The best things about CiV

[Horizons]

Another good thing: no more cartoony animations of Sid Bloody Meier ... sick of seeing that guy's face especially since he only develops console games and Facebook apps

lol, and the only Civ game Sid personally developed and programmed, the original, he did it jointly with some other guy whose name none of us can remember ... but who probably did most of the work

 

[Tatran]

The civ5 scout is a huge improvement over the civ4 scout.

 

[Xenobenignitas]

I like how it's not Call of Duty

 

[spider1]

I think the Social Policies in CiV are a huge improvement over past government types in civ games. Diplomacy is a mixed bag for me though, while I like a lot of what they've done (concept of City States I just LOVE) not being able to trade maps and Techs is a major drawback in how I used to play Civ games.

 

[Horizons]

LACK of technology trading - an absolute godsend.

AI tech whoring made Civ4 a nightmare to play. I would have played at King or higher if it wasn't for the fact that the AIs sold each other technologies on the cheap.

Research agreements are a huge improvement.

Thus spake the 'hardcore gamer'.

 

[KahunaGod]

Other good things: you can rush-buy with gold throughout the whole game. In Civ4, you could only rush-build with gold using a particular civic, I think it was universal suffrage or democracy or some nonsense like that.

This compensates slightly for the slower build times in Civ5.

And I always HATED using slavery to rush-build things because you had to min-max and calculate whether the drop in population/increase in unhappiness outweighed the benefits of immediate construction.

So yeah all you 'hardcore gamers' (LOL) ... I bet you preferred the old whip and chop because of its mathematical precision

Proves the lack of depth and dumbed down pointlessness of Civ5. Obviously "thinking" about the game is just too much for some people, hence the love of a game were pressing "next turn" 50 times in a row can be soooooooooooooooo appealing!

Monkeys can do it!

 

[Scaramanga]

I like how crossing a river with no bridge road ends a unit's movement points. It turns the movement into a momentous occasion every time since you'll be slowed down again if you choose to go back; kind of like crossing the Rubicon.

 

[Tabarnak]

I like that you cannot insta-raze cities.
In Civ IV it is too easy to stop a cultural victory by sneaking a coastal cultural city without chance of keeping it.

In a multiplayer game a couple of months ago, my capital got caught by the ennemy when i went to war on the other side of my country, but he couldnt raze it. I managed to retake it because i had more cities producing more units.

In some other games, it was possible for me to retake other cities even if ennemy wanted to raze it.

In civ4 , it's impossible to do such thing.

If only they can import some good features from civ4 and do something good with for civ5 in a future expansion, fix multi and work the AI to be better, this game will be the best of the serie.

 

[Tabarnak]

Proves the lack of depth and dumbed down pointlessness of Civ5. Obviously "thinking" about the game is just too much for some people, hence the love of a game were pressing "next turn" 50 times in a row can be soooooooooooooooo appealing!

Monkeys can do it!

You have to make more planification in civ5. Slavery wasnt difficult at all. You whip, get what you want, and continue your route. This need 1-2 turns of planification. In civ5, you need 15-20 turns to organize something, and you need more quality units than quantity.

In multiplayer games this is blatant. Civ4 = biggest stack wins. Dull.

I played hundred of hours and still discover important details. The fact is deity is a lot easier in civ5 than civ4. The ''dumbed down'' opinion is distorded.

 

[Horizons]

Proves the lack of depth and dumbed down pointlessness of Civ5. Obviously "thinking" about the game is just too much for some people, hence the love of a game were pressing "next turn" 50 times in a row can be soooooooooooooooo appealing!

Monkeys can do it!

It's not dumbed-down and thoughtless. In Civ4, 99% of the time you run slavery until forced to change because of a UN decision.

In Civ5 you can choose a much wider variety of civics.

PLUS ... buying with gold is better than buying with population.

Not dumbed down ... just made less dumb.

 

[JohnnyW]

In Civ5 you can choose a much wider variety of civics.

lol?

