SyntaxError
...
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 111
You would probably enjoy it only if you purchased them at a noticible discount.
You know that Espionage was added to Civ 4 in an expansion, right? (Two different versions were added: one in Warlords, and a better one in BTS.)- They added religion and espionage to the vanilla version with the last expansion. They were already there in civ IV. If they are good why did they remove them in the vanilla version? If they are not good why did they add back and sell it again under the name of an expansion?
You know that Espionage was added to Civ 4 in an expansion, right? (Two different versions were added: one in Warlords, and a better one in BTS.)
I like Civ 4, but I don't think this is a valid basis for comparison.
At the time Civ 4 was released, there was no Espionage in Civ 4, even though there was Espionage in Civ 3, Civ 2, and Civ 1.Yes of course i know but you didn't understand me. I meant Civ IV BTS was released before Civ V and there was Espionage.
You know that Espionage was added to Civ 4 in an expansion, right? (Two different versions were added: one in Warlords, and a better one in BTS.)
I like Civ 4, but I don't think this is a valid basis for comparison.
It's possible that I'm wrong about Vanilla. The part that I'm sure of is that the version of Espionage which I consider working didn't show up until BTS.Really? I am not aware of any significant changes in how spies work in Vanilla and Warlords.
At the time Civ 4 was released, there was no Espionage in Civ 4, even though there was Espionage in Civ 3, Civ 2, and Civ 1.
At the time Civ 5 was released, there was no Espionage in Civ 5, even though there was Espionage in Civ 4, 3, 2, and 1.
I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference here. Are you saying Civ 4 sucks because Civ 3 had Espionage when Civ 4 was released?
Right, and my point is that Civ 4 didn't have adequate Espionage until an expansion (specifically BTS). So, if Civ 5 lacks Espionage until an expansion, this isn't particularly a bad thing.No, i am not saying that. I mentioned of 4-5 points which were explaining my opinions about why Civ V is not good enough or why civ IV is better. The topic is about if civ V is worth buying for someone who played Civ IV many hours.
I like Civ IV and don't see any reason to stop playing it.
Civ V + expansion seems expensive at first but the upset was when I bought civ IV with expansion at full price and then find out later that people got civ IV with expansion at a cheaper price (around 20$) when having the full expansion early costed more.
T-Hawk said:All the strategy in Civ 5 is on a very small level. All my work optimizing the path through the culture policies added up to maybe three turns difference on the ending date. All the work of picking the best city location means maybe one more citizen because the food cost is so brutal and maybe four more hammers because the tile yields are so homogenized and flat. My work on optimizing the payoff of research agreements was a small corner of the fact that buying maximum research agreements is always correct and dominates any other way to spend gold.
There's no big-picture strategy aside from the single branch of win condition. Games of Civ 5 always develop the same way. There are no drastically different approaches like a Pyramids-Representation economy, or Great Lighthouse economy, or deeply beelined slingshots like Lib-Democracy, or crazy Great Person farms with twenty specialists, or Globe Theater drafting, or a workshop-powered State Property empire. Social policies appear to provide branching options (and fool the reviewers into thinking so after their single game), but really just serve to feed your chosen win condition. Culture always wants Piety, space always wants Rationalism, diplomacy always wants Patronage, military always wants Honor. The strategy is illusory.
That single strategic point of win condition captured my attention for about six games, but now I have hardly any desire for more. The one thing left to do was Always War, and I started that, but lost interest after 100 turns since it was playing out just like every other game of Civ 5. I was trying to use the Aztec ability to catapult through some social trees, but the exponential cost of policies means you really can't ever get ahead. Always War itself is surprisingly uninteresting when conquest does you no good, thanks to the happy cap.
There is strategy in Civ 5, but once you've seen it, you're done. It doesn't vary. I enjoyed solving it, but now it's solved.