What do you miss the most from previous versions of Civ?

[BuzWeaver]

Being notified of when we have population growth like we had in Civ V.

 

[tab]

AI. Period

 

[Cymsdale]

Stacks of doom, if I'm being honest. I never thought it was a "problem" that needed to be fixed.

 

[Duuk]

CTP2: Armies, Public Works instead of builders, Slavery System
Civ4: Leader Traits rather than "every leader is a special snowflake", Colonies. Revolutions (mod)

 

[Abaxial]

The unit progression from Civ V.
The unit graphics from Civ V.
Being able to culture bomb someone else's territory.

 

[MrRadar]

Being able to culture bomb someone else's territory.

Huh? As Peter, culture-bombed Kupe's territory only yesterday. "Player's new districts act as culture bomb" resolution is quite easy to pass in WC, when it comes up.

 

[Icicle]

Having just finished a domination game on a huge map - the ability to set cities to be controlled by governors so you don't get a dozen requests to tell them to build things every turn. The queue helps a lot with this but it would be nice to just set everything to automated in the end game.

Also yeah, renaming Civs and Leaders is one of those little things that I miss. In Civ 2 every civ could have a custom title for each government as well. That was fun.

 

[Starwars]

I miss stacking and would really welcome even a limited stacking system (like having a particular number of units on the same tile). It varies depending on the map but the "traffic jams" that can occur on some map types and in some areas is incredibly unfun I think and it makes the maps feel cramped. Every time I go back to Civ IV there is *always* a sense of freedom. It's so... airy. Love it. I wasn't crazy about how it worked in terms of warfare in IV (though I also didn't dislike it all that much) but all in all I do prefer it to 1upt.

I also miss how much I really dove into the specialists in Civ IV. I was always in and out of the cities fiddling with tiles and specialist assignment. That game really "activated" me as a player.

 

[bramage78]

I miss state religion from CIV IV. This was the only version of Civilization that I thought made religion historically accurate. I keep hoping they will bring it back.

 

[679x]

I've never played a Civ game that didn't have 1UPT so I can't say whether I'd prefer it, but either way, I still dislike how in Civ 6 you need to have a certain number of movement points remaining to move onto a tile, as opposed to in Civ 5 where a unit can move to any adjacent tile as long as it has 1 movement point remaining. I don't recall ever hearing anyone else actually complain about this, but it sure bothers me!

To clarify, let's say you're moving a unit (one with 2 Movement, say) through an area that has an even mix of flat land and rough terrain. Even though it's not all hilly, it's likely that this unit will only be able to move 1 tile at a time. So, you move onto a hill? It takes up 2 movement points, and you can't move again - that part is fine. But then, next turn, you move onto flat land and have 1/2 movement remaining, but you can't go further because the hill in front of you requires 2 movement to traverse. In Civ 5, it would still cost 2 Movement, but you could traverse it even if you only had 1 movement point left. So now in 6, your units are much slower, cannot easily move to strategic positions, AND on top of that, you keep having to tell your units to do nothing until the next turn because the game says a unit needs orders when it still has movement remaining but they can't make any useful movements anyway, so you're clicking way more buttons and spending more time managing your units even after you've already given them orders.

Does it make more 'sense' to REQUIRE extra movement points to traverse rough terrain? I suppose. But it harms gameplay IMO. It just makes the 1UPT feel even more cumbersome in 6 compared to 5, as it just increases the amount of 'traffic jams' when your units can't move further despite not being out of moves, and requires extra micromanagement.

 

[madeirabhoy]

in no particular order, I miss....

having to use boats to carry troops across the ocean
after the game finished, seeing the replay of how the map populated during the game
swapping and selling maps and tech
the days before loyalty where you could send off a settler to the other side of the world, keep your fingers crossed not to bump into barbarians or other civs and with luck get a small city on the other side of the world so your caravans made tons of money

 

[marvelharvey]

I miss number-of-turns being such a large factor towards score. My best victories were some of the lowest scoring. Kinda like golf.

 

[WillowBrook]

Map replay!

Throne room

Needing an actual connection with a civ to trade (I think Civ III required that for luxuries)

Needing to send a unit to the other civ's capital to send a delegation or establish an embassy (e.g., diplomat in Civ II)

Parsable save to enable a CivFanatics HOF and other fun competitions

Map trading. Also, the part of the map in the fog should not update until you've acquired an updated map.

