... and still Civ4 is superior. I'm sad.

So i got Civ5 when it got released - huge disappointment, and it actually was pretty obvious that it would never be a good game of the franchise because they just ed up too many things. Recently, a lot of friends (and reviews, professional and casual ones alike) said that Civ5 had been improved ALOT with all the addons. So yeah, steam sale, gave it a try...

... what can i say, it's mostly the same.

- 1upt is a disaster. They had a good idea and it turned out to be the biggest drawback over the way they handled it before. Warfare just isn't fun with this system, it's tedious and takes endless amounts of boring and blunt micro. Don't get me wrong, SoD's weren't great either, but at least you could play it smoothly and fast when you got the hang of it.

- diplomacy/trading system is horrible, you could just aswell assume that there's nothing of that sort because it just works SO BAD. It's still kinda impossible to make friends, let alone keep them, the AI is irrational and flat out stupid on top. Every 30 turns you have to renew trading agreements, come on - there's no sense in that. And then there's the fact that the AI proposes hilarious trades and would rather take no trade at all than a trade that favours them greatly, but not immensly. They've no strategic resource, are bleeding money are at war and STILL refuse to give me a single happiness resource just BECAUSE!!! ... ??? Flat out stupid.

- Did i mention the stupid AI? So they demand that you stop settling towards them, then they place a city next to you and get pissed. They send single units over sea and all of them get picked one by one. They start a war out of nothing even if you've three times their power, "friendly" and "aggressive" AIs alike. I covered their completely irrational trading & diplomacy behaviour already. I could go on forever, but'll leave it as that.
Don't get me wrong, the AI was flat out stupid in Civ4 aswell, but the way the game worked, it got covered up A LOT better. And it wasn't so irrational, if you understood the game you could always tell what was going on and why.

- The Spy system is a joke, nothing more to say. It was bad in Civ4, but they managed to make it worse.

- Finally: the game's way too easy. In Civ4, i barely managed to beat Deity, but in Civ5 i crush Emperor even without reading up basics. In Civ4, without proper strategy and knowledge you got your ass handed back to you on everything above Prince. I'm fine with "making the game easier", but where's the point in making it so easy that there's basicly no challenge at all for someone who wants to get deep into the game?

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of fun features in Civ5, and it's by all means a game worth playing (at least for a while). Especially when you're new to strategy games and are more of a builder, it has a lot to offer. BUT if you're a long time veteran, enjoy warfare and seek challenge, i don't see a way you won't be disappointet. Comparing Civ4 BTS and Civ5 BNW, i don't see many things where Civ5 comes out on top, but for the sake of it: religion is a LOT more interesting and rewarding, great persons offer more variety and more interesting choices, and hexagons ofc... that's about it. Everything else is more or less the same or worse, INCLUDING the graphics (holy lol). Still can't get my head around the fact how ugly rivers are in Civ5.


---

If you're a caual gamer and enjoy builder-games over warfare/aggression, it's a nice and satisfying game. Basicly, Firaxis did to the Civilization franchise the same thing Blizzard did to the Diablo franchise: making it too casual. Civ5 is to Civ4 the same as Diablo3 is to Diablo2, and while both Diablo3 aswell as Civ5 are good, maybe even great games on their own, they're both nowhere near being worthy successors to their predecessor or even worth bearing the name of their franchise.

So yeah, i'm sad. Mostly because Firaxis will go down this route even further, judging by the huge success Civ5 was. Time to say goodbye, Civilization, as Civ5 is your nail in the coffin. There will be true successors to your name, just like Diablo 2 has Path of Exile, but it just won't be the same.

And to all of you who actually dare to say that Civ5 is the best game of the series: I feel sorry for you.

"- 1upt is a disaster. They had a good idea and it turned out to be the biggest drawback over the way they handled it before. Warfare just isn't fun with this system, it's tedious and takes endless amounts of boring and blunt micro. Don't get me wrong, SoD's weren't great either, but at least you could play it smoothly and fast when you got the hang of it."

"If you're a caual gamer and enjoy builder-games over warfare/aggression, it's a nice and satisfying game. Basicly, Firaxis did to the Civilization franchise the same thing Blizzard did to the Diablo franchise: making it too casual. Civ5 is to Civ4 the same as Diablo3 is to Diablo2, and while both Diablo3 aswell as Civ5 are good, maybe even great games on their own, they're both nowhere near being worthy successors to their predecessor or even worth bearing the name of their franchise."

