Civilization "Depth" - A Civ 4 vs. Civ 5 Comparison

[seasnake]

Civilization V is more balanced than Civ IV about victory conditions with these differences. For example, in Civ V, I can win by playing with only one city that isn't so vulnerable to wars,thanks to the 1UPT.Besides,big empires has less social policies,less golden ages and bigger amount of unhapiness.You can analyze the details,but try to see how they make the game fair.

True, this is a big strength of Civ V. Small Empire viability is non-existent, as far as I can tell, in BTS.

 

[snarzberry]

True, this is a big strength of Civ V. Small Empire viability is non-existent, as far as I can tell, in BTS.

Only for culture on high level difficulty. Normally 6 cities was best IIRC, and on rare occasion 9 if you can grab the land. It has to be a multiple of 3 because of the cathedrals/mosques etc. But it's really only three core cites and three much smaller auxiliary cities that are usually on crappy land squeezed in around your other cities and the AIs land. Would you call that small? At least smallish.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Only for culture on high level difficulty. Normally 6 cities was best IIRC, and on rare occasion 9 if you can grab the land. It has to be a multiple of 3 because of the cathedrals/mosques etc. But it's really only three core cites and three much smaller auxiliary cities that are usually on crappy land squeezed in around your other cities and the AIs land. Would you call that small? At least smallish.

I don't think there are the ideal number of cities. It basically depends your choice to win. 6 or 9 cities are fine if you wish diplomatic or scientific or time victory.Cultural Victorys needs a maximum of 3 cities and dominations depends the way you like to win(not necessary having too many cities founded).

 

[Biz_]

civ4 = spam cities, granaries, and slave units

civ5 = more depth

this is my observations of multiplayer to a pretty high degree of competence

 

[Disraeli]

Civilization V is more balanced than Civ IV about victory conditions with these differences. For example, in Civ V, I can win by playing with only one city that isn't so vulnerable to wars,thanks to the 1UPT.Besides,big empires has less social policies,less golden ages and bigger amount of unhapiness.You can analyze the details,but try to see how they make the game fair.

I disagree. In both games big empires have more science which means more victory. In Civ 4 you can at least trade for your techs and science isn't directly tied to population which means you could still theoretically have really good commerce tiles or a load of (great) scientists or a lot of trade routes. But in either game you're at a huge disadvantage if you don't have a lot of cities, it's just the way the game works of course except for cultural Civ 5. And if the AI were at all competent it wouldn't be as easy to protect yourself from enemy militaries.

 

[seasnake]

Only for culture on high level difficulty. Normally 6 cities was best IIRC, and on rare occasion 9 if you can grab the land. It has to be a multiple of 3 because of the cathedrals/mosques etc. But it's really only three core cites and three much smaller auxiliary cities that are usually on crappy land squeezed in around your other cities and the AIs land. Would you call that small? At least smallish.

On high difficulty I simply couldn't manage to keep pace with the giant armies of the AI unless I had several cities that ringed my core three that could build the defensive structures and produce units. I didn't dare have one of my core three culture cities near a border, a well-placed spy and a stack of doom = bye-bye culture victory.

So while I'd call 6 cities a smaller empire, I simply could not win that way, it was expand or die pretty much. So I guess I should say that winning with a smaller empire FOR ME is more viable in V than in IV.

 

[stethnorun]

This is true; complexity does not equal fun. However critics of Civ5 tend to cite the game's alleged lesser complexity as a reason for why they dislike it, which I think is why this article was written.

Oh wow, I didn't think more people were going to read the blog post. Ok, well yes, at the heart of it, I was hearing (still to this day) people talk about how dumbed down 5 is compared to 4. From my experience, that just wasn't the case. Streamlined, less, but not dumbed down. This was my attempt to grapple with "Are these two games vastly different in complexity?"

The conclusion I've come to from reading all the responses is that for me, they are almost exactly the same level of "complex" or "deep". That's because I am a roleplayer. I never switched religions in Civ 4 for political advantage, I never micromanaged a city's health, I never did the "power-gamer" type stuff. I always play all Civ games the way that Sid always talks about "Build a Civilization to stand the test of time". To me that means, role play and take things as they come. "Gaming the system" was never going to factor into it for me.

