The Civilization Franchise- dead?

[Mouthwash]

Originally Posted by Abegweit

There were some hugely unbalanced features in the initial release. For example, horsemen got 100% retreat chances. Everything was fixed by the final patch of Vanilla. The game wasn't bad but there were some errors in the implementation.

In contrast, the whole Civ 5 game concept simply sucks. They've improved it a bit but it's still boring, largely because the "improvements" are all about nerfing exploits instead of adding fun and challenge.

Check out the contrast between the Civ 3, 4, and 5 war academies. In Civ 3 and 4, the articles are mostly about how to grow your empire. In 5, they're about the - incredibly unbalanced - characteristics of the various civs.

Still, after this expansion (maybe another one afterward) it could be playable heavily modded.

[Scifi99]

I had to rejoin this forum to post this. loong while since i posted.
Ive been a civ player for long years, i enjoyed civ 4, and still play it.

but i must say you aren't playing the mods for civ5 that are out there i suggest you take a look at this mod http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=432802

Its the best civ experience i had in a while, both the combat system and the AI are great, the only thing i regret is religions arent implemented yet.

And i dare say the HEX system is better than the stacks of doom from civ 4. Adds a lot more depth and tactics than spaming catapults at cities. This mod adds tons of buildings and research choices. Happiness system is very well thinked of and changed from the mess that it was on civ 5 vanilla game.

If your looking for a chalenge take a look. Diferent civs bonuses are still a bit unbalanced, and somewhat the medieval cavalry units are very dependant on terrain. Like lancers having penalty defending.(its interesting)

[Abegweit]

Originally Posted by Mouthwash

Still, after this expansion (maybe another one afterward) it could be playable heavily modded.

No matter how much lipstick you put on it, a pig remains a pig.

[r_rolo1]

IMHO Civ V will probably never be as playable as Civ IV or even III, with all of the shortcomings that the latter both have even in their finals versions ( both have bugs to fix and glaring AI defects ), simply because there were too many changes in the core rules to get it right in one shot. Number of units per tile, square ( or iso )-> hex ( that IMHO made a huge influence in the tile yields, that have far reaching influence in the game ), roads having maintenance, the happiness count as empire restricting feature, the whole approach to diplo ... That is a lot of stuff that changed and will take quite a while for getting it all minimally coherent again.

[Mouthwash]

Originally Posted by Scifi99

I had to rejoin this forum to post this. loong while since i posted.
Ive been a civ player for long years, i enjoyed civ 4, and still play it.

but i must say you aren't playing the mods for civ5 that are out there i suggest you take a look at this mod http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=432802

Its the best civ experience i had in a while, both the combat system and the AI are great, the only thing i regret is religions arent implemented yet.

And i dare say the HEX system is better than the stacks of doom from civ 4. Adds a lot more depth and tactics than spaming catapults at cities. This mod adds tons of buildings and research choices. Happiness system is very well thinked of and changed from the mess that it was on civ 5 vanilla game.

If your looking for a chalenge take a look. Diferent civs bonuses are still a bit unbalanced, and somewhat the medieval cavalry units are very dependant on terrain. Like lancers having penalty defending.(its interesting)

This is ridiculous. I don't care how much rebalancing it has, Civ V will never be as good as Civ IV in any way. Your uninformed comment about "depth and tactics" suggests you haven't actually played Civ IV, much less have the knowledge to compare the two.

Moderator Action: There's no need to be so rude. Please be friendly to your fellow posters .

[gps]

Originally Posted by Kaosprophet

Odds are my hardware and OS won't be able to run the game without a fair bit of hacking by then anyway, due to growing neglect for the concept of backwards compatability. And if I'm already screwing around just to get the OS to stop choking the game, I'm hardly going to be worried about the online check.

