I don't get what's fun about this game (Civ 3 player)

[King Emperor]

So I've been playing Civ 3 for a while now, and got Civ 5 a while back because a friend recommended it, saying it was much better.

I played it a little but couldn't get into it and went back to Civ 3, but I'm having another crack at Civ 5 at the moment.

Here are some reasons why I like Civ 3:

1. The beginning expansion phase. I like exploring, finding new luxuries and resources and trying to claim them before my neighbors- who are always actively expanding. The AI grabs up every piece of land as soon as it can. I like the sense of competition and the feeling when you claim a luxury/resource. It's also great to find new islands before the AI, whether by taking the risk of traversing a few sea/ocean tiles, getting the Great Lighthouse wonder, or by researching relevant techs (navigation?) before the AI.
2. The luxuries/resources. These are clearly marked on the map and offer clear benefits. It's fun to claim them, and it's also fun to look for strategic resources like coal, rubber and oil when you research the required tech. For example, you research Steam Power, and then you look around and think "Yes! I've got lots of coal!" or "Oh no...No coal, but France has some. Maybe I can get Right of Passage, send a few workers over to build roads, and then give them the Steam Power tech so I can trade with them."
3. Contacting new civs. It's great to finally cross the oceans and discover the other AI players and see how far ahead/behind they are, and also to trade techs and resources with them.
4. Researching techs, and getting their benefits before the other civs.

I suppose a like discovering and getting things, like a monkey having a dopamine kick when it finds some mangoes.

My problem with Civ 5 is that as far as I can tell, the things I like about Civ 3 are entirely absent. Admittedly I don't know much about the game yet. Contacting another civ doesn't seem like a big deal. Exploring and finding new islands also doesn't seem so important- there's no sense of urgency to claim the land because the other civs aren't expanding so much. Researching new techs also doesn't carry with it the sense of achievement because as far as I know you can't compare what techs you have to other civs. Also the resources on the map naturally merge with the terrain itself, rather than being represented as icons, and to me that means it loses its sense of importance, plus I'm not sure of the importance of the resources in the first place.

I want to like this game, so my question is where does the enjoyment come from, for you? To be honest when playing Civ 3 I'm a warmonger and every game devolves into me eventually gaining military dominance and then taking out the other civs. With Civ 5, do I need to "roleplay"?? i.e. decide to myself "Right, I'm going to create a peaceful civilization which will spread it's religion around the world!"

Thanks for your help!

 

[ThunderLizard2]

My problem with Civ 5 is that as far as I can tell, the things I like about Civ 3 are entirely absent

Ditto for Civ IV versus Civ V - I suggest you try Civ IV - BTS if you enjoyed Civ III

 

[King Emperor]

OK I'll check it out! Thanks

 

[beetle]

Interesting. I think I played III less than either II or IV, but V is definitely my favorite. My recollection of III might be off. I agree with the post above that IV BTS is much better than III.

1. The beginning expansion phase. I like exploring, finding new luxuries and resources and trying to claim them before my neighbors- who are always actively expanding. The AI grabs up every piece of land as soon as it can. I like the sense of competition and the feeling when you claim a luxury/resource. It's also great to find new islands before the AI...

As compared to II/III/IV where the player has a dozen or more cities, I understand this complaint on its face. If you are playing V at a difficultly level that is challenging, then that means most games you play four city Tradition, and you want those cities up pretty quick. But I was always a builder and hating the trend to ICS which most players seem to favor. The play is different, and once you accept that, then you will find that there is more going on with four tall cities in V than you ever had with III or IV. At Deity, the AIs still grab up every piece of land, and there is actually lots of competition over luxes.

2. The luxuries/resources. These are clearly marked on the map and offer clear benefits. It's fun to claim them, and it's also fun to look for strategic resources like coal, rubber and oil when you research the required tech.

This describes play in V, plus there are more of them. Luxes and resources are quantity limited (as opposed to have or do not have), so that makes things more dynamic. It is pretty rare to found a late game city just to get coal (or whatever), but it does happen. In most games, one has to get creative about machinations for certain strategic resources, and that adds an interesting dimension to play. There is no tech trading, I guess because it was something of an exploit, but there is tech stealing and other espionage.

3. Contacting new civs. It's great to finally cross the oceans and discover the other AI players and see how far ahead/behind they are, and also to trade techs and resources with them.

