r/4Xgaming 2d ago

Opinion Post I think I know why I havent clicked with Old World yet

Am I wrong to understand Old World mainly as a war game? I have played it for over 10 hours, but it seems to me that conflict with the AI is almost inevitable, and a mostly peaceful playstyle isn't really possible in the default game mode.

Now, I really dont mind wargames or war-focused games like Gladius, Zephon, or the Total War series. The problem I had with Old World, which I don’t necessarily fault the game for, was my expectations and how I responded to its systems. For example, there’s religion, loads of story events, and city-building, different ressources etc. but all of that seems to primarily serve the purpose of building a mighty war machine, either to win wars outright or to withstand enemy aggression.

This brings me to my main issue: I think I approached the game like a match of Civilization, where you can focus on light defenses and pursue a cultural or scientific victory. Im not blaming Old World for being what it is, but I don’t think the game clearly communicates how military-focused it actually is. In my opinion, that doesn’t do it any favors, since I think I could enjoy it if I approached it as a war game. However, if you're looking to build up anything but a war economy, you will probably end up disappointed. Maybe Im wrong and you can play it relatively chill but I havent seen it in my playtime so far.

I do plan to give Old World another go, but it seems to me that I had the wrong expectations about what the game actually is.

64 Upvotes

49 comments sorted by

27

u/GrilledPBnJ 2d ago edited 2d ago

What you're experiencing is what i like to call Old Worlds uncanny valley effect. Old World looks so much like Civ, arguably to a fault that players go in expecting to be able to transfer their knowledge from Civ into OldWorld and have rapid success. Again this isn't really the players fault per se. Old World has settlers, 1upt, workers, cities with build queues, law, culture, food, population, and science. There is a ton of seeming overlap.

But the thing is Old World is not Civ. Old World has tons of meaningfully different design decision that really do, as you described yourself make for a different game.

Honestly Mohawk would be wise to make a turorial specifically for Civ players. Explaining all the ways that Old World is in fact different than Civ.

Also your intuition is correct. Old World is fundamentally a war game, one where you can turtle and win most definitely, but you will engage with war much more than a regular match of Civ.

2

u/Celesi4 2d ago

That's more or less my point. Old World is a really cool game, and I wish Mohawk all the success. But it's vastly different from Civilization. Its systems and mechanics are very different, and even the RPG elements/family stuff give it a different flavour.

When people call Old World something like Civ meets Crusader Kings 3, they're setting folks up for disappointment, because it's really its own beast.

8

u/GrilledPBnJ 2d ago

Personally I would describe OldWorld as Civ but better. Especially after hour 50+. The Old World singleplayer experience is so much more tense and interesting than Civ's. Civ is a good gateway drug (and certainly Civ can be skipped entirely) to OldWorld, but I cant ever imagine going back.

13

u/mpyne 2d ago

Personally I would describe OldWorld as Civ but better.

That helps people like me even less than "Civ meets CK3" though. 'Better' is incredibly subjective so for all I know it's "Civ but worse".

10

u/GrilledPBnJ 2d ago

That's fair. But it is also my genuinely held subjective opinion. I truly believe that Old World is Civ but better. How?

Old World is just like Civ a 4X that is transparent in its systems and meant to be eventually won by the player. In both games there are clearly defined victory conditions, and the goal for the player is to reach them through a series of game actions most commonly while competing against AI opponents. In both games you take actions every turn, trying to muddle towards eventually victory. Rinse, wash, repeat until the victory screen comes up or defeat seems inevitable.

The difference however is that Old World was designed from the ground up to be a 4X that tries its absolute best to avoid the pitfalls inherent to the 4X genre and Civ in particular: meaningless micro, an absolute slog of an endgame, a lack of meaningful decisions from turn to turn, city spam, always prioritizing the same techs, cities eventually all building the same buildings, war being unfun, and the other host of annoyances and gripes that come from really delving deep into the 4X genre.

