Old World: Civ IV combined with Crusader Kings and...Offworld Trading Company??

Got to play this last night, I like it a lot so far, though I've barely scratched the surface yet. Many obscure numbers to pay attention to, but some interesting mechanics and ideas intertwined. The mix between CK and Civ is too appealing to ignore for that pricetag (6$ using the epic coupon)

Edit: Having played a little longer its early access status becomes obvious and takes a bit away from the enjoyment of the game. My Pc can handle most recent games on lower settings but here it struggles a bit once you reveal most of the areas of a mid-to-big map. Most in-game wonders are missing textures / polishing and integration to the map once built.
However, what is already is quite engaging even at this stage and state of development, a couple of months and it will be ready for prime time. The music is surprisingly poignant, it may take away a bit of the chill factor to some people, but I find it most appropiate for the setting. Grandiose, dramatic and over-the-top while still classical. Hopefully the finished product isn't that far away now, looking forward to experience it without the early access drawbacks.

This hit 1.0 and came out of early access yesterday. I started a game last night and before I knew it 3 hours had passed, which is a good sign. I've never had that happen with Civ VI.

They also did a few streams yesterday, and the one with Soren doing a Q&A should be particularly interesting to anyone who wants some insight into the design.

Played it again last night, seems much more stable now than a year ago when I couldn't play more than 50 turns before it turned into a slogfest. Back then I was playing on my old rig thou, the new one shouldn't sweat while running this.

Very interested in this one. The developers have been dropping hints that this might eventually move off Epic, so I am keeping an eye on it.

Mind Elemental wrote:

Very interested in this one. The developers have been dropping hints that this might eventually move off Epic, so I am keeping an eye on it. :)

My guess is it will eventually, though it has already been more than a year, which seems to be the typical length. They've said that Epic provided funding to not only keep the project going after Starbreeze (??) went under, but also allowed them to bring more people on, so it's possible Epic bought more than just a single year of exclusivity.

I haven't played the game in a while (over a year now), this seems like an excellent time to dive back in!

Bought it in a recent sale. Really looking forward to playing it.

With this and Humankind, the Civ desire should be met for a while.

billt721 wrote:

This hit 1.0 and came out of early access yesterday. I started a game last night and before I knew it 3 hours had passed, which is a good sign. I've never had that happen with Civ VI.

This happens EVERY SINGLE time I play OldWorld, and I've come to realize I really shouldn't play on a weekday evening unless I start early enough to not suddenly realize it's 1am.

Loving this thread, because I haven't had a chance to get to the game since full release.

I played a bit in early access, tho never finished a run, and really look forward to sinking my teeth into a full campaign.

I've completed one game, and while that's not enough to know for sure, it definitely feels like they've fixed some of the common Civ/4x problems:

1. Last 1/3 of the game drags -- just end the game before that point is reached.
2. Too much micro-management of units starting mid-game -- the orders system means that you can't move everyone, so you have to decide what you actually want to do on each turn.
3. ICS as a dominant strategy -- limit where cities can be built to specific sites on the map.
4. Losing a wonder by 1 turn (this has always been more of an annoyance than something actually wrong with other 4x games) -- once a wonder is started, everyone else is locked out from building it.

Really, the only issue I have so far is that the Civlopedia is kinda empty (though I see the test branch includes some additions), and some of the mechanics can be tough to figure out exactly what's going on.

billt721 wrote:

1. Last 1/3 of the game drags -- just end the game before that point is reached.

How does that work?

billt721 wrote:

4. Losing a wonder by 1 turn (this has always been more of an annoyance than something actually wrong with other 4x games) -- once a wonder is started, everyone else is locked out from building it.

That sounds very nice. Although it would be a bit easymode/exploitable in Civ, but limited cities seems like it should counter it.

City spam in Civ 6 is annoying. They really need to come up with a way to balance that in Civ 6.

Shadout wrote:
billt721 wrote:

1. Last 1/3 of the game drags -- just end the game before that point is reached.

How does that work?

I think it's a few things, but mostly limited victory conditions and no need to support an expanded set of them. You can win via points at the end of 200 turns (or by having double the points of the closest competitor at any point after 100 turns) OR by completing 10 "ambitions" (basically small in-game quests).

