Recent content by Disraeli

You might want to ask that in their subforum or forum thread, over in the Creation and Customization forums.

Civ IV is far superior to Civ V in my opinion for a variety of reasons.

I'm mostly a lurker, but I would definitely rather see a 1000 A.D. game than a Civ V one. Civ V just doesn't interest me at all.

Arabia:12 Aztec:9 China:8 Egypt:4 France:11 Greece:13 India:11 Iroquois:11 Japan:12 Persia:12 Rome:11 Russia:8 Siam:13 Songhai:13

80% 4, 20% 5.

Absolutely the wrong direction. I hate 1upt, hexes are good but not necessary, I hate global happiness, and I dislike social policies. I also hate the emphasis on removing "bad" features instead of improving them. That's why I don't think Civ5 will ever be better than Civ4, even after a ton...

BTS adds corporations and espionage which definitely add to depth.

That's all well and good, but if you're deciding whether to play Civ5 or Civ4 right now then whether Civ5 might be better 2 expansions from now doesn't really have any bearing on your decision. Saying "oh it just needs time" has nothing to do with how deep either game is right now.

Although I do play on Monarch (actually prince but I'm in the endgame of my current game and I completely stomped the AI) so I'm slightly above your line, difficulty is not my major complaint with Civ5. The things I don't like about Civ5 are that there are fundamental flaws in the game (IMO of...

It's still something you have to think about. In the industrial/modern era I find that my cities often get so unhealthy that they start starving which might just be because I suck at the game but it's still something I have to plan for and prevent. It's definitely the least complex of the three...

Civ5 removed Civ4 happiness, health, and maintenance and replaced it with Civ5 happiness which is a limit on both city growth and expansion while Civ4 happiness and health is a limit on city growth and maintenance limits expansion. This means you have to consider the thought required for three...

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...

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. I personally tend to like more complex games better for example I like Paradox games which...

There's much more rock-paper-scissors in Civ4, and that adds greatly to the complexity of Civ4's warfare and he didn't really mention this in the article. And stack of doom vs stack of doom or city is never your only kind of combat in Civ4. On the defense tactics matters a lot more than on the...

I stopped reading when you compared the religion system to racism. That's the entire point of religion! To simulate the historical bad relations between different religions! That's why it's a good system, because it makes sense from both a historical and gameplay perspective. Christian kingdoms...