A theory on why ciV has been so divisive to the community.

[polypheus]

I don't know about that. In the game that I was playing, I was able to conquer 15+ cities without it affecting my happiness except by a few points, which I quickly recovered, because I already had the right social policies in place, and a lot of excess happiness to take some damage.

Its already late in my game, but its more due to my style of playing than having large number of cities. I think it has to do with doing things at the right time, and its probably possible to do what I did earlier in the game.

I don't really agree with the happiness mechanic though. Neither did I agree with the corruption mechanic in Civ4 which was put in to restrict you. The way Civ designers have tried to restrict the amount of cities you have has always been too artificial imo

Civ4 did not have the corruption mechanism that was Civ3. And I completely agree that Civ3's corruption mechanic was bad. Cities that were far away were totally corrupted away to uselessness until the advent of new government types.

Civ4's mechanic was maintenance cost per city which is higher the furthest away you were from the capital. Therefore it affected your cash flow on a national level but not on an individual city level. I found Civ4's mechanic to be very sensible and a good change IHMO as it punishes expansion if done too quickly before you have enough infrastructure to support it.

 

[Zogar]

See I have been waiting a long time for a civ game to allow a viable civilization to exist with only a few cities. something I've never liked in previous civs is you have to expand like crazy to take over the map...if you don't the AI will. The AI in IV will plant a city absolutely anywhere there's a few squares unaccounted for, even if it makes no sense. Over and over I've seen AI cities pop up right on my border where's there's just a few squares of tundra. Being able to play a game with 5 or less cities is an option I've always wanted.

Did you play Civ 5 ? AI still pops cities everywhere. But you can't anymore.

 

[TheLean]

I dont agree with the OP except in the case of diplomacy and AI, the rest is just same old civ but better. The AI acts like a guy playing to win a boardgame and not a historical ruler with other interests than conquering the world (a very much ******ED guy playing a board game I might add...). The AI is my only gripe with civilization 5, otherwise I love it.

 

[MuleHeadJoe]

Meh. Yeah it was a generalisation. I've played Axis & Allies and ASL. They are good games, but on par with Euro games. My point being that level of complexity is standard for that part of the world.

I just get annoyed when people hear "board game" and they think "Monopoly" and that "Settlers of Catan" is "Advanced".

I hear "board game" and I think SORRY!, Parcheesi, Clue, and Monopoly. If you're thinking of old strategy games like ASL from Avalon Hill, those were generally known as "bookshelf games", not board games. I played my fair share back in the late 70's and early 80's.

 

[polypheus]

I dont agree with the OP except in the case of diplomacy and AI, the rest is just same old civ but better. The AI acts like a guy playing to win a boardgame and not a historical ruler with other interests than conquering the world (a very much ******ED guy playing a board game I might add...). The AI is my only gripe with civilization 5, otherwise I love it.

Not at all. Civ3 and Civ4 had details to manage to build up your Civ. Those were primarily Civ building games with war as one component. True that SoD style warfare was flawed but at least it fit the scale and scope of the game.

Civ5 is basically just Panzer General through the ages. The game is all focused on Panzer general warfare but with a Civ like veneer!

Actually another poster in another forum said it best:

There are some good ideas here but not that many, not enough to make up for what has been removed. Civilization 5 is a "next turn, next turn, next turn, attack, next turn, next turn, next turn, attack" affair with little to do in between because all there was to do has been removed. It was sold as a Civilization game but fails to deliver the goods and its entire design is not the sort of well thought out design I expect to see from Sid, so I seriously doubt he had any hand in its development.

http://www.theengineeringguild.co.uk...showtopic=5185

 

[lschnarch]

I just have to repeat the initial statement once more, because it is so much fun.

Most gloss over how bad Civ 4 was at release. Hell it wasn't even Vista compatible.

Actually it wasn't compatible.


Even people on this very forum in the Civ 4 section have written about Civ 4's problems with Vista.

To play Civ 4 on release you had to either install XP or wait for a patch. This has been so heavily documented that it isn't even debatable.

Well, let's have a look at the good old times...

When was Vista released? Right, in 2007.
When was Civ4 released? Right, in 2005.

But it's ok... For the sake of praising Civ V we have to accept that it was a major fault of Civ4 not to have been prepared for an OS being released two years later. Ok, ok, ok...

See I have been waiting a long time for a civ game to allow a viable civilization to exist with only a few cities. something I've never liked in previous civs is you have to expand like crazy to take over the map...if you don't the AI will. The AI in IV will plant a city absolutely anywhere there's a few squares unaccounted for, even if it makes no sense. Over and over I've seen AI cities pop up right on my border where's there's just a few squares of tundra. Being able to play a game with 5 or less cities is an option I've always wanted.

First of all, this possibility you always had - you would just select one of the smaller maps.
Second, the AI in V will plant a city absolutely anywhere there's a few squares unaccounted for, even if it makes no sense.

 

[taylor_cu]

Moderator Action: *snip*

 

[falconne]

I don't know about that. In the game that I was playing, I was able to conquer 15+ cities without it affecting my happiness except by a few points, which I quickly recovered, because I already had the right social policies in place, and a lot of excess happiness to take some damage.

Its already late in my game, but its more due to my style of playing than having large number of cities. I think it has to do with doing things at the right time, and its probably possible to do what I did earlier in the game.

I don't really agree with the happiness mechanic though. Neither did I agree with the corruption mechanic in Civ4 which was put in to restrict you. The way Civ designers have tried to restrict the amount of cities you have has always been too artificial imo

Well of course you do - when you're in end game mode and going for victory you should be expanding. By that time happiness doesn't really matter anyway. I'm talking about the build up stage to the industrial era, before you start steam rolling every AI in sight.

 

[falconne]

I hear "board game" and I think SORRY!, Parcheesi, Clue, and Monopoly. If you're thinking of old strategy games like ASL from Avalon Hill, those were generally known as "bookshelf games", not board games. I played my fair share back in the late 70's and early 80's.

They may be called a different name in the US to avoid confusion with Monopoly & co., but for those who play German style games, or Euro games, there is no need for distinction. ASL would be considered par for the course in that part of the world.

See here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgame?sort=rank

What you call "old strategy games" did not stop in the 80's, they are still being produced. And there's a lot of Euro gamers out there, those games a very popular all over the world.

 

[moscaverde]

About religion in the next civ game...

the god/empire builder group: "Change the way it was implemented but keep in the game somehow."

the boardgame group: "take it off because it was too useless or exploitive."