You are apparently living in a fantasy world. civ5 doesn't have civics.

 

[Ricci]

The best thing about ciV is this same forum.. for many it should certainly be by far the most fun this game has given us.

 

[Horizons]

lol?

You are apparently living in a fantasy world. civ5 doesn't have civics.

Dude don't be a pedant. I mean social policies.

In Civ4 you can either have bureaucracy OR freedom of speech. TOTALLY unrealistic because most modern democracies have BOTH.

In Civ5 you don't have to choose either/or. You can build up a unique culture and politic for your nation without switching in and out of different systems whenever the need arises.

Anybody who thinks Civ4 civics is better than Civ5 policies is ... well ... misguided.

 

[MkLh]

It's not dumbed-down and thoughtless. In Civ4, 99% of the time you run slavery until forced to change because of a UN decision.

Not true. Or of course you could do that, but it certainly wasn't the optimal choice in 99% of the time.

 

[Xenobenignitas]

Civ 4's slavery was very powerful, especially so if you didn't play the population accountancy tricks from the strategy guides.

One of the things I like about Civ 5 is the policy system, though ideally, if we have to keep distinct civics, there could be a middle ground between Civ 4's system (or RoM's expanded one) and Civ 5's

 

[MkLh]

Civ 4's slavery was very powerful, especially so if you didn't play the population accountancy tricks from the strategy guides.

In the early game, not so much later. One of the factor there was Emancipation, which caused quite massive happiness penalty if you sticked to Slavery. That was much before UN. On the other hand, Universal Suffrage and the ability to rush-buy compensated slavery quite well. I have seen late slavery strategy used, but it certainly wasn't the solution for 99% of games.

 

[Horizons]

Actually, 'pop and chop' (slavery and forest-chopping) were cardinal Civ4 strats alongside beelining for bronze-working and doing an axeman rush of a nearby neighbour. Sure, some people played differently and on different maps, but if you didn't pop and chop heavily at the start of the game you'd fall behind the AI very badly. Yawn.

 

[Misotu]

It's not dumbed-down and thoughtless. In Civ4, 99% of the time you run slavery until forced to change because of a UN decision.

In Civ5 you can choose a much wider variety of civics.

PLUS ... buying with gold is better than buying with population.

Not dumbed down ... just made less dumb.

Actually, this is starting to get just a teensy bit irritating. I don't know if I'm "hard-core" but I played on emperor-deity for IV and have obtained some pretty good results. I have only used slavery in two or three games. Ever. I have absolutely no interest in it as a civic. It is only really useful for early-rush games looking for conquest/domination victory, and even then it's of limited use, imo. Your mileage may vary, but when I read Civ IV Gauntlet threads I see a much wider range of civics being used than just "slavery until forced to change".

I am absolutely certain that my approach is not unique, especially not among peaceful players.

I know that there is a group of players - perhaps quite a large group - who swear by slavery. But even so, it is not sensible, or convincing, to try to make a general case with data based on your personal approach to the game!

 

[Horizons]

If you say so, sweet heart.

Moderator Action: While I'm not giving an infraction, this isn't really constructive.

 

[AFS]

Other good things: you can rush-buy with gold throughout the whole game. In Civ4, you could only rush-build with gold using a particular civic, I think it was universal suffrage or democracy or some nonsense like that.

This compensates slightly for the slower build times in Civ5.

And I always HATED using slavery to rush-build things because you had to min-max and calculate whether the drop in population/increase in unhappiness outweighed the benefits of immediate construction.

So yeah all you 'hardcore gamers' (LOL) ... I bet you preferred the old whip and chop because of its mathematical precision

To me, buying stuff is what kills the game, now there's no point of focusing on production, just make a lot of trading posts, get a lot of money and buy whatever you want any time.

Did your enemy got a huge army next to your borders? No problem, go shopping and buy a nuke .

So I'm sticking with my whip, dear, I don't want to play The Sims.