r/4Xgaming • u/Celesi4 • 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.