Shadout wrote:
billt721 wrote:

4. Losing a wonder by 1 turn (this has always been more of an annoyance than something actually wrong with other 4x games) -- once a wonder is started, everyone else is locked out from building it.

That sounds very nice. Although it would be a bit easymode/exploitable in Civ, but limited cities seems like it should counter it.

They balance it by making the wonders cost a bunch of resources to even start, which I think would work in Civ as well.

Edit: And that's not even getting into the character system, which makes diplomacy at least feel less random since characters have opinions of each other based on traits, events, etc.

I picked this up now it's on full release and need to find a good tutorial I think. There is a lot to unpack at a first attempt! However, like others once you get started you do sort of wonder where all the time goes.

Wow, this is somewhat different from what I expected. I'm burned out on Civ, of course, having played all of them. Still love CK3 but have not played in a bit. This game has a much more deliberate pace; fewer choices across many options means you really have to consider what you intend to do and how to get there. I like the clean UI and the methodical buildup of features in the tutorials.

This is going to be good, I think.

I'm finding this fascinating but the gradual build up of all the competing layers eventually defeats me. And on the "Standard" difficulty layer (The Good) I quickly get overwhelmed by the AI nations who can apparently spam out military units in a way I can't fathom.

That's not to say that I'm not enjoying - I'm actually really really enjoying it. I do need to get a real understanding of what to focus on though. My current "try a bit of everything" is good for learning but doesn't really help much in terms of victory I don't think.

It's definitely a thinking person's game.

It might have something to do with the way the AI keeps telling me to build Mines lol

Sorbicol wrote:

I'm finding this fascinating but the gradual build up of all the competing layers eventually defeats me. And on the "Standard" difficulty layer (The Good) I quickly get overwhelmed by the AI nations who can apparently spam out military units in a way I can't fathom.

That's not to say that I'm not enjoying - I'm actually really really enjoying it. I do need to get a real understanding of what to focus on though. My current "try a bit of everything" is good for learning but doesn't really help much in terms of victory I don't think.

It's definitely a thinking person's game.

Yeah, you need to pump out military units (even militia) immediately, or focus your leaders towards diplomacy and start influencing other civilizations (haven't tried that one so far). If you hover over a rival nation's leader in the top right, you can see a comparison of your general military might. When the others are all at 'stronger' or 'much stronger' you don't have enough troops and they will attack you.

I've been playing this a ton over the past two weeks. I'm now up to the 5th difficulty and branching out on the various options for game world/rules.

Here's my beginner tips:

1. While you should try to minimize Discontent don't agonize over cities gaining 4 levels of it in the first 100 turns. There's a few things you want to try and do early for this like make sure your cities are connected to your capital. Build Walls and garrison a unit on the city tile. If you can get religion going early adopting a national religion helps too.

2. Expand early, put any of your units on a city site you intend to colonize so a rival doesn't take it.

3. Don't be afraid of giving up Prestige for peace in the early game. There's often early events that make you choose angering someone over Prestige. You'll gain Prestige early game for exploring with scouts, it's ok to give some up. It's easier to expand your cities and build with more workers if you're only fighting 1-2 barbarian types and not any other nations.

4. Focus expansions on fresh water and coasts. Cities are automatically connected if they share a path on water. Fresh water gives bonuses to Farms and coastline often has fish/crabs for early food and citizen bonus.

5. Specialize citizens as soon as you can. Putting a fisher on a Nets tile not only boosts food production it also gives a tech boost. Most specialized citizens give tech boost.

6. By mid-game any Barracks should have an infantry on it and any Range should have a ranged unit on it. This gives free training boosts to idle units on these tiles.

7. Your Leader is going to change over time, if possible focus their strengths while you have them. That means if you have a diplomat running things spend the majority of Civics on making other nations happy. If you have a Commander running things focus on training more troops and upgrading existing troops. When choosing what your heirs will study usually make them opposite of your current leader but if you're in a long war you may need repeated military commanders.

8. Appease your families with marriages and any luxuries you find early game. If families get too angry you get rebels in your cities and bonuses from members of unhappy families are decreased.

9. Pay attention to what bonus the Family Seat gives and give them their first city based on that bonus. For example a Champions city will give you a Garrison, useful to put a Governor into a city right away but if you don't have any suitable Governors yet wait to give them your third city, etc. If you're building a city inland that isn't going to be connected to your capital right away choosing a Riders family is great - they're always connected to the capital. Early game choosing which family starts your first 3 cities can make a big difference.