Tech trading (not really - I think you should be able to acquire a small percentage of a tech from a given other civ in trade)

Acquiring tiles from neighbors via cultural pressure (independent mechanism from culture bombs)

Penalty for distance from capital (if implemented well - not Civ III's version of corruption!)

A more comprehensive scoring system that rewards faster play and bigger cities.

 

[Icicle]

I miss state religion from CIV IV. This was the only version of Civilization that I thought made religion historically accurate. I keep hoping they will bring it back.

Civ IV was my favorite version of religion too. I find the Civ 5/6 version very watered down and tedious in comparison, and I'd rather they just not have it in.

I'd almost rather a system where religions just kind of develop organically and you could choose whether to make it a state religion, condemn it, or just sort of let it do it's own thing.

I've never played a Civ game that didn't have 1UPT so I can't say whether I'd prefer it, but either way, I still dislike how in Civ 6 you need to have a certain number of movement points remaining to move onto a tile, as opposed to in Civ 5 where a unit can move to any adjacent tile as long as it has 1 movement point remaining. I don't recall ever hearing anyone else actually complain about this, but it sure bothers me!.

Trust me, we all complained about this when the game came out. We've just given up on it.I don't think a single person prefers it this way.

I miss stacking and would really welcome even a limited stacking system (like having a particular number of units on the same tile). It varies depending on the map but the "traffic jams" that can occur on some map types and in some areas is incredibly unfun I think and it makes the maps feel cramped. Every time I go back to Civ IV there is *always* a sense of freedom. It's so... airy. Love it. I wasn't crazy about how it worked in terms of warfare in IV (though I also didn't dislike it all that much) but all in all I do prefer it to 1upt.

I also miss how much I really dove into the specialists in Civ IV. I was always in and out of the cities fiddling with tiles and specialist assignment. That game really "activated" me as a player.

Yeah, it required a lot of micromanagement but you learned to love it (or you quit playing I guess).

I would like to see maybe a "one unit per type per stack" option with like, maybe one melee unit, one anti-cav, one ranged, etc maybe more being able to be combined as you tech up. Sort of a compromise maybe. Or just bring back the stacks of doom so the AI flaws are less apparent.

 

[KayAU]

Obviously, I miss Fall from Heaven and Vox Populi, but if I am to stick to official civ games:

• Tall cities having the potential to be amazing (all previous civ games, I think).
• Social Policies (Civ 5)/Virtues (Beyond Earth). Yes, the card system is more flexible, but unfortunately, it just feels less satisfying for more work to me. There are also too many "swap in for 1 turn"-policies, which creates even more busywork and potential for misplays. I prefer a more straightforward, permanent bonus system. Making it synergistic like in Beyond Earth would be great.
• Ideologies (Civ 5)/Affinity (Beyond Earth). Gives you something to fight for in the later game, and adds structure to diplomacy. I similarly liked the D&D style alignments in Fall from Heaven.
• Social Engineering (the Alpha Centauri government system). In some ways, you could say this is similar to the current card system, but it is in my opinion better and clearer. I also like that it tied into diplomacy.
• More interaction/synergy between systems (several games). For instance, cultural pressure providing benefits outside of the cultural victory condition, ideology and other political choices more substantially affecting diplomacy, overall happiness/unrest/corruption affecting productivity and loyalty,
• Building roads. This is a simple one.
• Trading technology, another simple one.

 

[toni10001]

I really miss having a benefit from receiving certain cultural dominance from civV.

You get benefits from espionage, conquest etc from being influential or dominant in culture from the other civs. Back then you really have to worry if a tourism is now dominant since enemy spies can act faster and if a city gets conquered to suffers little to no population lost.

In CivVI it is just a marker of where you are in the victory progress. If your domestic tourist is 39 and the leader's foreign is 40 but the required points is 79 you have nothing to worry about but in civ5 if their tourism is 100% your culture then you would need to worry even if there are still 3 or 4 civs that they havent yet reached 100%

 

[bonafide11]

I haven't read through all of these posts, but from the ones I did read I haven't seen it and it surprises me:

The zoom out ability in Civ IV to look at the map in a more global view. I loved that so much as a way to monitor my empire and go from the look at my few cities to a grander view of the whole empire. I can't believe they don't include that anymore. It breaks some of the immersion of being able to see just how vast my empire has become.

 

[bonafide11]

I really miss having a benefit from receiving certain cultural dominance from civV.

