TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
I know I'm late to this party, but I will point out that while EU 4 factors being "comprehensible" or "well-designed" is debatable, it's flatly not true that they are irrelevant. There is a massive gulf in outcomes between beginners, intermediate players, expert players, and the best-of-the-best that is reminiscent of Civ 4.This, they took direclty from Europa Universalis from Paradox. The game in itself is fine (kinda) but deeply flawed in that it presents :
Layers upon layers upon layers (upon layers upon layers) of irrelevant and possibly incomprehensible factors that can be tweaked to hell.
Why have so many options if none of them matter or make sense to begin with ? It's not even cute, it's just cumbersome.
I can complete one tag/one faith world conquests starting as a generic one province minor in EU 4, before the end date. Many others can too, but this places you into the "expert" category, give or take. The vast majority of players who pick up the game will never get close to doing it, even with 100s of hours. Most don't get there even with 1000s of hours. However, it's a long step down from the very best.
The current record for a one-tag world conquest is in the 1470s. The game runs from 1444-1821. Even if you disregard hordes and questionable tactics, the best of the best will still one tag the world by early 1600s. The interactions with those "tweaked factors" ARE the difference. Note that the rate at which you can expand accelerates starting in 1610 (typically). Thus, the best players are completing nearly all of their conquests at a time where it is by default much harder/less efficient, and overcoming that with efficiencies in play to finish sooner anyway. Simply noting that X finished 100 years earlier than Y is underselling just how much ability needed to go into the game to attain that. You need to be pretty good to conquer the world by 1750 as a generic non-horde. You need to be one of the best players to have ever played the game to do it before 1650. It's not close.
To some extent, that still holds in the Civ games. You can perform much better in Civ 6 if you make the best choices, vs merely "good enough to win on deity" choices. In terms of meaningful choices that impact the outcome of the game and depth in how mechanics interact with each other, Civ 6 seems an easy 2nd place to Civ 4. Civ 4 has better controls, less dead time (faster to end won games), and offers the most difficult tradeoffs to make regarding early expansion tradeoffs and tech choices. However, 6 nevertheless fleshed out the combat system substantially, with improved tradeoffs in promotions, unit choice, securing GG, and how these interact with tech. Policy cards and how you manage the slots/timing them have a lot of depths/optimization to squeeze out. Districts as a mechanic will occasionally force tough choices. It's not a bad game by any means, it's just not as good as Civ 4.
Civ 5 decided it was a good idea to disincentivize fighting/taking land as a crucial element in competing for limited resources, and that design choice was a woofer. It went from ICS in earliest versions to "you only need to engage minimally".
That is very, very much a matter of mindset. Just as not everyone finds the process of evaluating where mistakes were made and adjusting fun, some do not find perpetual intermediacy and losing often due to mistakes that are never identified fun.Because that level is where the fun is. Advancing beyond it turns the game into a job.
Admittedly, the better you get, the harder it becomes to identify those mistakes. How much harder depends on the game and on the talents of the person trying to improve.
Last edited: