Be honest! Who currently still prefers Civ IV?

The hexes are a good change and look of course better, but if one actually pays attention, squares give you more options about movement.
I keep seeing this in hex vs. squares arguments and it totally baffles me. How is simply having more directions you can move better? Especially when the way Civ 4 handled movement meant that diagonal moves were almost always superior unless something in particular prevented them.
 
It just came out. Gotta' get used to it.

...But I'm not gonna' lie. I'm currently right in the middle of a game of Civ IV, so I'm gonna' finish that up before I really get into Civ IV.

As an old boardgamer, the new, much more realistic hex tile system should be a step up in looks as well as movement. Tho I'll miss the transports, so long merchant marines. http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/frown.gif
 
Ive gone through all pages and cant stop laughing... After 1 days som vets on Civ fanatics are rumbling such a nonsense....there is only one thing that goes through my mind (Darwin):“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” Here it seems that nothing works for guys that are used to civ iv (i'v played it since start btw)....and to think how they criticised it at start...heh.
 
What are you people going on about, Civ V is way better than Civ IV, that was so 5 years ago, change with the time people.
 
Civ 5 is, in my experience so far, the best game in the series and one of the best strategy games I've ever played (very close to Master of Magic). The tactical combat is so refreshing. No more fretting over the possibility of losing a unit despite 99% odds. Through proper planning, I can make multiple ranged attacks on an enemy unit and kill it without taking any damage, guaranteed.

The elimination of sliders is another huge godsend. Man, did I ever hate how Civ 4 forced me to keep adjusting the science/culture/espionage/gold rate all the time. The elimination of per-city happiness and health is also really nice. As eluded to earlier in this thread, there is a huge amount of strategic depth to keeping your empire in positive happiness, gold and food while continuing to grow (and actually be able to produce anything). So far, there seems to be no easy answer for how to do this.

The other major implication of empire-wide happiness is that you can no longer think about maxing each city. An extra citizen in one city means one fewer in another. You need to think extremely carefully about where you want to allocate your population among your cities in order to be most productive.

The last big thing I really enjoyed is that I no longer have to tediously hook up all my resources with roads. A simple route-to command allows me to connect all my cities in a much more orderly fashion.

civ5 seems too easy vs the AI
Really? Have you won on deity yet?
 
I've only played the demo once, so no comments on actual gameplay yet. Call me crazy, but I actually like Civ 4's graphics more than 5's! (I use the highest settings in both games.)
 
I’ve only played the demo for a couple of hours so it’s too early to say of course. All I can say right now is that I don’t like the graphics. And by that I don’t mean the graphics quality but more the look.
 
Holy :):):):) I can't believe people are already dissing it and asking what their preference is! The game only just came out - give it a chance!
For one thing, the "Civ IV" most people refer to, is usually BTS, a game that has fully developed. Look back at people's reactions when Vanilla first came out.

I just can't wait until all the expansions come out - that's the best part!
 
I love Civ4... it's my favorite game of all times. This said... I have played it hundreds of times for a total of thousands of hours. I really needed something new.

This new Civ is a good game, it still lacks something but even Civ4 wasn't perfect at release. So, for now, I will just force myself to try to get used the new game knowing for sure that with time this is going to be another masterpiece.
 
Not me. I live the novelty, and the tactical battles :)

But then I can only play 100 turns at a time right now, perhaps it sucks after that?
 
Civ V does a lot of things better than Civ IV. It just needs some tweaking, just like Civ IV did.

Asking me to compare my Civ IV experience to new civ is really unfair since my Civ IV experience has two major expansions, a boatload of patches, and then Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn on top. :crazyeye:
 
Maps - Hexes > Squares
Interface - Civ4 > Civ5
Combat - Civ5 < Civ4 so far
AI - too soon to say
Overall - far too soon to say

However I hated Civ4 Vanilla and it wasn't until the BTS improvements as well as discovery of the "sweet spot" of custom settings/difficulty/map type that I really got into it.

ATM I see Civ5 with the potential to be the best game of the series - whether it's actually there yet or will take several XPs time will tell.



BUT I do HATE the hundred clicks it takes to actually get into the game.

And I hate not being able to rename units now that they actually live longer than 2 turns. (unless I just haven't discovered how to do it)

When a unit gets a level up theres an efdit button underneath the promotions pop up interface. click on that.
 
The civ demo is a little limiting, but i didn't expect anything different. The full game of civ 5 is gonna rock when it's released here.
 
I keep seeing this in hex vs. squares arguments and it totally baffles me. How is simply having more directions you can move better? Especially when the way Civ 4 handled movement meant that diagonal moves were almost always superior unless something in particular prevented them.

gotta give you that :)


Ive gone through all pages and cant stop laughing... After 1 days som vets on Civ fanatics are rumbling such a nonsense....there is only one thing that goes through my mind (Darwin):“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” Here it seems that nothing works for guys that are used to civ iv (i'v played it since start btw)....and to think how they criticised it at start...heh.