You get benefits from espionage, conquest etc from being influential or dominant in culture from the other civs. Back then you really have to worry if a tourism is now dominant since enemy spies can act faster and if a city gets conquered to suffers little to no population lost.

In CivVI it is just a marker of where you are in the victory progress. If your domestic tourist is 39 and the leader's foreign is 40 but the required points is 79 you have nothing to worry about but in civ5 if their tourism is 100% your culture then you would need to worry even if there are still 3 or 4 civs that they havent yet reached 100%

I agree with this too. I hate how tourism is just a bucket that has no affect on gameplay at all.

 

[MrRadar]

Civ IV was my favorite version of religion too. I find the Civ 5/6 version very watered down and tedious in comparison, and I'd rather they just not have it in.
I'd almost rather a system where religions just kind of develop organically and you could choose whether to make it a state religion, condemn it, or just sort of let it do it's own thing.

Oh yes, I subscribe under all of this. And I was thinking as well, what if the early pantheons would emerge passively, depending on the environment you settle in, and then additional beliefs would sort of grow on until, maybe, you can decide to codify it a bit, propping up what you find useful for the state, and declaring unwanted parts as heresy, and then institutionalise the whole thing as the state religion.

Does it make more 'sense' to REQUIRE extra movement points to traverse rough terrain? I suppose. But it harms gameplay IMO. It just makes the 1UPT feel even more cumbersome in 6 compared to 5, as it just increases the amount of 'traffic jams' when your units can't move further despite not being out of moves, and requires extra micromanagement.

I don't think a single person prefers it this way.

um, I prefer it this way
Given, of course, that hexes and 1upt (on multiple layers though) is here to stay.

Movement becomes much more tactical, and it opens up new possibilities, unavailable in Civ 5. For example, if you're disengaging and trying to flee with a severely wounded unit after a bad fight or an ambush, you can hide in a forest or on a hill, and enemy melee can't reach you there from 2 tile distance, giving you chance to flee further or to promote and wait for support, and then to retaliate from cover.

Roads become really valuable on rough terrain. Only thing that I probably would like to see is the fractional remainder of movement points from the last turn would be added to the next turn's MPs, but only if remaining MP<1. It would simulate turning in for the night early, so the unit could start before sunrise for a forced march the next day On some occasions that would allow to scrape up one more MP.

 

[cvb]

um, I prefer it this way

And you're not the only one ... The new movement rule IS GREAT!

Of course there was a lot of discussion (aka different convictions), eg. in "Opinions about the new movement system":

This shows the genius of Sid - he avoided that problem with really simple rules ... which I found rather weird in the beginning, but great to play ...

I got used to this movement pattern. Start on hills/woods, across flat land and end on hills/woods. Should cost 3 movement points, but can ALWAYS be accomplished by a unit possessing only 2 movement points. And ALWAYS ending on a tile with defensive bonus. So what?
I suspect, with the old ruleset I have a bigger advantage over the AI players, because I am really good in MAXIMIZING the movement point UNDERFLOW and attacking on flatland while being attacked on rough terrain. (I'm well aware, that in the current state of the AI it is impossible to say whether the AI plays stronger with the new ruleset, but consider this an important point.)

And it feels right. When in real life I know the terrain and want just traverse it quickly, I don't climb every hill, I just walk between the hills along the valleys. I'm quick, but gain no defensive bonus and far sight FOR FREE. I can have those, but climbing the hill slows me down. Gameplay in short: I'm quick & vulnerable OR slow & strong, but not both.

[...]

With underflow! Moving a mounted unit 5 tiles on a road (left 1/3 movement point) and then jumping onto a 'hills' tile ("costing" 2 move points) towards the front line gave a deficit of 5/3 move points (and defense bonus of 50%) ... why jumping onto a 'plains' tile ("costing" 1 move point), giving a deficit of just 2/3 move points (and NONE defense bonus)??? ... always the same: if terrain allows, hopping from hills to hills, grande strategy!

For me the rule was not just ALWAYS spend more move points than available, "drink more than what is in the bottle", but ALWAYS MAXIMIZE this inexistent content. I understand, that Sid's trick to allow this variable underflow removes the tedious task of "no more action" orders, but for me it feels wrong now. In simple civ1 it was good, still civ6 is so manifold more complex, the same doesn't fit anymore.

BTW, PzGeneral (also the first version, under DOS) solved this principle problem by forcing the units to spend all their movement points at one time each (without other units in between). I.e. all the time all units were either in the "still needs orders" or in the "ready for this turn" queue.

: