I've been playing Civ since Civ1 and have played all versions since then. And although each version had issues when first released, the "foundation" that was laid always led to it becoming IMHO the best version of Civ up to that time once that version was fully polished with the latest bug fixes, all expansion packs released and a large library of fully developed mods. This is because IMHO each succeeding version added significant features that enhanced the game tremendously while changing or eliminating features that proved weak.
But with so much criticism of Civ5, I wonder if this trend will continue or if Civ5's foundation is so "weak" that no amount of modding or plausible expansion packs can rectify it!
(Note that this discussion is only about single-player games so no talking about MP in this thread please, thanks.)
Now I realize that there are already tons of threads criticizing Civ5 but this one is different. Here I am NOT talking about Civ5 as it stands now with all its bugs and "loopholes" and such. There are many threads on this and many of these issues can and will be addressed in future patches, expansion packs and mods. What I am talking about is when once Civ5 is "finalized" and fully polished in a couple of years with the latest bug fixes, tweaks, plausible expansion packs, a large library of developed mods if Civ5 can AT THAT POINT become the best Civ ever based on its fundamental core design?
Well I have my doubts.
First I'm going to run through all the previous Civ versions and explain why I felt that each successive version laid the foundation for the best Civ up to that point:
Civ2:
The tech tree was expanded, lots more units were added. But the main change here was adding of HP and firepower to units. The AI was also improved so that it actually had to go through the same process of development as the human. (Civ1 for instance, had AIs gifted with wonders for example). No breakthrough concepts were introduced so Civ2 was basically a much enhanced version of Civ1 but it was clearly better in every way.
Civ3:
Rather than simply an enhanced version of Civ2, Civ3 had major new changes that added tremendous depth and complexity to the game and all were for the better! Breakthrough concepts are the addition of the mechanism of culture and the concept of strategic and luxury resources. Also the concept of "happiness" was added. Diplomacy was enhanced greatly with MPP, trades, etc. War underwent significant changes too such as a mission model for aircraft, armies, bombardment, conscription and making military units supported nationally by gold (no more stupid "home city" support via excess shields!) These were huge additions that clearly made this version the best at the time!
So far so good!. I believe with VERY few dissenters, clearly Civ3 >> Civ2 > Civ1!
Okay now we get to Civ4:
The major new concept is religion. The vanilla implementation was flawed but this was a major new mechanic that when done right via mods was a major enhancement IHMO in adding depth and a feeling of historical immersion into the game. Diplomacy was enhanced to be more transparent so that it felt more sensible rather than being opaque and random. One major change also was the concept of maintenance cost per city rather than per building which was a huge improvement in finally eliminating the cheesy Infinite City Spam strategy once and for all. Combat was enhanced with the concept of promotions. Government types is also expanded to be 2-dimensional in the form of Civics rather than the 1-dimension all encompassing government types of Civ1-3. Also added was Great People concept. Health was added as a new concept. And expansion packs added great stuff like colonies, vassalage and corporations!
Unlike Civ2->Civ3, Civ4 was mostly more of a major enhancement to Civ3 than an almost completely new game. But the enhancements were very significant and IMHO made Civ4 clearly better than Civ3. When I first got Civ4, it was full of bugs and bad AI, but I knew that EVENTUALLY once Civ4 was fully polished, it would clearly be the best Civ yet due to its strong foundation! And I feel that for the majority: Civ4 > Civ3 >> Civ2 > Civ1!
Okay now we get to Civ5:
Civ 5 represents a major break from Civ3/4. Some changes I think are definitely for the better. Hexes >> Square Tiles. One tile at a time expansion > Fat cross expansion. Joint research >> tech trading/brokering. Quantified strategic resources >> one unit of resource representing infinite quantity for one's own needs. City-states although flawed also has potential to be a great addition once fully polished.
As for 1UPT, ranged combat and embarkment, I have mixed feelings on this. Fully polished it may be all for the better but it is still deeply flawed and I don't know if the flaws can be fully rectified.
But Civ5 also has many major changes that are clearly a step backwards. Diplomacy has now reverted more or less to the Civ3 opaque model. Happiness is now streamlined to be empire-wide. To me, this is a major regression because while Civ4 models the fact that different parts of your empire has different levels of happiness which is more "realistic" and has more depth, Civ5 dumbs it down to be empire wide. There is now no more slider to model the decision of how to budget between science, happiness and culture. Also the social policy system IMHO is a regression to the old Civ1-Civ3 type of all simple encompassing government. Rather than being 2-dimensional, it is now once again linear and one-dimensional but just of greater length!
I hope I'm wrong but it just isn't clear that EVEN ONCE POLISHED, Civ5 > Civ4. The changes that are indisputably improvements aren't major breakthrough concepts that significantly enhance the game. 1UPT is the major change but it isn't clear that it is a clear improvement because it is fundamentally flawed when implemented for a strategic level game.
And the changes that IMHO are regressions in the game take away the empire-building aspect of the game that most enjoy into a glorified Panzer General. Civ5 now, to me, feels more like Civilization: Panzel General than a true Civ5 which is clear better than all others. It feels more like a dumbed down game that less immersive and has less depth than Civ4. Unless Civ5 expansion packs add much significantly new concepts and enhancements, I have doubts that Civ5 > Civ4! The only way Civ 5 > Civ 4 is if the expansion packs change Civ 5 so much that that it is in essence creating Civ6!
So for everyone, especially critics of Civ5 AS IT STANDS NOW, do you feel that in a few years time, Civ5 has the "foundation" to become the best Civ of all time? Does the core changes of Civ5 enable the best potential Civ5 mods to be better than the best Civ4 mods? Or do you feel that Civ5 is too fundamentally flawed and represents a step backwards that is simply can't be rectified without almost wholesale changes?
