1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

A little confused about all the "this is not Civ 4" criticism

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Becephalus, Sep 27, 2010.

  1. Ignorant Teacher

    Ignorant Teacher Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,467
    That's why I think they should have invested on a separate brand to attract customers like you and keep the Civ series for people who like complicated games. Although if they want to keep the Civilization name linked to the simplified games (which I'd understand, their public would be larger and there's already a history to the Civilization name - sells better), they should, at least start a fork for people who want a more challenging game.
     
  2. AriochIV

    AriochIV Analyst

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,617
    Location:
    San Jose, California
    I think most of the people who are enjoying the game are busy hitting the "Next Turn" button instead of posting here. So I don't think the forums here are seeing a balanced view of what people think of the game.

    There's a lot I really like about Civ V, and there's a fair amount that I don't, and I don't just mean the bugs. But it's nothing that a few good patches (or perhaps an expansion or two) can't fix.
     
  3. Taan

    Taan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    20
    Hit the nail alright. Still a lot of people defending it like crazy. Guess they have to justify spending that much money..
     
  4. themaelstorm

    themaelstorm Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2009
    Messages:
    37
    Just wanted to say this about boats:
    I think it's a great deal of hypocricy or oversight of those who claim it's unrealistic with the new way.

    You find it completely normal that units march on foot at about half speed of mounted units?
    You find it completely normal that they dont use any sort of transportation and just run around over the continent?

    I don't think,say, a marine running all the way from your northernmost country to your enemy lands literally depicst one marine running. I think that it actually symbolizes a squad of marines, moving there on whatever transports available (sometimes marching of course).

    I'm not too knowledgeable on this but I know for sure that at least in modern-ish times transports are widely used.

    So what's wrong with having another symbol over the map? I mean, do you actually want to build trucks to carry all your troops? These are tedious details at best. You can get countless details like this.

    Remember the quote from civ4: A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when he has nothing to add, but when he has nothing to take away.
     
  5. Crispin

    Crispin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Messages:
    73
    But thats exactly what it does to a much bigger degree than before, they ARE holding our hand. :lol: Its not a bad game, its ok, but if you fail to admit that its consolified - make that of it as you will, you are not being serious.
     
  6. USAFireFly

    USAFireFly Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    35
    CivV is AWFUL! Kids don't even like it. Everything stinks. Wow what a disapointment.
     
  7. troytheface

    troytheface Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,262
    it is not pretty to look at

    what it gains in fluidity it loses in that which has passion

    Call to Power- Civ3 and 4 - lots of eye candy- which is good or else you might as well play chess

    Civ5? arrows like in civ2 is the only thing i can see.

    I suggest it is harder to relate to a stack of tiny little people then a Civ3 single unit Hoplite

    I suggest it is harder to relate to a unit turning into a boat instead of a unit going onto a boat


    They took like the humanity out of it. strange
     
  8. teks

    teks Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    Florida
    I'm still not comprehending the boat hate. I still feel the realism is in that you are leasing civilian craft that were there to begin with. That being said they can still bring back military transports. Also wouldn't be bad to give all ships the ability to hold soldiers. hell maybe improve their strength if they have a garrison just like cities.
    Greeks had full garrisons of hoplites in their triremes allowing their boats to melee effectively. Archers could ranged attack from them too.
    All wooden craft had professional soldiers to my knowledge. A wooden ship without a garrison would be at a major disadvantage.
    Then once modern boats come along this idea kind of dies, but they can still transport a single garrison of troops.

    Ok civ4 wasn't impossibly complicated, but it was daunting to new players, and that hurts the franchise. The more people that play, the more money they make, the more funding can go into the next expansion.

    Alot of cool features from civ4 are missing. If that is the reason for all this hate I wouldn't be too worried. I'm fairly positive they will bring these features back in patches, and expansions. I think they are treading lightly because they made such dramatic changes to the game already, and they have full intentions of bringing back things like corporations later on.

    I'm still not one-sided on this. I forgot to mention the civlopedia in my last rant. What the hell!!! They went through all the work of making a more streamlined game, and neglected to give us manuals, or a civlopedia. I can live without the art, but this is the worst documentation a civ game ever received. I look a concept up, and I get one sentence of completely obvious information. Thanks for nothing!!!

    You know I really do remember civ4 being bashed pretty hard when it came out too. its first realease wasn't all that great. It had all the new concepts, but none of the cool features. It looks like civ 5 is going the exact same way, which is fine by me.

    Oh hey there is a red dot on my hex maybe it's blood. :cool:
     
  9. So?

    So? Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    27
    There *is* a big problem with no transports: It removes chokepoints-- which make it possible to defend against a larger army (touted in civ V ads), and this happens way earlier than having to build up a transport fleet does. It wipes out most of the old distinction between a naval empire and a land empire, and it makes a naval fleet in general more or less useless. No need to protect transports? Just dash from island to island with artillery and you're unstoppable. How many games of Civ III and IV have we been able to survive because the Aztecs built a massive army but never put together a merchant marine? It stopped the germans and french in real life, but a Civ V game would just hop across the channel.

