Are you sticking with civ4?

[wilebill]

Another around for a very long time. Heck, I still play Civ 3 now and again. What has been done here for the entire Civ series will take years to duplicate in Civ 5. In 5 years, Civ 4 will be more or less like Civ 3 is now, Civ 5 will be fully mature, and Civ 6 will be about to be born. Assuming that our own real life Civ doesn't melt down before then ...

 

[Dumanios]

Yeah, I'm sticking with 4, though I'll play 5.

 

[plasmacannon]

Yes.
I don't plan on buying Civ 5 at the moment.
If I do, it won't be for about 2 years.
I want to know for certain, that, expansions will be made to include some of the good things about Civ4. To create Civ4 with so many options, then to take them all away, doesn't interest me in buying it right now.
I'm not some groupy that buys every product blindly.
They need to impress me beyond graphics.
To alot of people around the world, times are tough, financially, and I can find better places to spend my $.
I don't want to be required to register anything I purchase.
That takes the freedom and fun out of things, and makes you a statistic. How many people purchased product A this week?
I can buy a Playstation3 or XBox game and it doesn't require me to register for a single player game, or multi-player game in my home.
The gaming industry's direction is not one I agree with.

Give me back the days of my Commodore64 with simple graphics and alittle programming effort, anyone could make a game that was entertaining enough and used 720 kb of Floppy space.
No staff was required to make some of those and they were fun.

 

[Turquoiside]

I have no current intention of buying CiV.

 

[Centurio]

I can't say I'll go V instantly, but I'm really tired of the fact that they never finished IV, too.

Current 3.19 BTS civ IV is about the quality of a late beta game (although that might be generous), but it's been over 5 years since release. That pisses me off badly, and it might be the wallet talking ultimately. V better show hard evidence that unlike IV, it's actually finished.

Civ IV features that were never finished:

- Vassal state mechanics
- Diplo resolution coding for AI (having it pick from available resolutions at RANDOM is NOT complete)
- Apostolic palace in general (they even admitted that this was not tested competently)
- Unit selection and unselection (you'd think something so basic wouldn't be a total fail after 5 years)
- Unit auto-movement at start of turn, disregarding orders or attempts to change them entirely
- Declaring war, by accident, without prompt
- Coding so that the game is NOT more resource-intensive than graphics whore shooters released years later
- AI strategy (why is it that only in BBAI does the AI try actively toward any victory condition other than culture, which was only added in BTS?).
- GUI. Not only does the GUI under-inform players, but it LIES OUTRIGHT. How is it that this community finds a LYING GUI acceptable in ANY context? Ignorance? Apathy? A golden perception of a beta game that's sold so much? I don't get it.
- Gameplay that is not consistent with stated game rules.
- Spawn balance
- Speed scaling, and diplo code like peace treaties.

That's not even getting into issues like civ balance and tweaks that make sense as post-release fixes. Glaring game interface issues are NOT something that should be in release versions of games. Neither are controls or an incomplete single player experience (that would never bet completed by the company). Having the game's interface lie to us outright on top of that is a major slap in the face and I am frankly amazed at this community's tolerance for a game that is top tier in concept but also carries flaws that are comparable to titles reviewed by the angry video game nerd as among the worst games ever made. It shouldn't be hard to select a unit in modern games, people.

Why not download a mod like Rise of Mankind and be happy?

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

Why not download a mod like Rise of Mankind and be happy?

Because, although Afforess has been doing a great job, many of the problems TMIT mention are in the .exe file itself, such as the unit grouping bugs. Those files, as we all know, aren't moddable.

 

[plasmacannon]

"GUI. Not only does the GUI under-inform players, but it LIES OUTRIGHT"
Lies?
Yep.
Like in the Civilopedia under "Dun" where it clearly states that All melee units gain the Guerilla 1 promotion. Then, when you play the Celts, expecting this, You find units like Warriors and Axemen, unable to gain Guerilla 1.

No wonder the Celts are at a disadvantage. They don't even get all they are suppose to. Which wouldn't be enough.
What a shame.

