What do you miss from Civ and other 4X games?

[rlw33]

I don't really miss industrial and modern units, which I thought I would.

The only thing from Civ I really find myself missing is the visually impressive natural world wonders. The OW landmarks seem a little lacklustre by comparison.
On the bright side, this would be a great add-in for the first expansion.

 

[nolegskitten]

Hey, interesting question !

I started playing OW with the same expectation as you, that I would miss the grandiose scope of all history. In the end I didn't either. I really like OW as a whole, a lot is different from my previous 4Xs experience but it also puts it apart.

I don't think landmarks are intended as natural wonders (I never thought of it that way), but it's true, maybe some unique landmarks, could bring a bit more uniqueness to maps. There are a few that could fit in the geographical area. I'm not too sure the fantastical effects they have in cv6 would suit OW, but some of that feeling of unique discovery could probably be created ?

I have played thousands of hours of civ 4 and 6, and I don't really find things I miss, some of the best ideas from these games already found their place in OW (such as improving your cities by placing things on the map : you could make a parallel between urban improvement in OW and district in civ 6).

Maybe one minor thing (more might come later) : I wish I could set up some trades with other nations in a more open fashion, more similar to civ and other empire building games. The main trade I sometime wish I could do would be luxury resource for luxury resource.

 

[user330977]

Good idea for a thread!

For me, base game Civ V suffers from the same problem; there is too much land not going to use. Nothing grinds my gears more than seeing good land not being utilised. In Civ V, vast swathes of the map can go unclaimed into the late game because it's simply not worth the time and effort to claim them, which I feel grossly misrepresents what 4X games are about (expand, exploit being fundamental parts) and also misrepresent human history. Humans are greedy. If we see land, we want it. I feel so unnecessarily constrained in OW because I can only settle at pre-determined city sites which often leaves big chunks of good land between my cities. Looking at the mini-map and seeing vast, unclaimed swathes of land just makes me sad. This problem doesn't exist in Civ IV, where by the mid-classical era, most of the land is taken up and fights are breaking out over taking good cities.

Kind regards,
Ita Bear

 

[nolegskitten]

Good idea for a thread!

(...). I feel so unnecessarily constrained in OW because I can only settle at pre-determined city sites which often leaves big chunks of good land between my cities. Looking at the mini-map and seeing vast, unclaimed swathes of land just makes me sad. (...)

Kind regards,
Ita Bear

I'm not sure how much you've played in the game (some of your other posts seem to indicate that you looked at streams and have an interest but haven't played yet, but I don't know) but in the late game most tiles in OW belong to a city. There are many mechanics in game allowing you to expand borders, and nations will end up filling almost the entire map, with possible exceptions mostly in deserts and tundra or very remote places. This is true even with limited player expansion, such as when playing OCC for example.

The fact that there are "preset" city sites doesn't lead to massive swathes of unsettled/unused land, although I can understand why you might assume it to be the case if you haven't played much. Lower level AI are limited in aggression/expansion drive which may contributes to the impression as well. I could pastes some screen shots of late maps and you'll see that most of the (old) world ends up exploited. It is often a key part of the game to secure enough land for yourself and fight for land and expansion, against tribes at first and other nations later on. I don't know how much it fits your expectations, but I know for sure the comparison to civ5 is unfair and unwarranted.

Best regards
(another civ 4 grognard)

 

[user330977]

I'm not sure how much you've played in the game (some of your other posts seem to indicate that you looked at streams and have an interest but haven't played yet, but I don't know) but in the late game most tiles in OW belong to a city. There are many mechanics in game allowing you to expand borders, and nations will end up filling almost the entire map, with possible exceptions mostly in deserts and tundra or very very remote places. This is true even with limited player expansion, such as when playing OCC for example.

The fact that there are "preset" city sites doesn't lead to massive swathes of unsettled/unused land, although I can understand why you might assume it to be the case if you haven't played much. Lower level AI are limited in aggression/expansion drive which may contributes to the impression as well. I could pastes some screen shots of late maps and you'll see that most of the (old) world ends up exploited. It is often a key part of the game to secure enough land for yourself and fight for land and expansion, against tribes at first and other nations later on. I don't know how much it fits your expectations, but I know for sure the comparison to civ5 is unfair and unwarranted.

Best regards
(another civ 4 grognard)

Hi nolegskitten
I have got the game and probably played around 80-100 turns into a game, so perhaps my assessment is a tad unfair. I also play the third difficulty level (I read reports of the game being extremely difficult at low levels, so I took some baby steps). That was my first impression but I will definitely play some more and see if things develop differently.

Kind regards,
Ita Bear

 

[nolegskitten]

Hi nolegskitten
I have got the game and probably played around 80-100 turns into a game, so perhaps my assessment is a tad unfair. I also play the third difficulty level (I read reports of the game being extremely difficult at low levels, so I took some baby steps). That was my first impression but I will definitely play some more and see if things develop differently.

Kind regards,
Ita Bear

The difficulty level probably explains it, as it restricts the AI propensity to expand and attack.