    BTS finally got navy mostly right, and we've lost that.
     
  10. gonzo562

    gonzo562 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    wasnt civ4 awful when it was first released. But beyond the sword expansion made civ4 way better

    Civ is a okay game but quite a few things need to be added to make it better
     
  11. OG_Pieps

    OG_Pieps Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    Mödling, Austria
    I totally agree!
    Civ III wasn't too good till "Conquerors" came out and BTS made a funny and versatile game of Civ IV. (And after Warlords and BTS we all had spent a lot of money)
    It will be similar with Civ V. I like the basic ideas very much. After some balancing and improvements of the AI it will be great!
     
  12. JLoZeppeli

    JLoZeppeli Prince

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    598
    No your statement is more like I prefer strategy game than a management and strategy game, which casually appears to be the Civilization franchise until 4.

    A management game include transport production and micro, reducing these things to nothing means change the game from civilization management and strategy game to a civilization strategy game with essential unit building and little more...

    That's the difference. You can love it, but it is another type of game from the franchise, maybe you need to play Total War or Operational Art of War like-games.

    And about the statement:non forum users are playing the game, my brother don't write on this forum, neither my friends... Thus they are not playing anymore because they think the game is worse than IV...
     
  13. boredatwork

    boredatwork Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    104
    But wasn't that the point of Civ Rev? I'm all for giving people *options* for people who didn't like the micromanagement and city sprall of previous games but way alienate a portion of your long time valued customers by not giving them the *option* to play the game how they liked?




    The problem is there is no limiting mechanic to simulate the relative strengh of a civ's civilian fleet or a mechanic to penalize an empire from removing said civilian transport for it's intended role. You can transport *any* size army at a whim without preparation or ill effects.

    While gameplay should trump realism, removing all challenge cheapens gameplay.



    The simplest fix would be to increase unit maintenance costs while embarked to simulate lease costs and dissruption of trade caused by impressing ships from an abstract civilian merchant marine.
     
  14. DarkSchneider

    DarkSchneider King

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Messages:
    739
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    I'm not concerned that Civ V isn't Civ IV, I'm concerned it's not better than Civ IV.
     
  15. Flavorable

    Flavorable Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    165
    That is humongous <snip>. Large Scale naval invasions were nearly impossible in Civ IV because of how much production and maintnence was required. Colonization overseas was <snip> impossible as well, and if you spawned on an island you may as well just retire already.

    Which is funny considering the most powerful ruler of the world for almost a millenium had done all of that many times... and originated on a very small island...

    Moderator Action: Swearing is not allowed on these forums.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  16. incubuspawn

    incubuspawn Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    143
    Moo3 was saved by fans. it is now a pretty decent and fun game to play.http://www.moo3.at/gallery/categories.php?cat_id=6 and http://bhruic.dyndns.org/patcher/

    I try to give this news to anyone disapointed in moo3, as it really does save the game.
    The gui fixes and changes and the patchers are the main things to look at.

    Oh and if you tossed the cd in the microwave for vindication, moo3 is available on gog.com :D as well as a moo 1-2 package.
     
  17. Generals3

    Generals3 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    156
    Two Things:
    Everything is produced a lot slower than now , so how is high prod a con to Civ IV naval warfare? If prod was a problem than surely Civ V simply made it worse .

    2nd: While i do agree the colonization was hard and a real money-sink due to maintenance , it was doable by using the forbidden palace. I usually played Terra and built the FP on the 2nd island and never had too many problems .

    This said , i'm not sure what to think about civ V naval combat , seems a bit "meh" . (Sooo my sub cant sink a Ship Of The Line with a salvo of torps? riiigghhht and oh-oh cities can bombard subs with stones ?! No wait , simply: cities can bombard subs?! And for god sakes it takes 3-4 Battleship bombardments to sink a destroyer... Why can't boats fight the "traditional" way as well >< )
     
  18. Flavorable

    Flavorable Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    165

    We are talking about Navies. Civ V did not make it worse, because in Civ V, you don't need to build a transport for every 3 units...

    Mass Colonization, such as sending multiple settlers overseas to colonize, or to have the intentions of actually continuing to colonize, was simply impossible.
     
  19. MkLh

    MkLh King

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    903
    Location:
    Finland
    I don't think many criticizes it because it's not Civ4. That's just a straw man. People criticize it because it's not as good as Civ4.
     
  20. Generals3

    Generals3 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    156
    I often had half the other continent colonized in Terra. Now obviously i didn't send 10 settlers at once. But steadily i'd spread around and meanwhile the FB would have been built. But thats if you go for a "tight" colonization. I must admit colonizing small islands everywhere was hard , not impossible , but very hard.(maybe a bit too hard)

    And to be honest i never noticed a problem linked with production when it comes to navies and Civ IV . The only problem i had is that i can't remember the enemy building navies worth a challenge leaving me , my dozen of Battleships/destroyers/etc... simply bombarding city defences which was kinda dull. But with the ******** AI in Civ V the naval battles appear to be just as dull.
     

Share This Page