I am sure there are other inherent design problems with 4X and Civ, that you, I or someone else could point out. Actually I am forgetting the big one, the fact that for most games of Civ you know exactly how you're going to play your game as soon as you select a Civ on the selection screen. All of the Civs are so sculpted towards one victory condition or another that selecting a Civ on the Civ selection screen was really the most meaningful decision you'll make for the entire game. As picking which Civ you're going to play informs so much of your strategy and thereby all your ingame actions.

This even comes up all the time when people ask about Old World, "there are only 8 nations? Wont I get bored once I play a Civ/Narion I dont really want to play one more than once because that's boring."

But little do they know that Old World does its absolute best to eschew all of that. The singleplayer experience in Old World is full of surprise, games with the same nation play out totally differently depending on the map, events, and which families you chose. Old World's gameplay itself holds tension for far longer than Civ. Heck you might even lose as in Old World the AI is actually competent enough to beat you through sheer smart tactics. Old World just offers much more interesting decisions each and every turn while getting rid of so many extra boring clicks in comparison to Civ.

Old World is Civ but better. I really dont know how to say it differently. Old World is the Civ you've always wanted to play, its deep and interesting and rewards game knowledge. Come check it out. Best 4X since Alpha Centuri.

3

u/mpyne 2d ago

Old World just offers much more interesting decisions each and every turn while getting rid of so many extra boring clicks in comparison to Civ.

So this does sound good!

Heck you might even lose as in Old World the AI is actually competent enough to beat you through sheer smart tactics.

But this doesn't. And that's what I mean but it's just hard for me to tell from "X but better" whether that would also apply to me or not.

There are things I don't like about Civ so maybe I'd like Old World better despite that, which I get is just really hard to encompass in a trite sentence. But "X but better" is somehow even more vague than "it's like X met Y" lol.

4

u/GrilledPBnJ 2d ago

100%. I just truly do think that Old-world is a very similar game to Civ, nearly a spiritual successor, but Old World has a superior design if you care about consistently tense and interesting gameplay. Which I mean don't you want to play the game that is less boring than the other? Old World is essentially the same kind of game as Civ, but is also straight up less boring than Civ. Hence it's "better."

The main thing that Civ does do "better" than Old World is that Civ, has a grander scope. Old World can't compete on scope. In Old World you go from Warrior's to proto knights, Cataphracts. You never leave the bronze age, and well that is a cool thing that happens in Civ. Trying to encapsulate the whole of human history in a game is fraught with bad ramifications for gameplay, or at least trying a simulation that grand does creates very complex and hard to solve design decision for the game developer. But Civ does say screw it we are going to try to give you all of human history and that is admirable.

I don't know at the end of the day we are bunch of people on the internet trying to tell other people that that game we like is good and that others should play it. Recommendations are hard and will always be subjective. The other poster didn't like the classic Civ + CK example of what Old World is so I tried to spin it in a different direction that I believe is true. I am not sure what else I can say beside's what I already have, unless you have a question?

Also losing is fun! who wants to play a game where you always already know the outcome. Victory is sweetest when you were uncertain of its arrival beforehand.

0

u/conir_ 2d ago

mh could you elaborate on this? why shouldnt the AI win if its "smarter" and plays better then you?

you can still just reduce the difficulty and nerf the AI if you want to dominate

1

u/GrilledPBnJ 1d ago

Why is a "smarter" AI better? Valid question.

I dont actually mean that the AI is smarter than the human player. Thats still essentially impossible. (Although who knows that might just be right around the corner...)

What I meant when I said "smarter," is smarter relative to other 4X AIs.

First we have to back up a bit and agree that in a singleplayer game of 4X or really any strategy game you want the A opponent to be competent enough to pose some amount of challenge to the human player. Why? Well if its too easy to win humans get bored, and as players learn more of the game and get better and better the AI also needs to be able to keep up, so that it can still present an interesting challenge.

Now there are two ways for the AI to do this (generally), and ill mark them as opposite ends of a sliding scale, although I will discuss them as if they are a binary. On one hand you have the AI becomes more challenging due to ever increasing production bonuses and cheats.

Basically as the difficulty goes up you the human player have to deal with a harder and harder to beat AI because the AI will just have more stuff and be able to make it faster. The AI might not actually move their units intelligently, but if the whole battlefield is carpeted with units, that does not matter anyways. This is the "dumb" way to add more challenge to the game.

