Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by bennos76, Nov 16, 2011.
Works perfectly for me.
Civilization IV is a complete game. I have played it to death, and still love it. Yes, I also play Civ V some, but here is what I have found over the course of 10+ years....
I originally bought Civ II in the $10 bin at Best Buy. Looked interesting. Started playing it and fell head over heels. Then after learning the general mechanics of the game, I bought Civ III....
And I have never played a Civ II game since. I will hopefully someday play one, since it's a cool game too. But Civ III had it going on! Oh, and the warrior grunts after taking over a barbarian encampment! You know you loved it. Played it for 3-4 years, then I bought Civ IV....
And I have only played one Civ III game since (this summer, for nostalgia sake, and it's STILL a great game!). Upon purchasing Civ IV, I never went back to III. I have probably played 7000 hours minimum of Civ IV Vanilla. 38 days in the hospital, played it nonstop. Never got bored. VANILLA even. Then, in December 2010, I bought Civ V....
And after a month of playing, I purchased the expansion packs for Civ IV off of Steam (it was an offer I couldn't refuse -- even bought Civ III complete again for like the price of a quarter pounder) and started playing them....
Do I still play V? Yes, sometimes. When I need a mental break. When I don't want to "think" too much. This is when I play Civ V it seems.
But the bottom line is this. Upon playing a newer version of Civ, I have never gone back to the previous version, starting with Civ II....
Until now. Take it for what it's worth.
Someone asked about Civ4 and Win64: works like a charm. I run it on Win Pro x64, perfectly. You can run big mods like RoM AND without MAFs too.
In a complete game, ALL of the listed control options actually work.
Tactical AI is so bad in civ V and it doesn't have the benefit of SoD, so the real draw would be MP...except that has its own issues (such as only working after a year and questionable balance).
+1 for Civ-4 on Win-7 64 bit. I have 16G memory and run ROM-AND-C2C with gigantic maps and no MAFs. For me, the ultimate gaming experience.
But when I get tired of the micrcomanagement of Civ-4 (That's spelled 'M-I-C-R-O-M-A-N-A-G-E-M-E-N-T') , I play Civ-5. Nothing wrong with playing both! Just think of them as different games.
To be honest, Civ 4 was a bit bland for my taste prior to the release of BTS. I am hopeful that they release a sizable upgrade for CiV in the form of a sweeping DLC or an official expansion.
IMHO, I think that an expansion would be nice (available as DLC on Steam or purchased in the store) and it should include all previous DLC to catch up Vanilla players with GOTY and DLC players and have single point to move forward with future DLC.
It's slightly off topic but...
I'd echo this as something players are hanging out for. I bought Civ5 close to release but then lost interest for a period as it wasn't what I was hoping for at the time. Now I've revisited it I'm enjoying it much more and I would like to try out the various DLC leaders.
However buying all of the DLC packs which feature leaders, ignoring the map packs, would be 28 USD. I could just about buy the complete edition of Civ4 for that price (30 USD). To make Civ5 more appealing and make it feel like more of a complete game to stop people going back to Civ4 I'd recommend they revise their distribution method for Civ5 content.
I'm playing Civilization IV a lot more lately, though I'm unsure whether it is because it's better or because it's different. In the end, I enjoy CivV for 1UPT and the hexes and there are several other small things I like about it. The mods for the game are starting to take shape and do new things
However, CivIV has the lead on mods. Not REALLY fair but that's how it is. The reason CivIV+BTS looks better is because it had years to be patched (and honestly, the game is still broken in a few areas).
I went back to CIV IV, after about 3 months of playing CIV V and getting annoyed by its many flaws.
I still think CIV V is a good game.. its just not as good as CIV IV!
I've been playing since Civ 1 and have never been able to look back at old versions. However, now for the first time I am considering it for the following reasons:
1) I play multiplayer LAN games heavily against the AI. (usually team based coop) However, the latest patch broke that as a player gets booted out after a few turns automatically.
2) There is absolutely no challenge to combat. Give me a Cannon and a rifleman and I can destroy an attacking army of 10 units with ease. Give me 3 cannons and 3 rifleman and I can easily take every city in the game. If I go up some skill levels then the cheating by the AI is so extreme that I just get mad everytime I play. Why should I play a game that makes me mad??? I used to have a challenging, enjoyable game on Prince in Civ 4. And yes, I know Civ 4 cheated on Prince but it was mild and for some reason didn't bother me like it does in Civ 5. I play on King.
I actualyl bash a lot obout civ 5 and how bad it is and nobody should buy it.
But to be honest I actualyl thinx civilization 5 has a better gameplay then civilization 4 especialy the combat and generally the empire management is way easier then it was in civ 4. When i first played civ 4 I only played one game and I quit because it took so much time and effort to learn this game. And I hadn''t the time I was studying accountancy.