 

[Holycannoli]

Not only can my computer not run Civ 5, but I'm not liking what I'm reading about it. Seems they're purposely leaving things out for expansions (no espionage?) and others I have issues with (no tech trading? no gold/science/culture slider? no troop transports? NO COTTAGES/VILLAGES/TOWNS??).

I don't want to say for sure that it's dumbed down, but it's looking that way. If it's not being dumbed down to appeal to a wider demographic, then they're leaving things out for expansions which I never agree with when it comes to sequels of games that previously had those features.

 

[Psyringe]

I don't want to say for sure that it's dumbed down, but it's looking that way.

To be fair, comparing a finished, twice expanded, and possibly heavily modded game to one that's just about to see its first installment, is always going to put the latter at a disadvantage.

I can see where you're coming from, and some of the feature removals worry me too, but you can't expect the full-fledged Civ4 to be the base for Civ5. That would make the series unmanageable. Judging from the many players who are confused by Civ4's feature richness already, I'd say that Civ4 is already pretty much at the upper end of the complexity scale for games that are still sellable to a mass market. If you want even more complexity, you'll probably have to look at the indie game scene, which have a bit more leeway to cater to specific niches exclusively. (Dwarf Fortress is a nice example imho.)

 

[Yngvi]

Four reasons I'm staying with Civ IV:

1. I'm satisfied with Civ IV, despite some valid complaints about the game
2. I'm still stuck at Monarch level after two years (lots of room to grow)
3. While my computer has the minimum requirements, it doesn't have the recommended, which it probably needs to play at a decent speed, and I'm not going to get a new once just to play Civ V
4. I am so used to them, I think I would actually miss Stacks of Doom

 

[i_imperator]

I'll stick with civ IV for awhile, I will get ciV eventually but i want to wait until theres a couple of good fourm games such as mads RPC's and whenever TMIT decides to do a LP of CiV on youtube, and until the patches arrive of course. I might even wait until the first expansion, because i only got BTS last November for my B-day and i do want to get to immortal and even try for a win on deity some day (i'm currently playing on monarch and i am getting used to it), so civ 4 for now

 

[papakapp]

Well, I've already pre-purchased CIV 5 after the D2d deal this week and expect to tool around for it a bit. However, CIV 4 is such a great game that I expect to still be playing it for years. 5 will be different in many ways, so I just expect to treat them like 2 separate games. I don't see why CIV4 won't look good for many years to come, unlike III which is just hard to look at now.

D2D is horrible. They always mess something up where the game is not exactly the same version. I STRONGLY recommend saving your money for the retail version, or steam, if you really want to download it. I bought oblivion and civ 4 through D2D and I wound up buying the retail version of both of those games later because D2D messes with the code for copyright reasons but then not all mods work. Also, their customer service is non-existent.

 

[BammBamm]

Will I be sticking with Civ4?

Lemme put it this way: The very second after my pre-ordered Steam d/l of Sid Meier's Civilization V is complete, I'll likely bid Civ4 a fond farewell, and drop it, much like a spent Trojan[FONT=&quot]^® [/FONT]praetorian.

 

[Tk1]

I won't buy it before I can get the complete game in a manner that won't make me feel milked like a cow.

Complex games usually need months or years of tweaking anyway... so if they want to play silly marketing games I'll just wait until I can pick up a complete, mature, balanced and refined game from the bargain bin. Their loss.

I won't take the advantage of a bargain bin, I more prefer to have as you said, a complete game.

Like Civilization IV Complete I've recently purchased, I'm very happy with it, a clean vanilla version install, then just 1 patch and play.

Company of Heroes on the contrary requires too many patches to finalize, so I gave it up.

Actually i bought Civilization IV a couple of years back, when Warlord and Beyond the Sword wasn't announced. Now looking back, it's wise decision I made.

Besides, most games are designed for "future machines", so I guess I'll stick with Civ 4, besides I'm just beginning to play it seriously.

 

[Holycannoli]

To be fair, comparing a finished, twice expanded, and possibly heavily modded game to one that's just about to see its first installment, is always going to put the latter at a disadvantage.