SAY WAT??? LOL. All these casual gamers that utilize 1upt when stacks of death were smooth and fast. Dumb people they are.

Everyone has an opinion and you have yours....Good for you

My opinion is as follows....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

ahcos said:

And to all of you who actually dare to say that Civ5 is the best game of the series: I feel sorry for you.

Click to expand...

And I feel sorry for you. Why? Well, because of your stupid and bigoted views.

This whole thread is nothing but a pointless collection of opinions phrased as if they were facts and insults of and prejudices against people who don't disagree with you.

Most of your complaints seem to stem from a lack of understanding the diplomatic aspects of the game. You get horrible trades because they don't like you, likely due to mistakes you've made. They attack you because you've pissed them off. The only other reason they'll attack you is if you are weak, but you claim to be much stronger, so it is clearly your diplomacy.

The rest is either you not spending time to get to understand the game, and possibly like it, or just your opinion. I prefer Civ 5.

Tried to like Civ 4 after i got hooked on 5. Didn't like it at all. Ugly cartoon game, felt like a joke. Wanted money back.

But I'm glad for you, taking pleasure in the lesser game!


Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

Ahcos, no.. it's not.

I love Civ 4. It's one of the best games ever. Played it for several 100 hours. And Civ 5 was such a big disappointment at release, that I had to deinstall it after 80 hours. Worst disappointment *ever*.

But with BNW and several patches, the game is actually becoming really, really good. It took me a while to understand this, but after 4-5 games, it "clicked". There are several major improvements that relate directly to your critic points:

1UPT: greatly improved since non-military and military were allowed on one tile. No more freaking traffic jams all over the place. Military units really matter now. Although the system is not perfect and range (and especially artillery) is way too strong, I'm fine with it. No more need to have 1-2 specialized production cities that only produce units the whole game. You still need a military specialized city because of the several +XX% XP and starting promotions buildings, but you are free to do other things with them from time to time. I had no issues with SoDs, but sometimes they became really annoying when you stacked too many units and had to use them, it just took forever.

Diplomacy: yeah, it's bad. I really don't like it. I'm mostly annoyed how hard early wars are punished. I want to fight wars in Civ, not drink tea and sit around. But even this aspect greatly enhanced since the start of the game. Now you have better personalities (i.e. the aggressive leaders like Zulu, Japan etc) and not everyone is playing the same boring s***. It's hard to keep friends but you can do (even though those negative diplomacy modifiers that last 1000s of years are plain stupid). In the end you want to wipe them out anyway..

AI: Haven't seen this in a long time. The last times someone DOW'd me, 5 turns later an army twice the size of mine arrived. The AI is having issues with Ranged weapons, but that's basically it. You can exploit it. But it's not like the AI was perfect in Civ 4. At the start of 5, the AI was a disaster. Now it's quite ok I think. And as always in Civ games, just play on higher difficulties so that the AI can match your skill. It's this way since Civ 1.

I agree on the spy thing, although it's just equally bad in 4 (not worse). At least you don't have to care on moving spies around the map. Civ 5 is easier than 4. That's why you can play on Deity. That's not easy.

Furthermore, you skipped some things Civ 5 is doing better than 4. For example, the religion concept. The great persons. City management. Cultural victories. Social Policies. A great variety of civs with different playstyles. I played so much Civ 4. But I think I am finally at that point where I will not turn back to it. Never played multiplayer though, so no idea about that.

The biggest thing I miss about Civ IV is how easy it is to build a wide empire. In Civ V it's so crippling to have 6 or more cities, it's so much easier and wiser to go 4 tall. If there's a nice place for a city, but no luxuries, you might as well forget about it. Whereas in civ IV, if there's a nice spot, full of food and production, as long as you have the money to cover it, you can go settle as many spots as you want. That's really satisfying, claiming every bit of land you want, without worrying about crippling your empire.

I suggest you play a few more times with different civs, there are about 47 to chose from each with different UA, UB, UU which are suited to different VC or play-styles. That way you'll learn the quirks of diplomacy, once you do you can then manipulate diplomacy to your advantage.
If you want a challenge on the battlefield I suggest you play Deity with Shaka, Attila, Dido, Harold as your neighbors. I can assure you all you will be building is units or seeing the loosing screen, unless you can bribe them all to DOW each other.

I still keep Civ4 safe because I do think it`s a better game and definitely harder. Also if I lose the net I can still keep playing unlike with Steam Civ5.