So is Civ 4 more complex than Civ 5? At this point I would have to say yes, but only for some people. It really depends how you choose to play. I spent just as much time playing as some of the power-gamers, but I was trying to get something very different out of the experience, and thus, I never saw this whole "back-end" that others discovered.

 

[DaveShack]

Civ5 does have a network of complexity. Tech choices interact with resource acquisition and military strategy. Culture requires unlocking and building high culture buildings and wonders, which in turn makes resources harder to get and a military harder to build. The SP speed penalty for high city count makes it hard to build a big empire and go for culture. The diplomacy being less predictable makes it harder to get settled in with some allies you know are totally safe.

Is it as big as Civ4's complexity network? Probably not -- but lots of mediocre players like me got by with ignoring some of the extra complexity like espionage and corporations.

 

[aatami]

I do not agree with you in that IV's happiness and health where more complex than global happiness... In IV, happiness and health where two very easily manageable variables that didn't require that much thought. Now, happiness is a considerable aspect of the game that actually requires thought and planning.

 

[stethnorun]

I do not agree with you in that IV's happiness and health where more complex than global happiness... In IV, happiness and health where two very easily manageable variables that didn't require that much thought. Now, happiness is a considerable aspect of the game that actually requires thought and planning.

You know, that brings up an interesting point I hadn't considered. I was view complex as "number of component pieces". By your definition, complex would mean "time and planning needed to manage". By this new approach, yes happiness in 5 is more involved. Happiness is now one of the top three "problems" the player has to manage, and perhaps the most important one. Interesting point.

 

[MkLh]

True, this is a big strength of Civ V. Small Empire viability is non-existent, as far as I can tell, in BTS.

There are 6-city deity-BtS space victories in the forum.

 

[MkLh]

Civilization V is more balanced than Civ IV about victory conditions with these differences. For example, in Civ V, I can win by playing with only one city that isn't so vulnerable to wars,thanks to the 1UPT.Besides,big empires has less social policies,less golden ages and bigger amount of unhapiness.You can analyze the details,but try to see how they make the game fair.

Don't know what level you're playing on, but on higher levels the fact that the AI WILL attack you if stay small makes small empires less competitive. In IV that wasn't the case. I'm not sure if it's possible for one city empire to survive those inevitable attacks in late game Deity or even Immortal - if it is, it's just another proof of the "quality" of the combat AI.

 

[snarzberry]

I don't think there are the ideal number of cities. It basically depends your choice to win. 6 or 9 cities are fine if you wish diplomatic or scientific or time victory.Cultural Victorys needs a maximum of 3 cities and dominations depends the way you like to win(not necessary having too many cities founded).

I agree with you in general, but here I'm talking about deity level cultural victory. And actually I meant a peaceful game as well. In those games there is an ideal number, or there are a small number of 'best number' of cities. It comes from the 3 temples to make a cathedral etc mechanic. So the fourth city does little for you, but if you can get it to 6 then that's another mosque/cathedral/etc.

Remember the questioner just asked if there was any way a small empire was viable in BTS.

 

[captainmission]

You know, that brings up an interesting point I hadn't considered. I was view complex as "number of component pieces". By your definition, complex would mean "time and planning needed to manage". By this new approach, yes happiness in 5 is more involved. Happiness is now one of the top three "problems" the player has to manage, and perhaps the most important one. Interesting point.

I'd say complexity is better seen as how many viable statergies or 'interesting choices' does each 'component peice' give.

When comparing civ5 happiness with civ4 happiness you also need to look at health and maintaince, as these serve the same function - limiting expansion.

