Opinions on "Old World" from Civ 4 veterans?

[Henry.K]

I saw this game mentioned by some as a spiritual successor to Civ 4.
Can someone who has played both give me their take?

 

[ariosto]

I've played CIV4 and OW a lot. In both games I win easily on Immortal (Magnificent) and I can win on Deity (Great) sometimes on easy maps.
I never understood what people mean by "spiritual successor" here because I find these games to be very different:

• One uses stacks, other uses 1UPT.
• There are many more units in CIV4 games compared to CIV5 and CIV6. There is orders system in OW, so even if you build big army there is no guarantee you can use it.
• CIV4 economic system is relatively simple - there are only food, hammers and commerce plot yields. In OW there are gold, food, iron, wood, stone, orders, civics, science, training and culture - 10 different plot yields. OW is much closer to CIV5 and CIV6 in that regard
• OW is about antiquity, CIV games are about the whole history timeline. OW relies on events and characters - no such things in CIV games.

I think, from mechanical perspective OW closer to CIV5 and CIV6 than CIV4. The only link between these games in my opinion is Soren Johnson - the lead game designer. I think, the real connection here is that he knows how to make 4X games. Or maybe we have the same taste, idk. Because both games are very strategic, complex and interesting.
So if you like CIV4 I'd recommend you to give OW a try.

 

[Henry.K]

I've played CIV4 and OW a lot. In both games I win easily on Immortal (Magnificent) and I can win on Deity (Great) sometimes on easy maps.
I never understood what people mean by "spiritual successor" here because I find these games to be very different:

• One uses stacks, other uses 1UPT.
• There are many more units in CIV4 games compared to CIV5 and CIV6. There is orders system in OW, so even if you build big army there is no guarantee you can use it.
• CIV4 economic system is relatively simple - there are only food, hammers and commerce plot yields. In OW there are gold, food, iron, wood, stone, orders, civics, science, training and culture - 10 different plot yields. OW is much closer to CIV5 and CIV6 in that regard
• OW is about antiquity, CIV games are about the whole history timeline. OW relies on events and characters - no such things in CIV games.

I think, from mechanical perspective OW closer to CIV5 and CIV6 than CIV4. The only link between these games in my opinion is Soren Johnson - the lead game designer. I think, the real connection here is that he knows how to make 4X games. Or maybe we have the same taste, idk. Because both games are very strategic, complex and interesting.
So if you like CIV4 I'd recommend you to give OW a try.

Thanks for the input!

As you say Old World seems to have quite a complex economic system. I watched a few videos and couldn't believe how they kept it all in mind.
With all those resources (gold, food, iron, wood, stone, orders, civics, science, training, culture), do you find it TOO complex to be enjoyable?
Also, does the Old World late game become tedious due to the ballooning number of things to keep track of and manage?

 

[lymond]

Yup, Soren Johnson is a big reason for that. It is a different game in many ways, but a lot of the spirit is there, such as the micro. The big difference is the focus on your dynasty and leaders, almost Crusader Kings-like in a way, but still a lot of the 4X stuff is there. I think you might like it.

 

[pmarc]

I would recommend reading the designer notes that Soren Johnson published about Old World, it clarifies the motivation and logic behind changing many classic features of the Civ series to make a different kind of 4X.