Beyond starting resources and such things, the difficulty level affects three independent settings:
- AI starting Development (cities, units, techs) (default development at The Great is "Massive")
- Barbarian and tribes spawning rate and aggression (default level at The Great is "Raging", which also gives them a second fatigue point)
- AI Aggression (how much they want to expand, make units, go to war, default at The Great is "Competitive")

You can tailor the game setup more to your liking by setting these independently in the "advanced setup" panel when creating the game (alongside many other options).

 

[steveg700]

AQUEDUCTS! I could have sworn this game was going to have aqueducts. With baths being the game, aqueducts seem like a missing piece.

More seriously, I would say the map offers less variety, and few surprises. You do have the goody huts, but it would cool to be able to reveal things on the map (like sometimes you get an event where a resource will suddenly appear).

You can claim dibs on a wonder by amassing the resources. Can't say that really connects with me. Just doesn't convey the sense of accomplishment given that the time to build is fixed and certain from the get-go. Maybe there should be stages to building a wonder, so there are multiple scrambles to fulfill the requirements. Or maybe there can be an event between stages that can pitch a curveball on completion conditions. Perhaps the legitimacy awarded scales down based on how many civ's have completed a wonder for that culture level (weak, developing, strong) before you. Something to convey the notion of being in a race rather than a simple lock-in.

And I wonder why are there no wonders for legendary cities? I guess at the reasoning is that once a city is legendary, the point of building wonders there has already been accomplished?

 

[rlw33]

And I wonder why are there no wonders for legendary cities? I guess at the reasoning is that once a city is legendary, the point of building wonders there has already been accomplished?

Aren't the tier 4 wonders reserved for Legendary cities?
I thought there was a tier for each cultural level?

 

[rlw33]

This is what I mean by tier 4 wonders:

 

[steveg700]

This is what I mean by tier 4 wonders:
View attachment 603008

Thanks for the screenshot. Did not find a section in Help listing all wonders.

My bad on Hagia Sophia and Pantheon. Thought they were Strong wonders for some reason. The other two I'm not familiar with, likely because I would have had to move my guys next to a legendary city. Still don't see Circus Maximus, so I must be missing some other prerequisite.

 

[nolegskitten]

AQUEDUCTS! I could have sworn this game was going to have aqueducts. With baths being the game, aqueducts seem like a missing piece.

interestingly enough, there WERE aqueducts in the game a year ago. You could chain them to bring freshwater to your city center, which was providing a growth bonus (they had other effects). I wasn't deeply involved in the discussion at that time but they basically ended up being a bit redundant, in terms of systems, with bath. And the freshwater bonus was a bit harsh in a game where you can't fully decide where you can settle.
It was mentioned a few times since then, and the concept might get revisited in a later update/expansion, who knows ? I was frustrated when they were removed at the time, now I think the current system works quite well but sometime I kinda miss it too.

More seriously, I would say the map offers less variety, and few surprises. You do have the goody huts, but it would cool to be able to reveal things on the map (like sometimes you get an event where a resource will suddenly appear).

You mean compared to civ ? That makes me think of Natural wonders as Rlw33 was saying, I guess that makes sense. There are events that can spawn a resource BTW, but they are rare.

You can claim dibs on a wonder by amassing the resources. Can't say that really connects with me. Just doesn't convey the sense of accomplishment given that the time to build is fixed and certain from the get-go. Maybe there should be stages to building a wonder, so there are multiple scrambles to fulfill the requirements. Or maybe there can be an event between stages that can pitch a curveball on completion conditions. Perhaps the legitimacy awarded scales down based on how many civ's have completed a wonder for that culture level (weak, developing, strong) before you. Something to convey the notion of being in a race rather than a simple lock-in.

I guess, I'm really used to the way wonder works in OW now, as I understand it ( that was before I joined EA) wonder building was a race, a bit like in civ. You could fail a wonder race on the last turn etc. But with the resource economy in OW, the main challenge was to get the resources to build it and in the end investing the resources then losing the race was just felt to be a double penalty. I've no first hand experience of that, I joined EA/beta with the current system, but I think it makes sense. I like the ideas of steps or something like that to emphasize the sense of accomplishment, not sure how to put that in the system.

BTW, you can speed the construction considerably if your Leader is a Builder: that allows you to stack worker and accelerate construction, I don't know if you tried that yet.

And I wonder why are there no wonders for legendary cities? I guess at the reasoning is that once a city is legendary, the point of building wonders there has already been accomplished?

There are !

 

[rlw33]

Thanks for the screenshot. Did not find a section in Help listing all wonders.

The screenshot came from here:
https://oldworldwiki.org/wiki/Wonders

 

[steveg700]

BTW, you can speed the construction considerably if your Leader is a Builder: that allows you to stack worker and accelerate construction, I don't know if you tried that yet.

Builders probably get the best package of all the leaders, IMO anyhoo. Hero leaders hate them though, and they already hate their neighbors, so there's a sort of implicit -100 penalty there. Still, I'll take them over most other leaders in the early game. Probably should start a thread at some point ranking this sort of stuff once there are enough folks who feel like they've got enough well-rounded experience.