The only thing is a fact and true from the OP is that civ5 is easier. And It is easier because of the 1up.

I did not agree any of the other points. And I palyed civ 4 adn FFH mod for so mutch, that I could have invented the cure for cancer instead. CIV5 is now at least as good as CIV4, and 1 up is better than SOD (but none of the very good - my favorite is the master of magic type)

ahcos said:

So yeah, steam sale, gave it a try...

Click to expand...

You're nine years older since Civ IV release date. What did you expect?

Your life evolved, so your videos games desire. It's easier (no offense) to stay on what we know rather than invest time in unknown.
You can't compare an advanced experience in a game with just a test of another one.
If you spend as many hours on civ V as you spend on civ IV and say : «Civ IV is superior», it's ok for me. I spend around 200 hours on Civ IV and over 1400 on civ V, so I can say, Civ V is superior for me.

As everyone is different, to each his own.

I don't get why everyone says Civ 4 was the best in the series. I've played every numbered Civ game except the first one and I think it has some of the worst combat mechanics in the series. There's no tactics in Civ 4's warfare, it's simply unit composition. I've got axemen, therefore I will kill infantry. I've got spearmen, therefore I will kill horses. My entire army is on a forested hill, therefore the enemy will lose to me. Artillery commits suicide in order to be useful, which makes absolutely no sense. 1 UPT is TACTICAL, not strategic. The micromanagement is both realistic and fun for people who understand tactics. Keep the artillery in the rear, cover your flanks, have strong front units to protect your weaker rear units. I'll admit the one flaw with it is that the AI has absolutely no idea what to do, but if you play against real people you'll see where the real strategy is in it.

Can't say i'm surprised - you don't go to a Justin Bieber concert and expect people to agree on your laments about what a musician he is. Enjoy it, i'm not judging, i just wanted to express my thoughts. Feel free to enjoy league of legends, i rather play Dota2. Enjoy Diablo3, i prefer Path of Exile. Enjoy Civ5, i'd rather play Civ4. That's they way it is.

One thing i have to put right:

Furthermore, you skipped some things Civ 5 is doing better than 4. For example, the religion concept. The great persons. City management. Cultural victories. Social Policies. A great variety of civs with different playstyles.

Click to expand...

Nah, did not. Read again. And then there are the things i can't agree with you:

city management is worse, actually a lot worse, mainly because they game's trying so hard to make everything look pretty that it fails in giving you a quick overview easily. Both have their pros and cons, but one thing tips the balance: you can't give more than 5 items in the building queue, and the queue as a whole is a disaster to handle, completely inconvenient. I've tried it all, and you'll take at least 5 seconds more time in the city screen of Civ5 when handling your queue. But w/e, there's a reason i didn't list it as "gone worse", although i personally think it has become worse.

Cultural victories are the same idea in a new wrapping, i really fail to see where the advantage is here. Both games have their way, and they're both legitimate. But i really don't see why one would be superior to the other.

Social policies are actually something i do like a lot less, but i do see it has it's advantages over the old system. But why should this be superior in any way?

There were tons of different playstyles for civilizations in Civ4 aswell. Just look up all the roleplay games that were done over the years in the strategy subforum for Civ4. The difference was that especially in higher difficulties, not every strategy worked because the game was so hard. In Civ5, you can pretty much do what you want and get away with it because the game is so freakin' easy. If you don't believe me, try watching Civ4 deity games and Civ5 deity games. The Civ5 players don't even have to take their time thinking about what to do! They just see something and go "Ahh, well, i can do that, but if it does not work i'll do that, or i'll do that, doesn't matter i can crush AI X later on or whatever ;D", while in Civ4 you'll get your ass handed back to you when you do big mistakes in your decisions based on what you could have known. In short: you couldn't rush the world with Keshiks in Civ4 on Immortal, but on on up to Prince and King, you could play a priest economy as Rammses x, rush everyone with Jaguars as Monty, go on a modern warfare rampage as Roosevelt or play Ghandi the peacemonger. Exactly the same thing what Civ5 offers today, so i really fail to see the advantage here. Please don't tell me nation traits make the difference here, because traits is what Civ4 had aswell, although they were less "unique" - but then again, that wasn't too bad as even the worst combos weren't as as some of the Civ5 unique traits.

---

Trolls.







There now do you feel special?