I feel like V very much encourages exploration. Two scouts first is my usual build order. I like unfogging the map, and you have to do it yourself, since there is no map trading. You get buffs from ruins (often on those new islands, if you get to them before an AI), each Natural Wonder, and precious early gold from finding the City States. Plus the sooner you find the AI civs the better.

4. Researching techs, and getting their benefits before the other civs.

Do you play III at a level where you are at risk of losing to an AI? Working for a tech advantage is very much aspect of competitive play in V.

My problem with Civ 5 is that as far as I can tell, the things I like about Civ 3 are entirely absent.

Some things are entirely absent (e.g., map and tech trading) but I think most of the things you like about III are in V. Some will be very changed, as I have described here. And there are lots of new things, not the least of which is competition over religion and ideology.

Exploring and finding new islands also doesn't seem so important...

It is important for ruins and the happiness benefit you get from discovering Natural Wonders. Also early (and thus important) gold from meeting City States.

...there's no sense of urgency to claim the land because the other civs aren't expanding so much.

You are not playing V at a high enough difficulty level. Getting your expos up before being forward settled by an AI is very much a challenge with V.

Researching new techs also doesn't carry with it the sense of achievement because as far as I know you can't compare what techs you have to other civs.

You can tell pretty well from their units and announcements when a civ builds a World Wonders. Also, there is the occasional pop-up screen giving the number of techs each civ has.

Also the resources on the map naturally merge with the terrain itself, rather than being represented as icons, and to me that means it loses its sense of importance, plus I'm not sure of the importance of the resources in the first place.

The resources are pretty easy to spot, but one can use Strategic View if graphics are obscured by forest or hills. The resources are quite important, probably more so than with III or IV.

I want to like this game, so my question is where does the enjoyment come from, for you?

I find every game to be quite immersive, but I almost always play to get the most from the unique attributes and units that each civ has. I always enjoyed the space ship launch victory the most with II/III/IV and V ramps that play up even more. I strongly recommend that first timers play for Science Victory because it gives you the full scope of the game. You have to complete the tech tree, and that gives plenty of time for ideology-driven conflicts to manifest. Once the SV gets boring, bump up the difficulty level. Once you winning SV easily at Deity, switch to aim for Cultural or Domination wins.

To be honest when playing Civ 3 I'm a warmonger and every game devolves into me eventually gaining military dominance and then taking out the other civs.

Are you playing at the highest difficulty level? Lots of people like domination in V, since that is pretty challenging, and the games take fewer turns.

With Civ 5, do I need to "roleplay"?? i.e. decide to myself "Right, I'm going to create a peaceful civilization which will spread it's religion around the world!"

You do not need to roleplay, but at least it is a possibility. The civs in II/III/IV all seem pretty much the same to me, when I am playing them or as AI opponents (which have rather distinct personalities). For what it is worth, the V game mechanics are such that spreading your religion around the world is quite difficult (since you need to capture all the rival Holy Cities) unless you are playing a domination game anyway.

 

[King Emperor]

Thanks very much for your detailed reply!
Maybe the problem is that I don't understand the new concepts in the game yet, especially because I never played Civ 4.
I'll try going for a scientific victory on a higher difficulty setting.

 

[beetle]

Yeah @King Emperor, there are a lot of new concepts. But I am not sure, does V really build off of IV any more than III? I remember III being fairly modest in progression from II, and the same with IV from III. When V shipped it looked radically different (what with the hexes and 1UPT and all), but aside from City States, it was actually quite a bit simpler than IV. IMHO, the GnK expansion made V feature competitive with BtS, and then BNW doubled the scope of the game!

 

[ashendashin]

I HIGHLY recommend you play with Vox Populi. The AI is vastly improved and the game reworked so you'll see no shortage of expansionists that actually feel rewarding to deal with. Diplomacy got improved too, with options from old Civ games reintroduced.
Luxuries are fun with their monopoly bonuses and later tie in with corporations. Hell a lot of stuff put into the mod was from Civ 4 BtS, but the game and the AI are still being worked on with plenty of community discussion.