But with so much criticism of Civ5, I wonder if this trend will continue or if Civ5's foundation is so "weak" that no amount of modding or plausible expansion packs can rectify it!
(Note that this discussion is only about single-player games so no talking about MP in this thread please, thanks.)
Now I realize that there are already tons of threads criticizing Civ5 but this one is different. Here I am NOT talking about Civ5 as it stands now with all its bugs and "loopholes" and such. There are many threads on this and many of these issues can and will be addressed in future patches, expansion packs and mods. What I am talking about is when once Civ5 is "finalized" and fully polished in a couple of years with the latest bug fixes, tweaks, plausible expansion packs, a large library of developed mods if Civ5 can AT THAT POINT become the best Civ ever based on its fundamental core design?
Well I have my doubts.
First I'm going to run through all the previous Civ versions and explain why I felt that each successive version laid the foundation for the best Civ up to that point:
Civ2:
The tech tree was expanded, lots more units were added. But the main change here was adding of HP and firepower to units. The AI was also improved so that it actually had to go through the same process of development as the human. (Civ1 for instance, had AIs gifted with wonders for example). No breakthrough concepts were introduced so Civ2 was basically a much enhanced version of Civ1 but it was clearly better in every way.
Civ3:
Rather than simply an enhanced version of Civ2, Civ3 had major new changes that added tremendous depth and complexity to the game and all were for the better! Breakthrough concepts are the addition of the mechanism of culture and the concept of strategic and luxury resources. Also the concept of "happiness" was added. Diplomacy was enhanced greatly with MPP, trades, etc. War underwent significant changes too such as a mission model for aircraft, armies, bombardment, conscription and making military units supported nationally by gold (no more stupid "home city" support via excess shields!) These were huge additions that clearly made this version the best at the time!
So far so good!. I believe with VERY few dissenters, clearly Civ3 >> Civ2 > Civ1!
Okay now we get to Civ4:
The major new concept is religion. The vanilla implementation was flawed but this was a major new mechanic that when done right via mods was a major enhancement IHMO in adding depth and a feeling of historical immersion into the game. Diplomacy was enhanced to be more transparent so that it felt more sensible rather than being opaque and random. One major change also was the concept of maintenance cost per city rather than per building which was a huge improvement in finally eliminating the cheesy Infinite City Spam strategy once and for all. Combat was enhanced with the concept of promotions. Government types is also expanded to be 2-dimensional in the form of Civics rather than the 1-dimension all encompassing government types of Civ1-3. Also added was Great People concept. Health was added as a new concept. And expansion packs added great stuff like colonies, vassalage and corporations!
Unlike Civ2->Civ3, Civ4 was mostly more of a major enhancement to Civ3 than an almost completely new game. But the enhancements were very significant and IMHO made Civ4 clearly better than Civ3. When I first got Civ4, it was full of bugs and bad AI, but I knew that EVENTUALLY once Civ4 was fully polished, it would clearly be the best Civ yet due to its strong foundation! And I feel that for the majority: Civ4 > Civ3 >> Civ2 > Civ1!
Okay now we get to Civ5:
Civ 5 represents a major break from Civ3/4. Some changes I think are definitely for the better. Hexes >> Square Tiles. One tile at a time expansion > Fat cross expansion. Joint research >> tech trading/brokering. Quantified strategic resources >> one unit of resource representing infinite quantity for one's own needs. City-states although flawed also has potential to be a great addition once fully polished.
As for 1UPT, ranged combat and embarkment, I have mixed feelings on this. Fully polished it may be all for the better but it is still deeply flawed and I don't know if the flaws can be fully rectified.
But Civ5 also has many major changes that are clearly a step backwards. Diplomacy has now reverted more or less to the Civ3 opaque model. Happiness is now streamlined to be empire-wide. To me, this is a major regression because while Civ4 models the fact that different parts of your empire has different levels of happiness which is more "realistic" and has more depth, Civ5 dumbs it down to be empire wide. There is now no more slider to model the decision of how to budget between science, happiness and culture. Also the social policy system IMHO is a regression to the old Civ1-Civ3 type of all simple encompassing government. Rather than being 2-dimensional, it is now once again linear and one-dimensional but just of greater length!
I hope I'm wrong but it just isn't clear that EVEN ONCE POLISHED, Civ5 > Civ4. The changes that are indisputably improvements aren't major breakthrough concepts that significantly enhance the game. 1UPT is the major change but it isn't clear that it is a clear improvement because it is fundamentally flawed when implemented for a strategic level game.
And the changes that IMHO are regressions in the game take away the empire-building aspect of the game that most enjoy into a glorified Panzer General. Civ5 now, to me, feels more like Civilization: Panzel General than a true Civ5 which is clear better than all others. It feels more like a dumbed down game that less immersive and has less depth than Civ4. Unless Civ5 expansion packs add much significantly new concepts and enhancements, I have doubts that Civ5 > Civ4! The only way Civ 5 > Civ 4 is if the expansion packs change Civ 5 so much that that it is in essence creating Civ6!
So for everyone, especially critics of Civ5 AS IT STANDS NOW, do you feel that in a few years time, Civ5 has the "foundation" to become the best Civ of all time? Does the core changes of Civ5 enable the best potential Civ5 mods to be better than the best Civ4 mods? Or do you feel that Civ5 is too fundamentally flawed and represents a step backwards that is simply can't be rectified without almost wholesale changes?
