Surely there are problems with V, but isn't that the case with IV as well? Do we just gloss over those things in defending the game, or do we not even see them? I think the issue is that all of the previous versions ALSO had major issues, which some seem to forget or want to diminish.
Yeah, of course Civ 4 has its issues. Arguably these issues are a lot less evident and problematic than Civ 5's, and the great amount of people turned off by the latter is pretty telling. But actually that is not my point, I wasn't comparing the two games. My point is being honest about a game's issues, especially to someone asking concretely about specific issues which might be prevelant. For example I love Crusader Kings 2. But when describing it, I would make it clear that the game is not for everyone, that learning it requires lots of patience, and that its lack of tactics may be unappealing to many.
Although a new and welcomed concept in CivIV, do you really think that Religion was implemented well in four? Well I don't--doesn't mean I hate CivIV though.
Again not really my point, but I think all in all Civ 4 did a good job with religion. Races to religion popping techs are exciting, spreading religions is fun and rewarding, and the evolving religious blocks constitute an interesting diplomatic environment with long-term allies and enemies. It could have been done better and been expanded upon. This is what I was hoping for in Civ 5 but they scraped it alltogether, before reinstalling it in the expansion.
Do civics/social policies and religion not have more in "complexity" than the BtS counterparts? I do--to be honest I think that a lot of the "complexity" of IV is an illusion--though of course that's all a matter of opinion.
I don't view social policies as complex, because depending on how you want to win it's pretty clear which social policies you take, even before starting the game.
Do you think Stacks of Doom were awesome? The AI isn't great at handling 1UPT, but do you really think the old stack method was the best way? If so, the people who like V more aren't the only ones being dishonest. And heck, there was a mod getting rid of 1UPT available before anyone even played through an entire game (which sounds a lot like wanting Civ 4.5).
In general I think having potentially unlimited units serves the empire building genre well, as you are rewarded for having highly productive cities. If you applied good strategies and were able to develop such cities, you should benefit in war. The tactical aspects of Civ 4 meant you still had to pay attention to your units in wars, to stack composition, use of terrain, which units to attack with, to flanking and bombarding etc. But the decisive force in war was not tactics but strategy, i.e. your economy, being able to produce enough units, pay for the upkeep, keep your tech rate reasonable, and manage war weariness. In other words, the focus was still on empire management, even in times of war.
The problems with stacks appeared in the late game where you could have hundreds of units on large maps and warfare therefore became tedious. I'd still take the stacking system over 1UPT any day, though more preferably I'd go for an in-between ground. The Call to Power system has been mentioned often in this context.
You don't think that saying one game requires "top-level knowledge" and is "complicated" while implying the other is "dumbed down" (hate that meme) is dismissive or insulting? I do (I also happen to think it's incorrect, but again YMMV).
It was ork75 who implied that, not me. I do agree with him though, and I would be rather surprised if anyone seriously contested that Civ 4 Bts is more complex than Civ 5. Which, just to make it clear, does not in itself mean it's a better game; this depends on taste, and wether you are fond of complexity, or find aspects of complexity redundant or not.
Anyway, as I said, I was not trying to compare the two games at all. It was just the ignoring of the AI issues in this thread, which the OP had specifically asked about, which brought me into this thread.
Donaskme said:
With all due respect, you undermine your own contention here. "Work well for a civ game" presumes that there's a particular formula that you consider valid. One might imagine that formula is Civ 4, and thus what you're seeking is a Civ 4.5. This tends to validate the observation of those who consider you to be bashing.
I'm not talking just about Civ 4, but about every Civ from 1 on. Every Civ game so far has been almost solely about empire management. Furthermore, every Civ after 1 has enhanced and improved existing concepts, or created new ones that fit the empire management genre. For example ICS is a serious problem for these games. It was dealt with in different ways, which all had their drawbacks, till in 4 the maintenance system more or less solved the problem. Civ 5's global happiness unfortuantely takes several steps backwards in this regard, as ICS is now not only viable, but the most effective strategy. Another "Civ formula", as you put it, is keeping the emphasis on empire management. This is undermined to some extent by the tactical warfare in Civ 5. Hence, it doesn't fit well to what Civ has always been about.
Civking5 said:
sulla's article is totally obsolete
The first part may be obsolete. I don't see how the second and main part is, as the five big points he mentions are either unchanged (global happiness, 1UPT, too much penalizing) or only modestly improved upon (diplomacy, multiplayer). Anyway, though Sullla's article is a good read, there have been countless similar observations by other players, it's not like he was one person telling the rest of the community that Civ 5 was bad. By the way, your saying that I can't handle change after I explicitly said that I consider that disrespectful and insulting, doesn't make you sound very reasonable and like a fun guy to argue with. Just saying.
