Migrate from Civ 4 to 6

I am a long time player of Civ 4 BTS, I recently move to deity level.
Few years ago I tried Civ 5 but it was bad and I immediately moved back to it Civ 4.
I am thinking about moving now to Civ 6.
For people who played both, how do you compare the two games?
How different are those games and what is the learning curve for new player?

 

I think is not that hard to learn for a long time player, you have districts, buildings, and improvements, finally to detail your city. Builders are not forever, you have 3 to more charges (depending on some features).

 

It's been so long since I played Civ IV now, but Civ VI is in many ways a continuation of the direction Civ V took. The best parts are that civs are even more distinct from each other, and placing districts is fun. The worst parts are that the AI is weak, and that the game's many systems are underdeveloped and don't interact much with each other. I personally liked Civ V more, but there are many who feel differently.

However, since you have already purchased Civ V, may I recommend you check out the Vox Populi modpack? It completely overhauls every aspect of the game while adding several new features. Compared to both V and VI, it has vastly better AI, and is pretty well balanced. The downside is that it is complex and has a bit of a learning curve.

 

Both are very much fun, but in a different way.
Civ IV can keep you on the edge until or almost until the end, the race can be on until the final turns. The general situation and diplomacy can be turned upside down from one turn to the next and several times during the game. There's lots of means of maneuver to change your direction.

In Civ VI there's much less dynamism on the world stage, and you can freeze your diplomacy for the game, if you know what you're doing, and it takes very little to learn that. In Civ VI, if you survived the start, you've basically won the game, so the question is not whether you will win, but how fast you can do that, and this challenge of shaving turns off of your victory times can be engaging and worth taking.

As for difficulty levels, as regards winning at all, I believe Civ VI to be 3 difficulty levels lower than Civ IV, meaning Civ VI Deity maybe corresponds to Civ IV Monarch.

They're quite different, they're somewhat the same Civ VI has a lot of elements Civ IV did not have, it is a puzzle game: district adjacencies, unique improvements, city states with unique bonuses, competition for the unique great people, etc. The learning curve for a player completely new to civ can bee steep, but if you're familiar with any earlier civ, you'll have the background and pick up the new elements fairly easily.

Civ VI is quite complex and balance changes are still being made, fifth year in the development. With the NFP season pass we get new patch/update every month, and while it is nice, there are still all sorts of bugs. Civ VI have been plagued with bugs since the start, the most serious ones are eventually fixed, but it takes time. In the meanwhile new ones appear. The game is also terrible when it comes to giving information to the player, the UI is appalling, I suggest you look for some UI mods.

But on the whole, with Civ VI the devs said they wanted to make the players to play the map, and I think they achieved this very much, the map matters a lot and solving its puzzles will make you forget the time.

 

Honestly, as someone new to Civilization 6, I'm surprised at how many totally broken concepts there are even 4 years after Civilization VI came out.
For example, strategic resoures are terribly designed, at least on some maps.

What is the point of iron or niter on an island in the middle of the ocean, when these resources are obsolete at a time when I can settle on these islands? In civ IV bts there were corporations like mining inc. that used some obsolate strategic resources.
And trading with strategic resources is also totally broken.
For example, in many situations ai refuses to sell 10 pieces of strategic resources or the price is very high, but it allows you to trade for 1 piece of strategic resources 10 times for a very low price.
I wonder if the developers have tried to play the game at least a few times. I noticed this weird behavior in my first GS expansion game.
The military incompetence of AI is also much more noticeable than in Civ VI. With SoD in Civilization IV AI could be a threat even with zero strategic capabilities. This is no longer the case in Civ VI. Two units can sometimes stop the invasion of 15 units of comparable technical level.

In my opinion, the World Congress in Civ VI is much worse and less realistic than the UN in CIV IV.
In civ IV, it was possible to defy the resolution, even if it meant some penalties. In Civ VI, you can't defy resolutions, even though there's really no one here who can force those resolutions.
For example, the World Congress can take away your nukes, even if you are the biggest military superpower and no one could force you to give up your nukes.

