I know some might disagree but I like the game's overall choice of simplifying details in order to make big decisions matter more. Not that I don't like civ4BTS style civ though. I'm just glad civ 5 tried to be a different game than civ4.5 (unlike FO3:NV which I'm not too impressed by).
Are there any aspects in which you think CiV surpasses CIV?
- Thread starter SGRaaize
- Start date
Combat system, 1UPT.
Leaderheads, although Civ4 leaderheads were pretty good and used a lot less resources.
Minimum pop-ups with alerts appearing on the side.
That's about all. I like road maintenance in theory but not in practice simply because spaghetti roads looked bad and it's a good deterrent, but there has to be a better way. Railroad trade routes should give an additional economic boost.
Leaderheads, although Civ4 leaderheads were pretty good and used a lot less resources.
Minimum pop-ups with alerts appearing on the side.
That's about all. I like road maintenance in theory but not in practice simply because spaghetti roads looked bad and it's a good deterrent, but there has to be a better way. Railroad trade routes should give an additional economic boost.
These are some of the things I find better with CiV than CIV
-hex tiles
-1UPT
-global happiness
-no sliders
-cities having combat value
-wonders being less powerful discourages cheese
-new great generals makes more sense
-less important tile differences makes starting locations more balanced
-better cultural border expansion
-terrain actually making a difference in combat (it matters in CIV too, but far from in the same way. A river can really turn a battle completely around in CiV)
-limited number of roads
One of the things I like the most about CiV is that combat is a bit more like Starcraft combat. If I have a slight combat advantage I can harass the enemy while in CIV you wanted your wars to be as short as possible and not attack before you had a big military advantage. If you tried to harass in CIV, the war weariness would often be much larger penalty than what you would get out of it.
While I enjoyed CIV a lot and played it countless of hours, I thought it was a far from perfect game with many flaws, which might be one of the reasons why I like to many of the changes.
-hex tiles
-1UPT
-global happiness
-no sliders
-cities having combat value
-wonders being less powerful discourages cheese
-new great generals makes more sense
-less important tile differences makes starting locations more balanced
-better cultural border expansion
-terrain actually making a difference in combat (it matters in CIV too, but far from in the same way. A river can really turn a battle completely around in CiV)
-limited number of roads
One of the things I like the most about CiV is that combat is a bit more like Starcraft combat. If I have a slight combat advantage I can harass the enemy while in CIV you wanted your wars to be as short as possible and not attack before you had a big military advantage. If you tried to harass in CIV, the war weariness would often be much larger penalty than what you would get out of it.
While I enjoyed CIV a lot and played it countless of hours, I thought it was a far from perfect game with many flaws, which might be one of the reasons why I like to many of the changes.
LegioCorvus
Prince
What I like:
Hexagonal tiles.
Steam implementation.
No tech trading.
What I like in theory, but needs work:
Accumulating culture for policies.
City self-defense.
1 unit per tile. (AI needs fixing on this one).
No more sliders. (Resources need balancing).
Animated leaders. (Need more variance. Very annoying if you're a polyglot).
I could probably think of more, but this is already turning into a list of "what I enjoy, but..." into complaints. In theory, Civ5 is an awesome game. In implementation? Needs a lot of work. I'm still holding onto hope, though Odin only knows why...
Hexagonal tiles.
Steam implementation.
No tech trading.
What I like in theory, but needs work:
Accumulating culture for policies.
City self-defense.
1 unit per tile. (AI needs fixing on this one).
No more sliders. (Resources need balancing).
Animated leaders. (Need more variance. Very annoying if you're a polyglot).
I could probably think of more, but this is already turning into a list of "what I enjoy, but..." into complaints. In theory, Civ5 is an awesome game. In implementation? Needs a lot of work. I'm still holding onto hope, though Odin only knows why...
slightlymarxist
Comrade
With the CAVEAT that balance, bugs and AI needs further fixing and tweaking, I like Civ5 a lot:
* Science is no longer based on Commerce.
* Border growth.
* Science/Commerce/Culture/Espionage slider is gone, which was an oversimplified mess imo.
* Social Policies. I can no longer switch in and out of governments as needed, I have to plan ahead, giving my civ a sense of direction and character.
* Stack of Doom is removed in favor of tactical combat, 1 unit per tile/hexes.
* Limited Strategical Resources.
* City States. Do I invade or do I befriend? Do I carry out their requests?
* Global Happiness/Golden Ages/Culture system, allowing small empires to win.
* Unique Leader abilities.
* Modest tile yield. No more OP starting locations.
I'm sure there's more, but those are off the top of my head.
There are several things that need to get fixed/balanced, especially with the AI/diplomacy (as always
) but I do enjoy Civ5 quite a bit!
* Science is no longer based on Commerce.
* Border growth.
* Science/Commerce/Culture/Espionage slider is gone, which was an oversimplified mess imo.