I can see where you're coming from, and some of the feature removals worry me too, but you can't expect the full-fledged Civ4 to be the base for Civ5. That would make the series unmanageable. Judging from the many players who are confused by Civ4's feature richness already, I'd say that Civ4 is already pretty much at the upper end of the complexity scale for games that are still sellable to a mass market. If you want even more complexity, you'll probably have to look at the indie game scene, which have a bit more leeway to cater to specific niches exclusively. (Dwarf Fortress is a nice example imho.)

You said exactly what I'm worried about. Civ 5 is dumbed down to appeal to a larger market. People get confused by Civ 4's feature richness, but that's part of the game's charm.

I'm not very good at Civ 4. I struggle on Noble, partly because I came back to this game after finally buying BTS after over a year of not playing and partly because the complexity demands too much micromanaging I don't have the patience for.

That's also what I like about it.

Civ 4 should have been the base for Civ 5, like Civ 3 was the base for Civ 4. 5's new hex map seems great, the best idea for Civ I think I've ever heard. But they're removing too much. No unit stacks is really gonna screw with combat, bad. I'd much prefer a stack size limit to no stacks at all. No espionage will suck because it's a fun and useful feature in Civ 4 BTS (which might mean they're holding it back for an expansion, not removing it entirely). No cottages to grow into towns removes a useful feature that's also very aesthetically pleasing and something I found a real improvement over Civ 3, something that felt like it should have always been part of the series.

Then there's no tech trading and no gold/science/culture sliders. Those are the real game-breakers for me along with no more stacks. Even though Civ 4's AI kills me with it's tech trading, I cannot picture Civ without it. It's not Civ anymore, you know? It's just some game that's trying to be Civ.

Civ 5 looks like it's graphics over gameplay, to appeal to a larger market. Yes you can argue that the dumbing down is to enhance gameplay, but I can argue that Civ's specific style of complex gameplay is being sacrificed which is not enhancement whatsoever. BTS is gameplay enhancement with corporations, new techs and new modern units. Dumbing down isn't.

 

[lymond]

First, I've already mentioned I'll keep playing CIV4 while playing CIV5. The following isn't really about that. I've heard several concerns here about the combat and lack of unit stacking. Honestly, I was a bit concerned about it myself. However, after reading and watching some previews related to combat, I'm starting to really get excited about it. Basically, I think of the combat as going from a more vertical viewpoint (stacks) to a horizontal viewpoint (1UPT spread among many hexes). The hexes offer added complexity by offering more directions to move to or defend from. When you really think about it, this new combat system really offers a rather complex and innovative approach unlike anything in CIV before. The combat has gone from mindless muscle of huge stacks to having to really think about how you place all your units and then what you do with them. CIV combat in the past was not very tactical IMO, but I think the new system will require a lot of tactics.

 

[Tk1]

First, I've already mentioned I'll keep playing CIV4 while playing CIV5. The following isn't really about that. I've heard several concerns here about the combat and lack of unit stacking. Honestly, I was a bit concerned about it myself. However, after reading and watching some previews related to combat, I'm starting to really get excited about it. Basically, I think of the combat as going from a more vertical viewpoint (stacks) to a horizontal viewpoint (1UPT spread among many hexes). The hexes offer added complexity by offering more directions to move to or defend from. When you really think about it, this new combat system really offers a rather complex and innovative approach unlike anything in CIV before. The combat has gone from mindless muscle of huge stacks to having to really think about how you place all your units and then what you do with them. CIV combat in the past was not very tactical IMO, but I think the new system will require a lot of tactics.

I enjoy the process of learning how to play Civ4 and the process of developing a nation. A nation with many entities - Civic, Religion, City then Military. All along, I feel military is merely one part out of many of the game. If Civ5 evolves into a game for warmongers then it's definitely not that attractive to a turn-based strategy gamer like myself. That's only my personal preference though.

 

[Psyringe]

You said exactly what I'm worried about. Civ 5 is dumbed down to appeal to a larger market. People get confused by Civ 4's feature richness, but that's part of the game's charm.