 

[casusbelli07]

I like every civ game that has been put out, or at least a number of features of all of them. A lot of people will tell you that CIV4 w/ expansions is the best, and there is something to that if you say that CIV4 is the "classic" derivative of the previous versions. They did go in a different direction with 5(as well as 6 being a derivative of 5). 5 and 6 both have a number of what I would describe as "side-game" mechanics. Some people have mixed opinions regarding these changes, but I must say I enjoy using these mechanics into broad strategies that don't just end up as science, or dominance victories. The Op said they have not gotten to into the mechanics and features of civ5 and that imo is where 5 and 6 shine over the previous ones. If you don't know enough about what and why you are going to get frustrated coming up with a strategy where you aren't taking advantage of the game features.

 

[orasis]

Reading your flavor of play I think you'll probably prefer VI to V. I preferred V to IV because I thought IV went too far with strategic resources to the point where everyone had everything. V brought back limited resources but for some reason limited cities as well... four cities, that's all that matters... so much empty map.

VI limits resources, un-stacks cities which really makes every game feel new and allows you to settle as many or as little as possible.

Downside to VI : If you like planes you're going to feel lonely and as always the AI is insane.

 

[miaasma]

i recently revisited civ 3 and found myself unable to enjoy it at all like i used to

i will say that most of the things you feel are absent in this game aren't; the only thing that literally is absent is the ability to trade techs (a sort of replacement is research agreements, which don't work in the same way but are more of a collaborative scientific effort between competing civs)

i find luxuries are much more important and need to be grabbed much faster in V than in III since luxuries (and associated happiness) are directly tied to your ability to grow and expand. in III luxuries prevented individual cities from experiencing civil disorder by making citizens, whereas in V a global happiness mechanic necessitates claiming as many unique luxuries as possible so as to keep your whole empire content, otherwise your cities suffer growth (and eventually production/gold) penalties

you definitely still compete for land but in a more precise manner than simply swallowing as much area as possible; it's more about securing key locations that have the things you need without overextending yourself or expanding beyond your (happiness) means. on higher difficulties the AI gets to expand with less limitations than you do, so this becomes harder

if you play on maps with separated landmasses (like continents) then exploration functions in much the same way it did in III, aside from the ships sinking in ocean tiles since you flat out cannot enter them until you research ocean-sailing tech. rushing exploration techs can put you in contact with players who may have access to different luxuries than are available at your location, which opens up new trade options for you (which you don't need a road to their capital to take advantage of)

i'm not good at III at all, but i imagine getting technologies before other civs is just as important in that game as it is in V. more science than everyone else generally means you're ahead overall, and it's reflected in what units, buildings and wonders you can build

there are a ton of parallels between both games, but a lot of it is handled dramatically differently in this game, so i understand if you're having trouble adjusting

 

[Equilin]

I HIGHLY recommend you play with Vox Populi. The AI is vastly improved and the game reworked so you'll see no shortage of expansionists that actually feel rewarding to deal with. Diplomacy got improved too, with options from old Civ games reintroduced.
Luxuries are fun with their monopoly bonuses and later tie in with corporations. Hell a lot of stuff put into the mod was from Civ 4 BtS, but the game and the AI are still being worked on with plenty of community discussion.

I disagree. The OP doesn't even seems to understand full mechanics of base game yet, sending him to VP may results in confusing and frustating him. I'd say let him explore the base game and expansions until he gets bored and from there get to VP.

 

[ashendashin]

I disagree. The OP doesn't even seems to understand full mechanics of base game yet, sending him to VP may results in confusing and frustating him. I'd say let him explore the base game and expansions until he gets bored and from there get to VP.

VP changes so much from the base game that it's confusing for people that put hundreds of hours into vanilla, so there's not much point in learning vanilla unless you're completely new to civ and want a simpler approach.
Either way, he can still use the Community Patch alone so the AI is at least worth playing against.

 

[hr_oskar]

So I've been playing Civ 3 for a while now, and got Civ 5 a while back because a friend recommended it, saying it was much better.

I played it a little but couldn't get into it and went back to Civ 3, but I'm having another crack at Civ 5 at the moment.