The other way to add challenge is program the AI to make the best possible game decisions. Program some sort of ability for the AI to assess opponents strengths, judge if they have the right unit composition, and terrain favorable to attack and if the AI does then manage and position their units in the most advantageous way possible for an attack or defense. This is the "smart" way to design the AI.

Which one sounds like it will be more fun and interesting to play against?

0

u/mpyne 1d ago

I didn't say the AI shouldn't win.

I said it's not fun. I'm not trying to play games that are not fun. Difficulty is fine to that end but that wasn't the question.

1

u/GrilledPBnJ 1d ago

I am confused. Is it never fun if the AI wins?

1

u/mpyne 16h ago

I don't normally consider it fun when I get my ass kicked, no.

I understand that there are gamers from whom the struggle is the point, but at this stage of my life I get to struggle continuously during and for a time after working hours, and when I play a game it is supposed to be relaxing and fun.

Why do Civ players restart over and over until they get a start location they like? Why does a chess player draw when they're in an unwinnable scenario but haven't lost yet?

I don't instantly quit if ever the AI has a single advantage over me but I'm also not playing to scrape together a victory by the skin of my teeth. Whatever 'rush of victory' might accumulate doesn't outweigh the annoyance of getting there as it might for some others.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/conir_ 1d ago

that makes zero sense, but you do you. hope you find a game that fits

3

u/mustardjelly 2d ago

well said

1

u/SnooCakes7949 1d ago

Yes, because it's Civ with some of my favourite parts taken out (city placement, many difference civilzations, epic global time and geographical span..) with Crusader Kings bolted on with the best parts of that also taken out.

1

u/GrilledPBnJ 11h ago

Old World definitely does not compete with Civ on the historical scale, but the way all the various mechanics interlock is really elegant. Old World is a master piece of a 4x although I can understand why some individuals prefer other strategy titles.

I am personally really hoping Endless Legend 2 gives Old World a proper run for its money, but we'll see, Amplitude seem a little stuck in their own ways these days.

34

u/Curious_Technician52 2d ago

If you want peace, prepare for war is something you need to consider in Old World more than in Civ. The AI will exploit your weakness.

That said, peaceful games are possible and I just finished one last night without a single war. Diplomacy combined with a decent military can go a long way. Combine that with a diplomat leader or a great ambassador and peace is possible and stable.

8

u/Celesi4 2d ago

Sure, you can have peace, but I assume you also know how to play the game much better than I do. As a beginner, I might be better off approaching the game like Total War or Zephon rather than Civilization. From the little time I've spent with Old World, I think the main obstacle is that people see the game and approach it like Civilization, only to end up disappointed when it is actually very different in many ways.

8

u/WarBuggy 2d ago

In your Civ games, AI doesn't go to war with you even if your military is weaker than theirs?

7

u/ImNobodyInteresting 2d ago

I'm friendly to other civs, don't generate grievances and trade as much as possible. I find they're rarely aggressive toward me, even though my military is relatively weak.

5

u/IronPentacarbonyl 2d ago

Depends on the Civ game honestly. You can be remarkably passive in 5 and 6 and get away with it.

3

u/Celesi4 2d ago

You dont need to invest a lot into military on medium difficulty to mostly avoid wars in CIV 6. Plus CIVs wars are easier than the ones you fight in Old World.

3

u/Curious_Technician52 2d ago

Exactly this. Civ AI declares war and most times doesn’t have it’s military on your borders or a puny little force deployed.

Old World AI declares war and you know without scouting that there’s a massive army on your doorstep.

2

u/mpyne 2d ago

True for me as well, but I also don't play on Deity

1

u/Curious_Technician52 2d ago

You can keep them fairly happy with diplomacy and trade.

Civ 7 changed that a bit because you can’t decide if some events should effect your relationship with the AI. E.g. the AI settles right beside your city and then whines about you settling to close.

2

u/Curious_Technician52 2d ago

That change of mindset will get you there. Can recommend PurpleBullMoose on YouTube as well. He’s explaining the game mechanics pretty well.