* Social Policies. I can no longer switch in and out of governments as needed, I have to plan ahead, giving my civ a sense of direction and character.
* Stack of Doom is removed in favor of tactical combat, 1 unit per tile/hexes.
* Limited Strategical Resources.
* City States. Do I invade or do I befriend? Do I carry out their requests?
* Global Happiness/Golden Ages/Culture system, allowing small empires to win.
* Unique Leader abilities.
* Modest tile yield. No more OP starting locations.
I'm sure there's more, but those are off the top of my head.
There are several things that need to get fixed/balanced, especially with the AI/diplomacy (as always
) but I do enjoy Civ5 quite a bit!slightlymarxist
Comrade
Although I think Civ V has a poorer basic concept than Civ IV, I agree with many of the improvements mentioned above -- and I would add the easy, convenient, comprehensive system for checking out and loading mods. Since these the vanilla versions of these games is usually pretty uninteresting, the mods are essential and it is very nice to have so easy a way to try them out.
I think, in general, that CiV has better ideas but they are much more poorly implemented. I'm sold on 1UPT, social policies, hexes, art deco, ranged attacks, road maintenance and units using up strategic resources. Some areas, however, need much more work, such as the AI (of course), tile yields, balancing the Civ traits (go Ottomans!), the effectiveness of ICS and the whole city state system.
alanthreonus
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Messages
- 68
I like the hexes and 1upt a lot in theory, but the AI sucks so bad I can't really call them an improvement over CIV, at least not yet. I also like the idea of global culture and culture being useful even if you're not pursuing a cultural victory, but I don't think Social Policies were implemented well. City States were another good idea, but as everyone knows, they're horribly unbalanced.
The only thing I think is a really big improvement from CIV is the way alerts show up as icons on the side of the screen. There's a similar option in CIV, but it's not as refined as in CiV.
The only thing I think is a really big improvement from CIV is the way alerts show up as icons on the side of the screen. There's a similar option in CIV, but it's not as refined as in CiV.
It's an improvement over CivIV in alot of ways. Game is still unfinished at the moment, unfortunately, but I've every confidence that once the game is patched to standard it'll be considered an upgrade than it's predecessor.
Granted, that might take a while.
Granted, that might take a while.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Note the title of the thread... it says surpasses and not will surpass, present , not future
Note the title of the thread... it says surpasses and not will surpass, present , not future
Eh, most of them have already been mentioned, and I did say that "It's an improvement over CivIV in alot of ways."
r_rolo1
King of myself
Sorry then. But you could had been more specific on what of civ V now is better than the civ IV counterparts. I think most of us agree that a lot of the ideas of civ V are good, but a lot of us do not agree that some ( or all ) of those ideas were implemented in a way that surpasses Civ IV similar stuff 
1upt > Stacks
Hexes > Tiles
Social Policies >>> Civics
Global Happiness > City Happiness
No Tech Trading > Tech Trading
Scarcer Resources > Many Resources
Civ5 Music >>>>>> Civ4 Music
But they need to improve each of these, not to mention fix/change many of the things that are not better like Combat AI, Diplomacy, Tech Tree, City-States, Wonders, Overpowered Units, etc.
Hexes > Tiles
Social Policies >>> Civics
Global Happiness > City Happiness
No Tech Trading > Tech Trading
Scarcer Resources > Many Resources
Civ5 Music >>>>>> Civ4 Music
But they need to improve each of these, not to mention fix/change many of the things that are not better like Combat AI, Diplomacy, Tech Tree, City-States, Wonders, Overpowered Units, etc.
marioflag
History Addict
Things which are better than in Civ4
-better economic model
-1UPT
-hexagonal tiles
-music
-integration between different features in game
-civilizations more distinctive
-graphic except trading posts and rivers
-no tech trading
-natural wonders
-greater historical immersion
-better economic model
-1UPT
-hexagonal tiles
-music
-integration between different features in game
-civilizations more distinctive
-graphic except trading posts and rivers
-no tech trading
-natural wonders
-greater historical immersion
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Hexes, creeping border expansion, proper ranged combat functionality and the modbrowser concept are definetly improvements - sadly then just about everything else is a step in the wrong direction (for a true civ game).
Basicly I like the City States idea also, but without any proper way to modify/control their behaviors and benefits in any meaningful way then they currently add as many negative aspects as they add postive ones.
I was expecting to like Social Policies also, since the idea that it takes time to introduce and develop more sofisticated facets of various ideologies into a culture is a good one, but in practice it doesn't make sense the way it is currently implemented - and it ends up being inferior to the Civics system.
Basicly I like the City States idea also, but without any proper way to modify/control their behaviors and benefits in any meaningful way then they currently add as many negative aspects as they add postive ones.
I was expecting to like Social Policies also, since the idea that it takes time to introduce and develop more sofisticated facets of various ideologies into a culture is a good one, but in practice it doesn't make sense the way it is currently implemented - and it ends up being inferior to the Civics system.
