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

[damnyankees]

this is exactly how I have felt about every Civ game...V also.

I wish I did. But when the game gives you nothing ton control domestically and restricts you to only a few cities for basically the entire game (unless you want to go on the warpath), I just don't feel that at all.

 

[charon2112]

At Civ IV you could roleplay. I had a lot of fun saving my religion buddies, starting wars against the infidels...

You can still do that, just not with the features that were removed from IV.

 

[charon2112]

...and restricts you to only a few cities for basically the entire game (unless you want to go on the warpath), I just don't feel that at all.

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.

 

[damnyankees]

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.

You could always plays Civ as a smaller empire. The problem with Civ V is that it *forces* you to do so.

And not that realism is the most important thing, but I think it's important to mention that expanding rapidly into empty territory is the most realistic thing there is. That's how reality works - when cultures and civilizations have the opportunity to expand, they do it.

 

[afa2000]

I think it's more than having some warmongers and some peacemongers. Every leader must be unique. At Civ IV, Monty was not the same as Genghis Khan or Catherine, but they were all warmongers.

I like how every leader trait is unique now. They have made some good strategic changes. But Civ IV is more than a pure strategy game. It always tried to be a historical simulator, a fantasy game, all in one. For us, old timers, complexity is the word, but now devs have chosen to ignore it. Now, they focus on the masses, newcomers, who like simpler games, easy to learn.

 

[charon2112]

You could always plays Civ as a smaller empire. The problem with Civ V is that it *forces* you to do so.

How does the game force me to do anything? I've heard this repeated a lot, and I'm very curious to hear more.

 

[brianshapiro]

You could always plays Civ as a smaller empire. The problem with Civ V is that it *forces* you to do so.

And not that realism is the most important thing, but I think it's important to mention that expanding rapidly into empty territory is the most realistic thing there is. That's how reality works - when cultures and civilizations have the opportunity to expand, they do it.

In one game, I'm on my way to a cultural, domination, and diplomatic victory. I've conquered one continent and the Russians have conquered the other. I have a big massive fleet ready to pounce, while the Russians are running a huge deficit. I'm also not that many policies away from unlocking the Utopia project, I still have about 40 years left, and am earning plenty of culture points per year. If I choose to invade Russia, I also liberate the city states Russia conquered and get their votes.

 

[falconne]

How does the game force me to do anything? I've heard this repeated a lot, and I'm very curious to hear more.

You already mentioned before you don't want to analyse the game or play for victory. If you look at the numbers, it's obvious that expanding beyond a certain number of cities is counter productive, because the extra productivity they give you doesn't make up for cost of building enough happiness to support it - you're better off putting those resources towards your victory by growing your existing cities.

This game is designed like a board game and the point of board games is to win. That means we look at the numbers and try to optimise our strategy. I don't like these kinds of games - I prefer empire sims where you can play as a builder. It's find if they wanted to restrict empire size, but they should have given us stuff to do inside that empire, instead of hitting just "End Turn". Even when you get a decision to make, it's so obvious you don't get any satisfaction from making it.

You say you like to play a snadbox game and experiment a bit. I like to do that too, but what can you possibly do in Civ 5?

 

[brianshapiro]

You already mentioned before you don't want to analyse the game or play for victory. If you look at the numbers, it's obvious that expanding beyond a certain number of cities is counter productive, because the extra productivity they give you doesn't make up for cost of building enough happiness to support it - you're better off putting those resources towards your victory by growing your existing cities.

This game is designed like a board game and the point of board games is to win. That means we look at the numbers and try to optimise our strategy. I don't like these kinds of games - I prefer empire sims where you can play as a builder. It's find if they wanted to restrict empire size, but they should have given us stuff to do inside that empire, instead of hitting just "End Turn". Even when you get a decision to make, it's so obvious you don't get any satisfaction from making it.

You say you like to play a snadbox game and experiment a bit. I like to do that too, but what can you possibly do in Civ 5?

There are some social policies you can adopt to offset unhappiness, and you can always create more buildings, its a balancing act. If you do capture a lot of cities without damaging yourself too much, and integrate them one at a time, building courthouses, it helps in the long run, because more cities means more buildings to create happiness and culture, and more cities also means more luxury resources you don't have to trade for.