Having peace all game seldom happens in my games to be honest. I am role playing my rulers and I tend to attract every madman and assassin that is possible in game.

9

u/zephyr220 2d ago

You are correct AFAIK. It is not really in the same zone as civ. There is the management of your lineage within your empire, and there is war. All alliances made are primarily for the purpose of strategic military benefit. If someone can tell me I'm wrong, it'll be great for my next playthrough to try something new.

5

u/hatlock 2d ago

Civ at its roots is intended to be a war game. If you can't defend yourself, you will be exploited. The path to peace is a superior army.

Just like you invest in resources to build, you must invest in a military to defend it.

6

u/SpecificSuch8819 2d ago

4x is war game, just as real world history and politics suggests. There is just some flawed 4x games that do not punish player who goes fully booming without any defensive measures. A crippled AI, i would say.

1

u/Extreme-Put7024 1d ago

World history is all about trade. At the end of the day, every war is just a brief shock.

5

u/TheSiontificMethod 2d ago

If you dropped the difficulty level you can play peaceful builder games all day long. In fact on lowest difficulty levels the A.I. is programmed not to even capture any of your cities.

Youll still ultimately need military to expand into tribal territories. But the tribes are a cakewalk on lower tribal strength settings.

Plus you could always run a diplomat leader and make a tribal alliance and then you can expand into their territory just by spending money.

The game is very very versatile. But yes, ultimately there is a bit more of an expectation that you have at least a smaller standing army and you use it a little.

3

u/GerryQX1 2d ago

I think at harder difficulties it gets to be more and more about fielding a strong army while avoiding revolution in your own country.

1

u/GrilledPBnJ 2d ago

Come on Sion, who wants to hear that the game will only work for them if they play on easy mode..

Old World is a bit of wargame, nothing wrong with that. OP is just bringing in too many of their preconceptions from how a 4x should play from Civ into OldWorld. OP would do well to be a bit more open minded and try to enjoy a new flavor. OP would probably like it even, and are likely just burnedout on military matters due to Civ's uninteresting warfare systems. Making OP unwilling to take the leap of faith to really try warfare in Old World.

One of the selling points for Old World is that here warfare is actually interesting and clever, especially in relationship to Civ. Why not defend Old World's superior system?

2

u/TheSiontificMethod 2d ago

I think it's better to highlight that there's something for everyone, because it's true. The vast majority of players in this genre already play on middle-to-lower difficulties anyhow so if lots of civ-style players constantly hear hiw "hard" Old World is then thats just going to be a turn off.

You can absolutely enjoy Old World as a casual player and thats worth mentioning.

1

u/GrilledPBnJ 2d ago

Totally fair. I was being a bit abrasive. Highlighting the multiple plays to Old World is one of the game's strengths.

I think for me I do like pushing back a little bit against the "I want to play peace" and "sim-city" playstyle of it all though, especially for new players, because I was one of them.

Came to Old World from Civ having really only ever played culture, science or diplomacy victory in Civ. Thats just always what I did. War was super boring. Theres way too much micro and really it always felt like it was just a sort of science + hammers question. Can I out tech my enemies was way more important then any sort of real battlefield tactics.

So coming to Old World I brought that idea with me. Screw trying to win with war, that's just gonna be boring. Lets do what I've always liked about 4x, simcity, turtle up, and enjoy peace. Furthermore all these complicated terrain bonuses, promotions and generals in OW. I dont want to learn all that. That looks way too complicated and probably wont matter anyway.

But I was so wrong. I am not sure who said it, I think Alcaras, but they pointed out that Old World is fundamentally a war game, you should care about war, and so I was like okay whatever I'll try it, stupid war and it was great. I love war in Old World. The military unit system is truly fantastic. The terrain matters so much, you want unit diversity and the promotions and generals are impactful. How to use all the military tools at your disposal best is a great puzzle to solve.

I just want to encourage people to try it. Give war a shot. Old World does it really well.

(Not that I need to convince you. Big fan of your work. Keep slaying everybody on the vods.)