Moderator Action: Calling someone a troll is to be a troll. If you think someone is trolling, please report the post and move on. Responding feeds the troll and next time you will be infracted for it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

ahcos said:

Can't say i'm surprised - you don't go to a Justin Bieber concert and expect people to agree on your laments about what a musician he is. Enjoy it, i'm not judging, i just wanted to express my thoughts. Feel free to enjoy league of legends, i rather play Dota2. Enjoy Diablo3, i prefer Path of Exile. Enjoy Civ5, i'd rather play Civ4. That's they way it is.

One thing i have to put right:



Nah, did not. Read again. And then there are the things i can't agree with you:

city management is worse, actually a lot worse, mainly because they game's trying so hard to make everything look pretty that it fails in giving you a quick overview easily. Both have their pros and cons, but one thing tips the balance: you can't give more than 5 items in the building queue, and the queue as a whole is a disaster to handle, completely inconvenient. I've tried it all, and you'll take at least 5 seconds more time in the city screen of Civ5 when handling your queue. But w/e, there's a reason i didn't list it as "gone worse", although i personally think it has become worse.

Cultural victories are the same idea in a new wrapping, i really fail to see where the advantage is here. Both games have their way, and they're both legitimate. But i really don't see why one would be superior to the other.

Social policies are actually something i do like a lot less, but i do see it has it's advantages over the old system. But why should this be superior in any way?

There were tons of different playstyles for civilizations in Civ4 aswell. Just look up all the roleplay games that were done over the years in the strategy subforum for Civ4. The difference was that especially in higher difficulties, not every strategy worked because the game was so hard. In Civ5, you can pretty much do what you want and get away with it because the game is so freakin' easy. If you don't believe me, try watching Civ4 deity games and Civ5 deity games. The Civ5 players don't even have to take their time thinking about what to do! They just see something and go "Ahh, well, i can do that, but if it does not work i'll do that, or i'll do that, doesn't matter i can crush AI X later on or whatever ;D", while in Civ4 you'll get your ass handed back to you when you do big mistakes in your decisions based on what you could have known. In short: you couldn't rush the world with Keshiks in Civ4 on Immortal, but on on up to Prince and King, you could play a priest economy as Rammses x, rush everyone with Jaguars as Monty, go on a modern warfare rampage as Roosevelt or play Ghandi the peacemonger. Exactly the same thing what Civ5 offers today, so i really fail to see the advantage here. Please don't tell me nation traits make the difference here, because traits is what Civ4 had aswell, although they were less "unique" - but then again, that wasn't too bad as even the worst combos weren't as as some of the Civ5 unique traits.

---

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that both games do something better then each other, but yet civ 4 is superior. Everything you say is an opinion, for instance you think 1upt is a bad idea and somehow stacks are better. 1upt actually adds a great deal of strategy. Now you have to plan your moves carefully, and make sure the right units are in the right place, whereas any old noob could create a stack and go on a rampage. You didn't need strategic placement, because you could mash all your units into a pile and just waltz right up to a city. This is just one example of the many flawed things in your arguement, but I'll leave it at that.

Ive played all the Civs from Civ 1 on the Amiga through to Civ V BNW.

Civ V, when it came out, felt rather empty to me and was a bit of a disappointment. However, G&K changed that completely and I started playing it just as much as I did with Civ IV. BNW changed that again and Im playing it even more now and its certainly the best Civ game Ive ever played.

Civ IV did bore me after a long time (great fun though!) because the ways to winning seemed the same etc. Civ V BNW is not perfect but its damn good fun and the 1UPT actually makes tactics and combat better for me. I didn't realise how bored I got with stacks of doom until they weren't possible anymore!

Ryika said:

And I feel sorry for you. Why? Well, because of your stupid and bigoted views.

This whole thread is nothing but a pointless collection of opinions phrased as if they were facts and insults of and prejudices against people who don't disagree with you.

Click to expand...

I'll agree that the "feel sorry for you" remark was condescending and wrong, but I thought the rest of what he said was pretty honest and accurate.

>Posts Civ 4 is better in a Civ 5 forum
Guaranteed Bites

rschissler said:

I thought the rest of what he said was pretty honest and accurate.

Click to expand...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ

Civ 5 owns Civ 4 since Brave new world expansion. But the 1 upt does make the me dread late game, domination victory. It is really tedious to move 50+ units around and it often makes me quit because its so damn boring. Even though 1 upt makes the battles much more interesting and tactically challenging than a massive stack of 20 units on on tile just moving around killing everything with zero tactics, i really think this has to be looked upon by the devs.