Good for you to like Darwin, but I don't think you can generalize his quote about preferences in gaming. If we were talking about a real-life situation, then I would completely agree with you. But this is JUST a game. In a game, we are allowed to be picky and expecting, because it is about OUR fun. :)
But I agree that probably after 1-2 years everybody (probably including me) will have changed their minds. But it is still about a current impression, not about a general judgement that decides whether this game is a mistake or not. In the end, even I will buy the game, but the demo has not impressed me at all, and I LOVE Civ IV, so I'm probably gonna stick to that one for a while longer till I finally make the switch.

Holy :):):):) I can't believe people are already dissing it and asking what their preference is! The game only just came out - give it a chance!
For one thing, the "Civ IV" most people refer to, is usually BTS, a game that has fully developed. Look back at people's reactions when Vanilla first came out.

I just can't wait until all the expansions come out - that's the best part!

And the expansions (+mods) are gonna be what makes number 5 probably another great game that is worth playing... So far though......... :confused::confused::confused:

but I'm sure it will be better....


In the end all these criticisms just mean that we have to come up with some nice mods and changes ourselves and BLESS firaxis for giving us this opportunity!! :D :goodjob:
 
Sadly, the game is a big disappointment so far. Ok, I live in Europe so I've only played the demo so far, but the first 100-150 turns were always the fun part of the earlier games; City placement, maximizing the science output while expanding quickly. You could do this by founding religions, building cottages, going for the pyramids or by waging really offensive wars (and in BTS, use spies). The different civs and leaders gave you endless possibilities. I often were awake many nights and planned upcoming games in my head.

"Nonsense", you say. "The Pyramids were too powerful", "Cottages were too powerful", "very little strategy was needed". But one thing that you can't deny, is that the first 100 turns were crucial. Getting the economy working in the long run was easy, but getting it working QUICKLY was a tough challenge. You searched for gold and gems, you built the Oracle to be able to chop early Courthouses, you let your neighbour build the Pyramids so you could steal them from him...

It's not possible to come up with such strategies in Civ5, because you have very few options. You get science from population and to get a high population, you need happiness. That's it. Not only is it boring, but also completely unrealistic. The slider gave you the option to invest all money in culture, sacrifying research and military. Though it wasn't perfectly implemented, it gave you tons of option and you could always feel as you had control.

This game kind of feels like a turn-based RTS (paradox!). Build your base >>> collect resources >>> FIGHT! Simply, because if you don't fight, the game will be boring as hell, as there's almost nothing else to do.

I don't want to sound offensive or arrogant, but this post to reads: "I don't like this game because I can't use my favourite Civ IV strategy...".

It's a new game, you'll need to come up with different strategies. Personally I wouldn't like it if I could play the same style I played Civ IV.
 
I think the game looks and feels amazing! There's a few things I would like to see changed though:

1. When it's time to choose a new policy/production/research, let us be able to press enter to open the relevant interface. Clicking all the time is tedious.

2. There are way too many city-states and they are too frequent in their requests (in the demo atleast).

3. MP needs a fix
 
I don't want to sound offensive or arrogant, but this post to reads: "I don't like this game because I can't use my favourite Civ IV strategy...".

It's a new game, you'll need to come up with different strategies. Personally I wouldn't like it if I could play the same style I played Civ IV.

In that case you got me wrong. My biggest issue with this game isn't that I can't use my Civ IV tactics (Remember that I've played all Civ games a lot, including Colonization), no, it's the fact that I have no control in the beginning of the game. The cities grow if you are happy and when they grow you get extra science.

In earlier versions, you could have a small mining town with source of corn and three gold mines, and yet your entire economy could depend on it. You have big great people farms, or cottage cities... You could try to found three or four religions in your capital to get a great income. You could focus on trade routes, you could turn useless water tiles into something great with Moai + Col + Fin...

No one can tell me that you have the same amount of options in Civ V.

I've played Civ IV for five years and still come up with new strategies all of the game. The game wasn't perfect, but the replay value was incredible.
 
I hate to say it, but I may end up reverting before too long.

Civ V feels and looks a lot like Revolutions. A couple things I like, but a few things I hate already. I think I can get used to it and "get into it", but it doesnt feel right yet.

The game seems very clunky, including the UI. I have a pretty decent laptop, and it really struggles with the game.... and IMO Civ IV looks better and moves better (other than battles). The little struggles the CPU has makes it not that enjoyable and for how the game looks and acts, it doesnt seem necessary.
 
Top Bottom