The growing neglect of backwards compatibility??? Not quite sure what you're talking about. When I startet computer gaming you had to buy a new machine every second or third year (remeber all those Sinclair or Commodore machines? - that was neglect of backwards compatibility!). Right now we're in a situation we're you can switch on your Windows Vista PC and have a good chance that most of your Direct X 5 games from way back in '96 or so will still run without any problems. Backward compatibility has never been better and longer lasting than it is today. The biggest threat to backwards compatibility actually is greed-driven copy protection paranoia of the producers and distributors. The mere fact that I am posting in a forum where two decades old games (Civ 1 was released in 1991!) are played and discussed fully proves my point...

[MedicInDisquise]

Civ4 and Civ5 is selling well. Just looking at how many posts are in each forum strengthens this. Even if they don't make a Civ6, they still will be selling Civ4 and Civ5 in stores. Money isn't the problem. The problem is that Firaxis did'nt learn. Civ3 was great, Civ 4 was Greater, and now Civ5... was a complete loss. If they kept features from Civ4 and created new features instead of removing others, this post would'nt exist.

[steveg700]

So, what is it exactly that makes Civ IV superior to Civ V?

I've just switched over from V to IV. I like a lot of things about it, but I'm not at a point where I'd call it superior. Over in the newb questions thread, I'm told to never automate workers because the AI is so terrible.

[Ghpstage]

Originally Posted by steveg700

So, what is it exactly that makes Civ IV superior to Civ V?

I've just switched over from V to IV. I like a lot of things about it, but I'm not at a point where I'd call it superior. Over in the newb questions thread, I'm told to never automate workers because the AI is so terrible.

The automation AI is awful, though its far better if you use the govenors as the the AIs do, still not great though.
The major reason the AI works better in civ 4 is because the mecahanics were made to fit around it (stacks) rather than made in spite of it (1 upt) completely breaking the game.

Theres also much more variety and choice in management coming from sliders, better tile improvements, maintenance, a non retarded happinjess mechanic and flexible civics. Also, in civ 5 player options were further cut from few to almost none with patches in order to protect the non functional AI by nerfing the bejeesus out of things that did work too....

Theres plenty more, but to explain everything in detail would require a dissertation. I suppose you could look at Sullla's review of why civ 5 fails and work backwards.

[Abegweit]

Originally Posted by Ghpstage

I suppose you could look at Sullla's review of why civ 5 fails and work backwards.

In particular, his long quote from Luddite. Luddite's excellent analysis about the consequences of 1UPT is required reading for anyone who wants to know what happened to Civ V.

The failure of 1UPT goes far beyond the AI's inability to wage war this way.

[Mouthwash]

Originally Posted by steveg700

So, what is it exactly that makes Civ IV superior to Civ V?

I've just switched over from V to IV. I like a lot of things about it, but I'm not at a point where I'd call it superior. Over in the newb questions thread, I'm told to never automate workers because the AI is so terrible.

I was in your position once. The reason you don't like the gameplay is because you don't know how to play. After a few weeks you start to see different strategies and depth.
And as for the worker comment, I remember I used to automate workers in Civ V and they destroyed my economy replacing all the trading posts with other improvements. In Civ IV at least there is an option for workers to leave old improvements.

[attackfighter]

Civ 3 shall forever live on in our hearts, so it matters not if there is no civilization 6. Also: Alpha Centauri - greatest 4X game, they should've just let the genre die after it was released, since it can never be topped (especially now that we have "3D" graphics ruining everything). So basically Alpha Centauri killed Civilization, that's why FirAxis focuses so much on making useless features like religion: all of the traditional 4X features were perfected already by AC, greatest video game made.

[steveg700]

Originally Posted by Ghpstage

The automation AI is awful, though its far better if you use the govenors as the the AIs do, still not great though.
The major reason the AI works better in civ 4 is because the mecahanics were made to fit around it (stacks) rather than made in spite of it (1 upt) completely breaking the game.

Theres also much more variety and choice in management coming from sliders, better tile improvements, maintenance, a non retarded happinjess mechanic and flexible civics. Also, in civ 5 player options were further cut from few to almost none with patches in order to protect the non functional AI by nerfing the bejeesus out of things that did work too....

