4, 5, and 6.

 

[uhu]

{edit:
PPS. With own scout units in that area FilthyRobot would have much more survey to enemy troops in the situation above (Scouts are invisible while standing on forest tiles).
Old World - General Discussions subforum here on CFC
}

Each version of the game will be different. I hate when people compare them.

Civ1 is for me the best computer game of its time. When Civ2 came out I worked as freelancer in an IBM project far away from home. I had then Civ2 installed on weekends and decided to play Civ1 again on a frail PC in the evenings abroad. Once. This episode taught me to never go back in civing.
Of course the old games are weak if compared to the newer ones directly in an absolute sense. Still Civ4 was near to perfection in many aspects, just the missing Hexes (which were considered already in Civ1, but always decided against).
I feel Civ4 delivered the peak of its available potentials. While another one feels like the sow walking away from the trough.

I believe it is worth getting it when it is cheap.

Methinks the most valuable currency we invest is lifetime, so I prefer not only looking at the price tag.

 

[Leucarum]

Civ6 is not Civ4. But it does seem that there are a lot of people who skipped Civ5 but came back to the series for this iteration... Myself among them. So you would definitely not be the only one if you found you enjoyed 4 and 6 but not 5...

That said; you are listing your concerns as centering on AI (not substantially improved) and mods (from listening to modders it sounds like Civ6 has arguably the worst moddability (in terms of how much you can actually do) in the series despite having a large, active modding community). So this might not be the game for you if those are your biggest concerns.

 

[CommanderM21]

Thanks for the info everyone!

While I would love a game that's just modernized Civ IV (hexes, 1UPT, etc), I am open to a different Civilization experience. I think I'm going to pick it up while everything's on sale.

 

[PiR]

Mods and AI are not the best aspects of Civ VI compared to Civ IV, specially AI.
But it's a fun game, you can have a nice time. Just don't expect to have as much immersion as with IV.
You may want to check Old World, which was designed by the same person as Civ IV. I'm enjoying it terrificlyiest.

 

[kaspergm]

Hunch tells me if you found Civ5 unplayable compared to Civ4, you'll feel the same about Civ6. But I may be wrong.

I loved Civ5, and I also like Civ6 a lot, even though both have their issues (and I still feel Civ6 somehow ended up much worse than it had potential to at release). I have a hard time seeing why anybody would love Civ6 if they detested Civ5 except perhaps if the happiness/tall-wide-balance was the only thing you didn't like about that game. If you want a game with a competent AI, don't go for Civ6.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

Thanks for the info everyone!

While I would love a game that's just modernized Civ IV (hexes, 1UPT, etc), I am open to a different Civilization experience. I think I'm going to pick it up while everything's on sale.

Let us know what you think after you've got some hours in. I just found the lack of a functioning AI a showstopper coming from Civ IV (or Civ III).

 

[vorlon_mi]

Yes, please let us know. I find the hardest part to get used to -- as I switch among the games in the franchise -- is the ways in which each version changed how combat works.

• Civ III: archers are early offensive unit, cats/trebs/cannons are defenseless, bombard only; any unit with an attack value (including archers and mounted) can capture a city
• Civ IV: archers are defensive, first strikes added, cats/trebs/cannons become suicide fodder, disposable, to create collateral damage; most units can capture a city
• Civ V: archers become ranged units, along with siege units like cats/trebs/cannons needed to bombard a city down to redline; cities can only be taken by ground troops "melee"
• Civ VI: similar to Civ V for ranged and siege, adding that units may be combined into corps and armies echoing ideas from Civ III; cities can only be taken by ground troops

Whew! Yes, the government models are different in each version, too, but the changes in combat keep my head spinning.

 

[Victoria]

Is AI still broken like it was in Civ V?

That is a view of those that liked the sheer difficulty of the highest level of IV.

The bottom line is the game is made for profit, just the cost of the artwork alone is phenomenal now.
Also with agile development now becoming the norm I would expect all future civ games to have monthly releases meaning there is little time for an AI to learn. Let alone the cost of getting an AI to learn.
Civ then has to build in an “expert system” that many call an AI but is just the instructions for how the system acts. This I feel is tuned to the needs of a larger audience, younger players, less clever players. I suspect the avg IQ on this forum is probably around 130-140 which will be above the large target audience. So no, they likely built the AI to allow players to win without so much brain power.

if your need is a deep challenge to not lose, then do not bother. GL finding another.
If you want to play a game made by an experienced team to avoid things like the more severe snowballing of other games like Humankind that has lots of toys a play variety that does not feel samey then it’s pretty good.
I could not play V anymore. It had very distinct routes to success that made it samey. This game still has some, but much less so and much more flexibility to succeed with differing strategies. The main issue is the AI is just not that good at war but weirdly barbarians do threaten well.

 

[Socrates99]

Hunch tells me if you found Civ5 unplayable compared to Civ4, you'll feel the same about Civ6. But I may be wrong.

I loved Civ5, and I also like Civ6 a lot, even though both have their issues (and I still feel Civ6 somehow ended up much worse than it had potential to at release). I have a hard time seeing why anybody would love Civ6 if they detested Civ5 except perhaps if the happiness/tall-wide-balance was the only thing you didn't like about that game. If you want a game with a competent AI, don't go for Civ6.

V overemphasized tall play to an extreme. Honestly, once trade was added and it was tied to tech rather than number of cities I was done. It was extremely one path oriented unless you were a really elite player. I know there were some impressive wins posted with liberty starts but it just wasn't the norm. I just got so tired of the 3-4 city start, timing libraries and the NC, building cities the same all the time and so on. I'm definitely in the dont enjoy V but like VI crowd. Way more options and paths to victory in VI.

 

[Gabriel Ovadia]

So, how did you like it so far? Curious to hear.

 

[kaspergm]

V overemphasized tall play to an extreme. Honestly, once trade was added and it was tied to tech rather than number of cities I was done. It was extremely one path oriented unless you were a really elite player. I know there were some impressive wins posted with liberty starts but it just wasn't the norm. I just got so tired of the 3-4 city start, timing libraries and the NC, building cities the same all the time and so on. I'm definitely in the dont enjoy V but like VI crowd. Way more options and paths to victory in VI.

I hear what you say. Admittedly, I played Civ5 heavily modded to make the different policy trees much more balanced. I still think that players who dislike Civ5 compared to Civ4 based on 1UPT and combat AI will feel the same about Civ6.

 

[duckstab]

I'd recommend buying Civ6 even though it's not nearly as compelling a game experience as Civ4. I've enjoyed playing Civ6 GS but I'm sure it won't hold my attention as long as Civ4.

I still fire up various BtS mods fairly regularly, 13 years after I first bought Civ4. Of course, none of those mods has earned a dollar for Firaxis or 2K so it's not that surprising that they've concluded that it's not in their interest to make Civ6 as moddable as Civ4 was.

FWIW, I hated Civ5. It was a crashing bore to me, and I never got used to the way it penalized expansion. Civ6 is at least an entertaining experience by comparison.