Having said that, in regards to wonders feeling not-so-exciting to build, I'd say rushing the build with multiple workers probably is a further detraction.

The screenshot came from here:
https://oldworldwiki.org/wiki/Wonders

So, still haven't seen Circus Maximus show up in a worker's build list when next to a Legendary city. This is odd because from what you're showing me it has identical requirements to Via Recta.

 

[Dale]

On wonders, not all wonder are in every game. There are 12 (plus the Great Ziggurat) in game out of the total 16. There's a mod called all 16 wonders which makes them available every game. Hover over the victory screen button to see which ones are in game.

On aqueducts, yes they were in game early on. But were removed as the growth system replaced them. And once growth was linked to grains the granary became prominant. Before that you had two lackluster improvements (granary and aqueduct).

On landscapes (maps, natural wonders, etc). We wanted the focus to be on how you built up your city. Do you opt for a rural city surrounded by rural improvements, or do you build Rome surrounded by tens of urban tiles. The beauty is in what you make of a blank landscape.

 

[rlw33]

You can DL a mod that lets you have all the wonders in the game:
https://oldworld.mod.io/all-16-wonders1

 

[Stringer1313]

I don't miss anything about Civ, with the very faint, possible exception of diplo screens where you had real time interactions, so i had a better sense of who i was dealing with b/c right now they are all just interchangeable portraits with complex personalities. Having said that, I get that that is not really the "vibe" of the game and, they can definitely deepen these interactions by adding 100000 random events related to unique character traits of the opposing AI leaders.

I love all the random events that are tied to certain character traits; it really gives them life. Especially when random events trigger upon the existence of two different character traits.

 

[Taefin]

Two things come to mind, though most games struggle with both so I’m not sure I’d use the word “missing” so much as “musing”.

First, I feel there is often a time in learning a 4x game where you are roughly evenly matched with the AI for much of the early-mid game (at least at one or the difficulty levels or with mods, eg smoother difficulty in Civ6), and it feels like you are growing alongside peer empires where either of you threaten the other. Currently in OW I am finding to get the AI competitive at mid game I need to give them such a strong start that I cannot compete with them militarily until the mid game, and then the only pressure to engage earlier in than later is to chase an ambition, since I’ll then start developing better and better units while they stagnate. One nice thing about this is that the the game doesn’t devolve into early conquest in order to snowball fast enough to win (cf Stellaris), but it also lacks those windows of opportunity when you get a new unit and you must rush to leverage it before your rivals catch up or get ahead. Currently once you get your uniques it’s GG for AI, though how quickly and stability you bring this about keeps some challenge on the table.

And another, the game feels quite dark and gritty to me, throughout pretty much all of any given match. It’s hard to put a finger on exactly why, but I do find myself missing those moments of awe and joy that I remember in Civ6 (I’m sufficiently over that game that I don’t feel it any more). Perhaps I’m just being shallow and it’s just something about the graphics or theme, or maybe it’s that civilization/wonder bonuses don’t feel as pronounced yet to me (Apadana always puts my economy in the black, but I feel I haven’t really learned to leverage the others). All that said, this tone is something I have really enjoyed about Old World most of the time, but it therefore relies on other elements to get that “one more turn” feel.

Oh, and end game graphs, I use them a lot to see how my current difficultly and mod settings affect AI pacing throughout the game. Though these make less sense if the game is more asymmetric with the AI beginning with most of the cities/tech they will ever get.

 

[nolegskitten]

(...)Though these make less sense if the game is more asymmetric with the AI beginning with most of the cities/tech they will ever get.

I like the honest/transparent take on asymmetry on display in OW. I enjoy the idea of overcoming the initial advantage of AI nations very much. This said, even if I think all 4X are more or less asymmetric, e.g.in civ difficulty gives straight production and even bonuses to AIs and also extra starting techs, units and cities on high diff so really it's quite asymmetric too.

But lower AI starting development and using AI advantage (recently introduced boost to AI production, civ-like) to get them developing/building faster might suit your tastes better ?

 

[Stringer1313]

Agree 100% with keeping AI asymmetric. It creates that dynamic like in Colonization which is what made that game so great. AI will never be able to compete with a human, and people just need to accept that.

 

[Old World Fanatic]

Honestly nothing. I started to like civ less and less, starting with 4 which was still very very good. But with 5 and 6 there seemed to be such a bigger focus on the lategame/modern time and havng not so interesting old time. Thematically Civ also seemed to have lost its way. I don't want to be building districts, worry about specific art pieces (and trade them!), I didn't like housing or most of the anti-wide measures (high maintenance cost from 4, happiness caps in 5, housing and district cost in 6).

As opaque as some of the features of old world are (even with the million tooltips), I find the overall structure of what the game is much more satisfying and the things I do more thematically relevant.

My gripes about the game, like the speed at which religions follow paganism, are all still improvements on civilizaton.

The only thing I miss from civ is the amazing value of wonders, whereas in old world they are more of a capstone towards winning. I think it was a good choice for the game, but it's the only thing that makes me want to pick up civ (or more likely, alpha centauri).