Theres plenty more, but to explain everything in detail would require a dissertation. I suppose you could look at Sullla's review of why civ 5 fails and work backwards.

I like the ambition of switching from squares to hexes (which seems like simple common sense) and breaking up stacks-of-death, but I do agree the AI does not seem up to the task that was foisted upon it. If it can't create screens effectively, then might as well back to stacks.

I think Civics are pretty cool, and having types of government has more personality than sopols.

[steveg700]

Originally Posted by Mouthwash

And as for the worker comment, I remember I used to automate workers in Civ V and they destroyed my economy replacing all the trading posts with other improvements. In Civ IV at least there is an option for workers to leave old improvements.

This option exists in Civ V as well.

[r_rolo1]

Well, Civ V options system is also another issue to gripe on ....

[Mouthwash]

Originally Posted by steveg700

I like the ambition of switching from squares to hexes (which seems like simple common sense) and breaking up stacks-of-death, but I do agree the AI does not seem up to the task that was foisted upon it. If it can't create screens effectively, then might as well back to stacks.

I think Civics are pretty cool, and having types of government has more personality than sopols.

Personally I think a civic-social policy combination would be best. For the matter of square vs hexes, I think squares win hands down. Hexes allow movement to six areas, squares allow eight. It's only an aesthetic decision, although squares can look pretty realistic too.

[Rusty Edge]

Originally Posted by steveg700

I like the ambition of switching from squares to hexes (which seems like simple common sense) and breaking up stacks-of-death, but I do agree the AI does not seem up to the task that was foisted upon it. If it can't create screens effectively, then might as well back to stacks.

I think Civics are pretty cool, and having types of government has more personality than sopols.

Since I haven't played V for many months, and I only play moded versions of IV, it's hard for me to remember specifics.

Certainly hexes were something I always endorsed on the Civ V ideas & suggestions threads. We also discussed many ways to correct the stack of doom problem, and armies of seige weapons without making arbitrary limits.

I certainly agree that civics are better gameplay than social policies. Civics feel like I'm operating a vehicle and I can change gears to adapt to forseeable conditions. Social Policies are more like firing stages on a rocket, the next one just takes you further towards your original objective.

It's symptomatic of the difference to me. In IV, I didn't feel lokcked into a particular victory condition at the outset,be cause I could reveal the map and my competitors and adapt, or even change victory strategies.

In V, the advatages of a particular leader herd you down a path to a victory condition, and social policy choices only tend to send you along the way and deepen the rut you are in.

Or to put things another way, I find IV to be a blank canvas, with endless possibillities and V is a coloring book. While the scenery is prettier in V,I have to color inside the lines and paint by numbers.

[Archon_Wing]

In V, the governor will starve your city when you pick various kinds of focus. That's how incompetent the automation is. >.>

[Abegweit]

Hexes vs. squares is kinda meh. There's really not much to choose between them. The most important thing is how it affects city layout. BFC vs circles.

I liked the idea of cities growing organically before the game came out. Then I saw the implementation. Same as everything else in Civ5, it was pathetic.

Hexes and organic growth might be something to take for Civ6. 1UPT has to go, though. Even if they could teach the AI to play it, it's still a bad idea. As Luddite pointed out very well, it simply destroyed the basic mechanics of the game.

[Antilogic]

1UPT could be easily replaced with a Paradox- or AGEod-style frontage rule, and the weighting on the units could encourage stacks (but small stacks) towards the beginning of the game, but with advancements in military technology could lead to larger fronts (fewer units per tile could actually fight, and more units would mean spreading out to flank). Inconclusive battles would be more common (i.e. both sides retain damaged units after combat), and neighboring units would march to the sound of the guns in later time periods to provide a bonus. I have always liked the idea of the hex grid, and would likely retain that if I were to redesign the game.