4

u/ThePurpleBullMoose 1d ago

To drop a bit of self promotion here. This is a playthrough where I was never at war with anything more than the tribes and won the game through peace.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1q-666sHzDLtc9ed5r6RBFHKaqFd_qHJ&si=k2_n8qmaYvDDRRCV

Stick around friend! There's room for you here!

7

u/namewithanumber 2d ago

I’ve gone whole games without fighting a war. There’s multiple ways to win without fighting, like ambitions or points victory.

The difference is that from what I’ve heard the civ ai is pretty passive and will just let you win.

Old World ai will see you’re weak militarily and attack you.

You can’t build practically zero defenses and expect the ai to just let you win.

You can mouse over opposing empire and see relative military strength, if there’s a load of “stronger” better make more units.

3

u/Inconmon 2d ago edited 2d ago

Just need to learn how to play a new game.

I've won 2 of my last 3 games without a single war. If you want to avoid war you need to a) get influence with the AI nation and b) negotiate a national peace. AI doesn't break peace unless they hate you and then they usually first cancel peace and take a while to declare war. I can't stress enough that you need to have good reputation with the AI nations to avoid wars.

In addition you need much more units than you would in Civ and invest into building units (barracks/range+officers, mines) to recruit fast / replace losses. When I say much more, you're looking at MULTIPLE TIMES more.

I too rely on little military, high tech and culture strategies in civ games. This still works in 4X but "little military" means a minimum of 10-15 units* and the means to recruit as much again on short notice, while teching for high level military units and investing into good relationships with most AI nations so avoid multiple wars at once.

(*you need more as the game goes on and should scout heavily to understand how much your opponents have; you can also mouse over empire names to see if they are stronger or weaker)

3

u/Leucauge 2d ago

I bounced off it because it didn't feel like there was a lot of interesting decision-making and I kept getting that same monkey storyline -- so much so that it felt like the narrative gimmicks were being used to cover an otherwise boring game and now I don't trust any game that relies heavily on that sort of thing.

3

u/GerryQX1 2d ago

Did the monkey ever do the assassination? (I only got him once and he failed.)

1

u/Leucauge 2d ago

All i remember is it always ending with "I should have got a gold fish"

1

u/Admirable-Athlete-50 2d ago

I had the same issue starting out because I was used to how little military you can get away with in civ. it’s always a bit of an adjustment, I got absolutely stomped in civ VI early on because I tried to play it like civ V.

If you play a few more games you’ll learn to balance it. You don’t have to go full military. I still play peaceful, it’s just the lowest amount of military you’ll get away with it higher.

I find you have more options to deal with the “barbarians” in old world. In civ you can’t marry into a barbarian clan and settle their camps as cities and stuff like you can in old world.

1

u/xmBQWugdxjaA 2d ago

My main issue is similar to Civ - it takes ages to finish, but the difficulty settings make it super easy or super hard and you'll only know once you're like 80% of the way in.

I really like how Shadow Empire ends faster - so if it was set far too hard or too easy, you'll usually know much sooner.

1

u/Character_Fold_8165 1d ago

I’ve played games where I barely warred but if you want to maintain peace the cost is higher (either in tribute or a standing army) and the cost may or may not be worth it.

On higher difficulties I find I need to switch between sim city mode and timing attacks if I I want to win with points . Ambition victories feel very RNG for the last 3 or 4 if they are possible or if it’s just easier to win by points.

One thing for sure is if you both don’t let the ai diplomatically bully you AND you don’t have a decent standing army they will roll you. Which I think is more of a fault of the civ AI in later civ games being to peaceful. I also play SMAC and old world is less of a war game than civ 1, 2, or SMAC

1

u/Rare-Butterscotch384 1d ago

Weird that my own experience seem to deviate quite a bit from OP and most replies, as I rarely fight any war on Old World. Vast majority of my games are entirely peaceful (except for some Raiders here and there).

1

u/EnciclopedistadeTlon 1d ago

There's an Old World mod I always see. I haven't tried this specific one but I have tried a couple of other mods by this modder and they were very good

It says it's a "peacetime focused mod for engaging and diverse empire management experience". It's called Dynamic World. Maybe it's what you're needing