 

[monsterfurby]

This game is designed like a board game and the point of board games is to win. That means we look at the numbers and try to optimise our strategy. I don't like these kinds of games - I prefer empire sims where you can play as a builder. It's find if they wanted to restrict empire size, but they should have given us stuff to do inside that empire, instead of hitting just "End Turn". Even when you get a decision to make, it's so obvious you don't get any satisfaction from making it.

Again, boardgame is the wrong word.

You meant to say: The game is build as a game only, abandoning all simulation aspects.

 

[falconne]

There are some social policies you can adopt to offset unhappiness, and you can always create more buildings, its a balancing act. If you do capture a lot of cities without damaging yourself too much, and integrate them one at a time, building courthouses, it helps in the long run, because more cities means more buildings to create happiness and culture, and more cities also means more luxury resources you don't have to trade for.

You weren't reading the whole post. There's no trouble with annexing the cities if you're prepared to put the resources in to happiness, but the point is, it will delay your victory. This game has been balanced to be played optimally with 6-12 cities. You will get to victory faster if you concentrate on building 10 very good cities, instead of diverting resources to build up captured cities.

Again, boardgame is the wrong word.

You meant to say: The game is build as a game only, abandoning all simulation aspects.

It's the same thing, when we're talking about German board games. They are complex enough to be Civ V like and are completely abstract.

 

[charon2112]

This game has been balanced to be played optimally with 6-12 cities.

This was a design choice, and it doesn't bother me, as I like smaller empires. Does this bother you?

 

[falconne]

This was a design choice, and it doesn't bother me, as I like smaller empires. Does this bother you?

Since this comment was directed at a different poster as to why it's counter productive to build too many cities, your question is irrelevant to it.

But I can answer it by going back to a comment I made earlier - if they wanted to make the empire smaller and more focused, they should have added more stuff to the game to give us something to do. Right now, compared to Civ 4 there's less to build, less cities to build them in and it takes longer to build. That means, unless there's a war going on, most of your turns will have nothing of significance going on. Mostly just getting a worker to spam yet another TP then hitting "End Turn".

When an AI declares war, I never accept peace because that would mean going back to the boring monotone of endless End Turn again. I just keep going till they are destroyed, even if I'm razing every city and they are no threat to me any more.

 

[jjkrause84]

So - you wouldn't care to elucidate at all..?

Oh, sorry....I thought we were all o nthe same page.

Rush is a Canadian rock band whose heyday was in the 1970s. Their most famous album was called "2112". They were one of the first "prog" rock bands and have also been (perhaps jokingly) called, "Canada's Led Zeppelin".

 

[SidMeierGroupy]

Interesting premise, Thormodr, but the boardgame description isn't accurate, and seems to be used to defend Civ5 as having some form of underlying, targeted intellectual appeal.
Boardgames can be quite complex and require considerable micromanaging. I'm old, and played boardgames before PC's had enough oomph for strategy gaming, trying to place Civ5 in boardgame atmosphere is just attempting to give it a patina of respectability that doesn't hold up. There exist both board and pc games that stress remarkable attention to detail, and sound theories. Also, didn't Civ spring from a boardgame, or vise versa?

The real reason for the harsh division seems to be more banal: Some gamers appreciate strategy, detail, intellectual challenge, quality and finish in a product, other's seek a diversion that doesn't tax the intellect too much.

 

[tupisac]

Interesting premise, Thormodr, but the boardgame description isn't accurate, and seems to be used to defend Civ5 as having some form of underlying, targeted intellectual appeal.

Intelligent people tend to rationalize and this thinking is very therapeutic...

 

[Antmanbrooks]

I agree with everything the OP pointed out. I even created a thread saying CiV was just a glorified Settlers of Catan. This is what I meant.

 

[Thormodr]

Very interesting discussion so far. Civ Total War might be a better description of the product than a mere boardgame. It certainly is trending in that direction.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

Oh, sorry....I thought we were all o nthe same page.

Rush is a Canadian rock band whose heyday was in the 1970s. Their most famous album was called "2112". They were one of the first "prog" rock bands and have also been (perhaps jokingly) called, "Canada's Led Zeppelin".

Thx. Heard of them, but I'm an ageing punk. Just not in that demographic...

 

[brianshapiro]

You weren't reading the whole post. There's no trouble with annexing the cities if you're prepared to put the resources in to happiness, but the point is, it will delay your victory. This game has been balanced to be played optimally with 6-12 cities. You will get to victory faster if you concentrate on building 10 very good cities, instead of diverting resources to build up captured cities.

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