That's not what I said. You're assuming that Civ5 will be less complex than Civ4 in order to appeal to a larger market. I'm not. I don't see any evidence for such a design directive and I don't think it would be smart to go that way either. My perception is that Firaxis is trying to repeat the success of Civ4 by producing a different game on the same complexity level. That would be a useful directive imho, because high complexity is one of the hallmarks of the franchise, but I'd expect a game with even more complexity than Civ4 to sell significantly less since it would confuse even players who still managed to understand and enjoy Civ4. When you say that Firaxis should take full-fledged Civ4 as a basis for Civ5, and then add additional complexity on top of it, then you're asking Firaxis to voluntarily reduce their market share and produce a forseeably less successful game. They aren't dumb enough to do that.

This means that you can expect vanilla Civ5 to be about as complex as vanilla Civ4, but of course less complex than twice-expanded Civ4 Complete. This can hardly be called "dumbing down" if the goal is to have the end product (fully expanded Civ5) as complex as fully expanded Civ4.

An additional problem is that Civ4 already is so complex that it's barely balanceable. Gameplay elements like vassals, corporations, or espionage, are fun to play, but Civ4 already has problems balancing them out and making the AI understand them. If Firaxis aims for Civ5 to be a well-rounded game, then it's better to remove these problematic elements for the time being.

Personally, I'd love to see Firaxis taking full-fledged Civ4 as a base and build on top of it, because I like Civ4 very much and I also think that additional complexity would not deter me. But I do realize that Firaxis is a business that can't be expected to reduce its viability just to cater to the taste of the minority which I'm part of.

 

[Holycannoli]

First, I've already mentioned I'll keep playing CIV4 while playing CIV5. The following isn't really about that. I've heard several concerns here about the combat and lack of unit stacking. Honestly, I was a bit concerned about it myself. However, after reading and watching some previews related to combat, I'm starting to really get excited about it. Basically, I think of the combat as going from a more vertical viewpoint (stacks) to a horizontal viewpoint (1UPT spread among many hexes). The hexes offer added complexity by offering more directions to move to or defend from. When you really think about it, this new combat system really offers a rather complex and innovative approach unlike anything in CIV before. The combat has gone from mindless muscle of huge stacks to having to really think about how you place all your units and then what you do with them. CIV combat in the past was not very tactical IMO, but I think the new system will require a lot of tactics.

What would you think if they instead limited stack sizes, say to 5 or 6, instead of preventing them altogether?

I'm not a fan of large stack sizes and always thought there should be a limit, including in cities, but I never thought that 1 unit per square or hex was a good idea. I see in my head civilizations defending their cities with units in practically every hex, totally screwing up an attacker's ability to invade. You have to kill that unit, move into the hex, kill the next, move into it, kill the next etc., and if you don't have units with high movement points it will take forever. If your units only have 1 movement per turn, you can potentially get nowhere at all.

Imagine trying to invade with axemen. You can't have all your axemen in the same hex so some have to be behind the front lines, and when the front lines defeat defenders 1 at a time taking over those hexes the defender on his turn can just as easily counterattack and take the hexes back, and the whole thing winds up taking forever. If the axemen had more than 1 movement point or a way to attack more than once per turn it wouldn't be so bad.

I have to find some videos or descriptions of combat, because it doesn't sound fun at all, it sounds tedious and like it will take too much time.

BTW, are stacks allowed in cities in Civ 5 or is everyone stuck with 1 defender?

 

[Psyringe]

If your units only have 1 movement per turn, you can potentially get nowhere at all.

The base movement rate of most units will be 2, presumably for the reasons you just mentioned.

Imagine trying to invade with axemen.

There are no axemen in Civ5, their role is taken over by spearmen. Doesn't really influence your argument, but I thought I'd point it out.

BTW, are stacks allowed in cities in Civ 5 or is everyone stuck with 1 defender?

Only one unit is allowed in the city, but the city itself has hitpoints and will be able to attack and defend. As far as I understood, the unit inside the city will not actually fight, instead it melds with the city and gives it a hitpoint bonus. (Not totally sure about the details here.)

No offense, but for someone who's speaking so decidedly against the changes, you don't actually seem to know them very well. Personally, I'm skeptical about many changes too, but I don't see any glaring conceptual mistakes as the ones you presume. We'll have to wait, play, and see.