Here are some reasons why I like Civ 3:

1. The beginning expansion phase. I like exploring, finding new luxuries and resources and trying to claim them before my neighbors- who are always actively expanding. The AI grabs up every piece of land as soon as it can. I like the sense of competition and the feeling when you claim a luxury/resource. It's also great to find new islands before the AI, whether by taking the risk of traversing a few sea/ocean tiles, getting the Great Lighthouse wonder, or by researching relevant techs (navigation?) before the AI.
2. The luxuries/resources. These are clearly marked on the map and offer clear benefits. It's fun to claim them, and it's also fun to look for strategic resources like coal, rubber and oil when you research the required tech. For example, you research Steam Power, and then you look around and think "Yes! I've got lots of coal!" or "Oh no...No coal, but France has some. Maybe I can get Right of Passage, send a few workers over to build roads, and then give them the Steam Power tech so I can trade with them."
3. Contacting new civs. It's great to finally cross the oceans and discover the other AI players and see how far ahead/behind they are, and also to trade techs and resources with them.
4. Researching techs, and getting their benefits before the other civs.

I suppose a like discovering and getting things, like a monkey having a dopamine kick when it finds some mangoes.

My problem with Civ 5 is that as far as I can tell, the things I like about Civ 3 are entirely absent. Admittedly I don't know much about the game yet. Contacting another civ doesn't seem like a big deal. Exploring and finding new islands also doesn't seem so important- there's no sense of urgency to claim the land because the other civs aren't expanding so much. Researching new techs also doesn't carry with it the sense of achievement because as far as I know you can't compare what techs you have to other civs. Also the resources on the map naturally merge with the terrain itself, rather than being represented as icons, and to me that means it loses its sense of importance, plus I'm not sure of the importance of the resources in the first place.

I want to like this game, so my question is where does the enjoyment come from, for you? To be honest when playing Civ 3 I'm a warmonger and every game devolves into me eventually gaining military dominance and then taking out the other civs. With Civ 5, do I need to "roleplay"?? i.e. decide to myself "Right, I'm going to create a peaceful civilization which will spread it's religion around the world!"

Thanks for your help!

I've played all the games since Civ1 extensively. Civ3 was good but I don't see myself playing it ever again.

What I found interesting about your list is that I enjoy exactly those things in Civ5 too. They are all present. How can you possibly say they're "entirely absent"? Contacting other civs matters a lot because selling stuff to them is so important for getting your economy going.

You can have the map show tile yields and also resource icons (I think - I only have the tile yields on).

I think you just need to give it a bit more time. Oh and you really should have the expansions, Brave New World is a must.

Personally I think Civ4 is the best so far, with Civ5 a somewhat distant second. Civ1-3 are all too outdated in my view. I haven't tried Civ6 yet because I've learned to avoid the newest title until it's been developed properly.

 

[hr_oskar]

Yeah @King Emperor, there are a lot of new concepts. But I am not sure, does V really build off of IV any more than III? I remember III being fairly modest in progression from II, and the same with IV from III. When V shipped it looked radically different (what with the hexes and 1UPT and all), but aside from City States, it was actually quite a bit simpler than IV. IMHO, the GnK expansion made V feature competitive with BtS, and then BNW doubled the scope of the game!

Civ5 is significantly different from the previous titles, it really made a lot of fundamental changes.

I find that Civ2 and 3 were the least innovative. In my somewhat faded memory, Civ3's main innovation was with the combat system, introducing bombardment. The problem was that it was one of those things the player would abuse to death so conquest on deity typically featured a big player stack of bombardment units whittling down endless AI stacks of doom as well as cities. It got a bit tedious after a while. Civ4 was only marginally better in this regard. I appreciate Civ5's "scaling down" the whole thing by reducing the number of units and cities and making each one of them more meaningful.

 

[Hamilton321]

I have both civ IV and civ V, I almost exclusively play civ IV now, but I still play the Fall of Rome scenario especially as Byzantium. It is the only scenario I really enjoy of civ V.
edit: one thing I will say however is that even very mediocre civ is better than no civ at all and that if you work for it you can generate some fun, although there is a part of me that feels about it that it is kind of a half-civ title, but there was also a great deal of difference between I, !!, !!!, and IV.

 

[catalin72]

Civ IV BTS still my favorite,but now I play Civ III and...Civ V,sometimes Civ II.Civ V is a good game,but I agree with King Emperor,the spirit of competition for resources,land to claim is not very 'present',anyway you can't build many cities(happiness..) For a player who likes 100 cities and workers,clearly Civ V will be a disappointment...but is very good for players who do not like complicated micromanagement.