But concepts like districts, eureka moments or unique great people in Civilization VI are quite interesting and I like them.

 

Don't do it. Look at HumanKind from Amplitude instead which looks to be the true successor to Civ IV BTS. CIV VI's braindead AI, cartoonish graphics and bugs galore will drive you mad.

 

No it isn't.

This argument doesn't even make sense in the context of comparing with Civ IV. Civ VI is closer to IV artistically than V was.

 

100%. Civ5 is the outlier; Civ6 is much closer to earlier Civ games in its aesthetic. I can appreciate not caring for a particular aesthetic (I personally think Civ5 is and always has been hideous), but the hysteria Civ6's art direction evokes never ceases to crack me up.

 

Civ 6 was fun. Civ 4 was difficult and very challenging on deity. Even some YouTube players on deity civ 4 couldn't pass it. They were still both very entertaining in multiplayer.

 

From what I've seen most people who like Civ 4 also like Civ 6 over Civ 5. I've never played Civ 4 so some others would know the similarities more than me.

Though one thing I do know is that corporations are returning for Civ 6 which wasn't in Civ 5.

 

Civ VI is definitely mechanically more complex than Civ V, which might appeal to Civ IV fans generally. I like Civ IV for the complex mechanics and the fact that the game mechanics are explained well (whereas with Civ VI, some things like tourism have to be calculated/figured out in these forums). I prefer Civ V over Civ VI for the atmosphere and graphics.

 

Civ VI is quite complex, but many mechanisms are somehow boring, pointless, or just weird compared to Civilization 4. They may look interesting on paper, but the reality is different.
There are parts of Civilization VI that I like, but many concepts should be reworked. Don't get me wrong, Civilization 6 is an interesting turn-based strategy, but I liked Civilization 4 more.
Especially for Android, Civilization VI is probably the best game of this type that you can buy.
But if there was Civilization 4 for Android, I would prefer Civilization 4 over Civilization 6.

 

I struggle beating Civ 4 on Noble difficulty. Like, it's a great game and all, but don't think I've ever rerolled/ragequit as often in any game as I have in Civ 4 (and I've played both X-Com games).

 

Civ5 seems to be the Fallout:New Vegas of the franchise as far as fan rabidity goes

 

Except that FNV was a masterpiece.

 

i see what you did there

 

I like Civ V (including its art style) better than VI. Am I one of these "rabid fans"? If not, could you point me to where I might find them?

I agree that the criticism of Civ VI's art style, in the early days of Civ VI, was a bit overblown. That's not to say people were/are not allowed to dislike how it looks, but some people seemed to act as if it made the game unplayable. These days, however, I see more people complaining about the people complaining about the art style, than I see people actually complaining about the art style. I've personally always thought Civ VI looks good, even if I did like the way Civ V looked a bit better.

My main complaint about VI at this point, is that while we are getting lots and lots of content, so many systems have little to no interaction with each other, and many could do with some refinement, which they will likely never get.

 

Bwa ha ha oh buddy you do not want to know.

Your main complaint is the same as mine, I mean I see lots of good ideas poorly implemented in Civ 6. Like the concept of era score and dark/golden ages and your empire possibly falling apart is genius, but then you have the stupidity of once you hit the threshold scoring more points actually works against you, leading to munchkin bullpoop gamey nonsense like deliberatly delaying completing things

 

Yeah, that's one which has annoyed me, which I don't think they will ever fix. Another one, which has been in the game since launch, is how Eurekas and Inspirations work. In theory, I love the idea of your circumstances influencing your research. In practice, this is a system which encourages me to do things which are otherwise irrelevant to my plans, in order to gain some beakers. Then there's the way the boost is given: as a lump sum of science or culture. This strongly encourages me to swap out my research before completion in order to not waste any beakers. This part of it could be really easily fixed: instead of getting a lump sum, the boost should add a percentage modifier while researching. This would mean research wasn't ever fully wasted, and that starting research early was generally going to get you the tech earlier.

 

Oh My Lerd this too. I basically spend the Ancient Era minimaxing Eurekas

Like the stupid Slinger Shuffle with barbarians