One thing i do like about civ5 is that having a small 4-5 cityempire could be an optimal way of playing for certain victory conditions. So you do have the macro decision of whether you empire is going to grow tall or wide. But in terms of overcoming the limit on expansion on civ5, well i can;
-get more luxery resources (though trade, expansion or CS)
-build happiness buildings + wonders
-happiness increasing SP

In civ4 we've got maitaince to limit horizonal growth and happiness + health to limit vertical growth. I'd agree limits on vertical growth aren't that interesting in civ4. But maintaince was far more interesting in terms of the statergies i have for dealing with it. To offset the maintiance cost of expansion i civ 4 i can;
-settle cities near high gold tiles
-whip/chop a court house
-whip/chop library and run specialists to offset having a low science slider
-found a shrine a spread relgion to fund expansion
-build GL and expand up the cost
-run a war economy, run at a gold deficeit but fund expanision by pillaging and city conquest

In civ4 just seems like i've got alot more interesting and engaging options for dealing with limits on growth.

 

[stethnorun]

It's funny you bring up maintenance. I always HATED that feature. It made colonizing other continents, especially, very unappealing. I was overjoyed when Civ 5 got rid of that penalty and made all cities alike, regardless of distance or landmass.

Just personal taste, but man is it nice to get rid of that nasty "I shouldn't be settling this far away" feeling in the back of my mind.

 

[captainmission]

i never like the colonisation peantly either but was something they added in BTS, only applied to mid game expansion (post navigation) and could be disabled.

 

[MkLh]

I do not agree with you in that IV's happiness and health where more complex than global happiness... In IV, happiness and health where two very easily manageable variables that didn't require that much thought. Now, happiness is a considerable aspect of the game that actually requires thought and planning.

You should notice that happiness in V plays different role than in IV. It replaces what was city and civic maintenance in IV (both are meant to restrict expansion). There isn't really an equivalent of IVs local happiness or health in V.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

I'd say complexity is better seen as how many viable statergies or 'interesting choices' does each 'component peice' give.

When comparing civ5 happiness with civ4 happiness you also need to look at health and maintaince, as these serve the same function - limiting expansion.

One thing i do like about civ5 is that having a small 4-5 cityempire could be an optimal way of playing for certain victory conditions. So you do have the macro decision of whether you empire is going to grow tall or wide. But in terms of overcoming the limit on expansion on civ5, well i can;
-get more luxery resources (though trade, expansion or CS)
-build happiness buildings + wonders
-happiness increasing SP

In civ4 we've got maitaince to limit horizonal growth and happiness + health to limit vertical growth. I'd agree limits on vertical growth aren't that interesting in civ4. But maintaince was far more interesting in terms of the statergies i have for dealing with it. To offset the maintiance cost of expansion i civ 4 i can;
-settle cities near high gold tiles
-whip/chop a court house
-whip/chop library and run specialists to offset having a low science slider
-found a shrine a spread relgion to fund expansion
-build GL and expand up the cost
-run a war economy, run at a gold deficeit but fund expanision by pillaging and city conquest

In civ4 just seems like i've got alot more interesting and engaging options for dealing with limits on growth.

Hrm. It seems you sort of played favourites with your list there. Since the same can be said for Civ V's -chop a Coliseum, - buy a building, - run a war economy, pillaging and razing to buy more buildings, - settle cities near high gold tiles and build a mint, etc. etc. etc. I don't care for these lists, since it's impossible to break any civ down into simple options like this.

The options are there, you're just oversimplifying them for the sake of Civ4.

 

[CivCube]

My main Civ 5 complaint is that city growth remains too similar to Civ 4, which actually undermines the 1UPT aspect. The city system still progresses like there are still stacked units; that is, cities don't take more advantage of the game board beyond more active cultural expansion. It can leave the board feeling rather lifeless if there are no military actions taken.

I wrote up an idea regarding this in Ideas & Suggestions...http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=414996 Otherwise, if there are some wars going on, THEN the game is more interesting. YMMV with different map scripts, map sizes, and number of civs.

 

[Pangur Bán]

It's hard to imagine that anyone any good at Civ 4 would think Civ 5 more "complex". Hard core gamers will have to live up to the fact that the money lies in dumbed-down games like Civ 5: Civ 4's usefulness was in creating a prestigious brand name. Civ 5 is for in depth players like mall fashion brands are for celebrities.
Wait for the next company to take up a similar idea.

Poster has a point though about Civ 1 and Civ 2. Not complex games by any standard.

Moderator Action: If you want to rant, then post in the rant thread.