Thank you so much for these tips!

I have been really liking this game too. The combat combined with the order system feels tactical in a way that Civ 6 doesn't.

Also so many tradeoffs to consider when building.

I think Persia doesn't trust me...

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/rUE7kRR.png)

Elders from other families actually suggesting restricting education of women when the current ruler is known for being... a well educated woman.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/LwPVIVW.png)

That's a lot of deaths...

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/SVFaDC2.png)

(Click images for full size)

In classic Crusader Kings style, my heir goes missing for a few years, in which my leader dies. 2 year old child ends up on the throne. The original heir turns up again. The 2 year olds mother is now his heir.
This is getting confusing.

This game has a lot of interesting ideas I hope other games in the genre will look at. Not sure this game is the one to do it for me though. A bit too much Crusader kings and a bit too little Civ. But the first playthrough has been a fun ride.

Shadout wrote:

In classic Crusader Kings style, my heir goes missing for a few years, in which my leader dies. 2 year old child ends up on the throne. The original heir turns up again. The 2 year olds mother is now his heir.
This is getting confusing.

This game has a lot of interesting ideas I hope other games in the genre will look at. Not sure this game is the one to do it for me though. A bit too much Crusader kings and a bit too little Civ. But the first playthrough has been a fun ride.

LOL. I have played this a fair bit and have never seen this situation. And it was you first play? Nuts.

Soren has been posting some really interesting notes to his blog that go into how the various systems in the game came about and evolved over time:

Orders System
City Sites
One Unit per Tile
Tech Deck

Having now played both this and Humankind, though only a handful of hours in the latter, I'm somewhat surprised that the game that seems to make the biggest break from the Civ formula is the one made by the former Civ designer, not the one made by the team that made Endless Legend.

After completing a "match" It's a good game, there are great things about it, but I think It isn't what I expected it to be thou, not sure why as the things it promises to do it does and it does them well. You expand, you marry your offspring and nurse them to be tacticians or philosophers, etc, you grow your cities while conquering barbarians and neighbours and yet by the last strech of the match I had no north to follow, no real incentive to pursue one tech or the other. The resources are confusing and once you get the hang of procuring most of them they become more noise than anything else. Once you secure your nation's core, to keep conquering becomes a bit irrelevant, you just wipe out barbarians nearby that pose a threat to your borders or defend from whomever is annoyed with you for the time being. I don't know why I got this impression but alas it's how I felt after expecting to play it properly for over a year.

I love the art, especially the events and portraits, but I find the music a bit lacking compared to whatever they were using back in EA, that music was BAM cry now because it's the OldWorld and we have gravitas and pomp, the new music I have no idea how good or bad it is as It left no memory on me.

Still, not a "bad" game by any stretch of the imagination, just one that I don't see myself playing much more after that first taste.

Need to give this more of a chance but the beginning part kind of lost me while Humankind sucked me in.

Just me though

In playing Humankind, I find myself really missing the Order system, the undo button, the tooltip "lock in place" and the preview of what impact selecting a dialog option will have on the overall empire, vs. +1 this on that. I really enjoy them both and really don't see playing Civ 6 again.

This game ruined Civ 6 for me, but I find war to be rather tedious. And like many strategy games there are only a few viable ways to victory, and most of them include making sure you are constantly pumping out military units.

Ok, gotta give this more time. I love Civ, love Firaxis, but the Humankind is pretty great.

dejanzie wrote:

This game ruined Civ 6 for me, but I find war to be rather tedious. And like many strategy games there are only a few viable ways to victory, and most of them include making sure you are constantly pumping out military units.

My last game, I was constantly having wars waged on me. Old World has the best AI, IMO. They attack where you are weak, withdraw and kite when they should, just frustratingly smart. That made what I pulled of even more rewarding. I really shifted my education focus and selection of future leaders and Advisors around relationship boosts, focusing marriages with foreign civs over families. Got to the point I was able to get peace and high relationship scores with everyone and made sure to get in good if possible with the next in line. It is really nice that you can hover over the various advisors and see how it will impact your overall world changes before you choose.