I am a casual player and I only play a game a few hours and i dont want to spend hours only to learn the game
eventually after playing a few civ 4 games I knew how everything worked I enjoyed it... However that took a few weeks
YOu probably wondering why I kept playing the game even that i dont like spending hours of learning the game it was because of the concept "diplomacy"
I never played a game where there was actualy diplomacy involved you could have great allies and worst enemies amazing!!! It was like i was interacting with real leaders. This is the reason why i kept playing the game even i am not a big fan of turn based strategy games.
When civilization 5 came out I enjoyed it a lot the game was so easy to pick up even my brother start playing it it wasn't to hard to figure things out.. Huge improvement
However after a few games I got tired of the wierd AI and the diplomacy. I was used to play civ 4 where you actually can get allies and you're actions really ment something here it doesn't!!! I had friendly civs who went to hostile in a few turns and so on its seams so random to random!!!
After a few months my computer crashed so i have to renisntall civilization 5
However I didn't reinstalled the game because i became tired of it especialy the diplomacy the thing that made me play a civilization game
Yep I still have steam and the install buttom hmmm I wonder should i Click it maybe one day if firaxis release a patch that fix diplomacy
I read one review of Civ V that summed up its approach by describing it as having been designed by someone with an obvious love of European board games. I think there's a lot of truth to this - like a board game Civ 5 plays very smoothly, it's eliminated a lot of the randomness of past incarnations (especially in the 'lucky roll = Horseman beats Tank' combat system those games favoured), and it's focused very much more on strategy than on management or simulation. If anyone's ever played the Avalon Hill board game Civilization was originally based on (not the Fantasy Flight board game that was itself based on the computer game), it feels like that style of play. By the same token I think it loses a lot of what people feel made Civ a great computer game - the reasons four gaming generations forgave such obvious flaws as the combat system for 20 years. I hear a lot of people claim this game doesn't feel 'epic' in the same way - the board game doesn't either, but it's still a good game. As others have said, it's just a different game.
And yes, I think the bad AI is the number one thing that turns people against Civ V.
I suspect this too is a consequence of the 'board game' mentality. Combat should be deterministic rather than random: if the same unit combination works the same way every time, that's a sign the developers have got it right. Combat in these kinds of games is usually not the objective, but if it occurs at all is done to obtain a strategic advantage. It was rarely useful in board game Civ, and in games like Tigris & Euphrates its only function is to delay an enemy's play; in that game it's not actually possible to eliminate an opponent.
I actually prefer some "weighted" randomness but in truth I could live with either system. It doesn't bother me that a Spearmen could take out a Tank but I just hope it is very, very rare.
I think the real issue is just the dumb AI. If they would at least keep their units out of the range of my city, line them all up, then rush my city as a surprise to take it they would have more success. As it is, bringing in 1/2/3 units at a time to attack is ridiculous.
Having some regard to tech level would help as well - would a general really (as the Babylonians recently did against one of my cities) use a Bowman and a couple of Warriors to attack a city defended by Pikemen? You would at least expect them to compensate with a larger army than they'd need at a higher tech level, but the AI seems to just decide it needs X units to launch an attack regardless of those units' identity. Later in the same game Babylonian Pikemen were just sitting around instead of engaging my nearby cavalry. etc. etc.
Umm well it works just fine on my Windows 7 Professional N 64-bit system with 8GB RAM.
Runs nicely on Win7 Ultimate with 16GB of RAM. You can run Civ III or Civ II (Under emulation) if you want to. If you're really old school, you can run the original Civ (Or most other DOS games) under DOSBox.
I haven't gotten bored with CiV enough to install Civ4 yet, but it's good to know I can if the situation should arise, I doubt it will ever happen though. I don't get to play CiV often enough that I can simply wear it out (which is a great thing, I can milk 1 game for a LOT longer, saving me $$).
Yes. I am playing a game now and the AI keeps attacking my rifleman/cannon with archers/pikeman/swordsman. It is not that I am far ahead of the most advanced AI in terms of technology. This particular AI (Egypt) is just that far behind...
I'm not even sure Babylon was *that* far behind - certainly it was behind, but it's now got equivalent units to mine (more or less - still using trebuchet while I'm attacking with cannon, and they haven't got gunpowder infantry yet). It just doesn't upgrade what it has and won't preferentially attack with its more advanced units.
Also, I think something in the AI code prompts each AI Civ to produce its special units where possible, even if their tech has advanced well beyond that - so my Babylonian rivals will stubbornly use bowmen instead of crossbowmen, even if they've got Machinery, and in the past I've run across late-game Jaguar Warriors and Samurai long after those units should have been retired.
Separate names with a comma.