Civ 5 vs 4 - Found a good quote [=

[Morpheas]

This was someone's response to a steam forum thread about Civ 5 vs civ 4.

Civ 4 was... complicated, to say the least and anything beyond prince difficulty required levels of micromanagement the average gamer could only dream of, rendering gameplay a lesson in mathematics. Combat pretty much boiled down to the stack o'doom.
Now that's not to say I didn't love Civ 4. It was awesome.

But Civ 5 is slightly more my style. Yes ok, partly because it's easier, but for all the best reasons. With no religions you're no longer automatically the target of hatred, indeed it's finally possible to play peacefully and manage not to get goomba stomped into the ground by Alexander the moment he shows up. The stack of Doom is gone as only one unit can occupy a tile, making warfare a little more strategic. No more stacks of a hundred catapults to soften up a city. And most difficulties cities can generally micromanage themselves pretty well, although the purists would obviously be able to do it better. And resources are more strategic, having a source of iron no longer equals 3000 swordsmen, making acquiring these resources far more important. Having a swordsman when your enemy does not is now game changing.

Personally, I don't think the game has been dumbed down so much as retargetted at those gamers who don't have a PHD in statistical mathematics. I know some hardcore civ 4 players that would find it way too easy even on deity and hate it, but people i know who found civ 4 way too difficult on settler find civ 5 far more rewarding.

To answer which is better, I guess it comes down to how much do you want from it? If you want the challenge of tweaking every little thing always one step away from economic collapse or all out world war then civ 4 is your man. If you want something a little easier to slip into that still feels like Civ then 5 is what you want.

 

[JaGarLo]

I agree with that guy.

What I like from Civ5 is that is not as complicated as Civ4. I know most people here would disagree, but oh well.

It is not anymore ''work this title in this turn so I can get 12 production to build a Swordsman and start a library with 3 production carried'', or something like that

In addition, I didn't like religion in Civ4. Although the idea is good, since religions played a huge role in History, I hated that it was always 50% or more for Buddism, for example. Christianity and Islamism were always about 5%. I also didn't like that you get to discover those religions with technologies.

Then we got the combat system... Didn't like it at all. It's just like this get 50 units in the same square and start attacking, with suicide siege weapons and combat based on odds. Even if Civ5's tactical AI needs work, combat is far more enjoyable.

Don't get me wrong, Civ4 is a good game, I won't disagree with that. But from my point of view, Civ5 is better.

(Ok, now I'd better run from this forum before another ''Civ war'' starts. Merry Christmas! )

 

[MkLh]

There is plenty of things wrong in that quote (you really don't need any kind of super micromanagement to beat Prince+) but the biggest misconception is this:

"With no religions you're no longer automatically the target of hatred, indeed it's finally possible to play peacefully and manage not to get goomba stomped into the ground by Alexander the moment he shows up"

If something is more difficult in V than it was in IV, it's trying to keep peace.

 

[PhilBowles]

I agree with that guy.

What I like from Civ5 is that is not as complicated as Civ4. I know most people here would disagree, but oh well.

It is not anymore ''work this title in this turn so I can get 12 production to build a Swordsman and start a library with 3 production carried'', or something like that

In addition, I didn't like religion in Civ4. Although the idea is good, since religions played a huge role in History, I hated that it was always 50% or more for Buddism, for example. Christianity and Islamism were always about 5%. I also didn't like that you get to discover those religions with technologies.

Then we got the combat system... Didn't like it at all. It's just like this get 50 units in the same square and start attacking, with suicide siege weapons and combat based on odds. Even if Civ5's tactical AI needs work, combat is far more enjoyable.

Don't get me wrong, Civ4 is a good game, I won't disagree with that. But from my point of view, Civ5 is better.

(Ok, now I'd better run from this forum before another ''Civ war'' starts. Merry Christmas! )

To an extent I'd agree with both this and the original post. As I've said at considerably greater length on other threads, management and strategy are not the same thing, moreover simplicity doesn't equate with 'dumbing down' and complexity isn't inherently intellectually demanding. There's a reason you don't need a PhD to be an accountant. Religion was a good idea, but didn't work well mostly because of the 'unique religions' mechanic - only one Civ could get each of five religions as its home religion.

A better, and more succinct, quote I've seen around here is that Civ V took out the micromanagement aspect of Civ IV and failed to replace it with anything. That's a little simplistic - macromanagement in Civ V is superior in some ways. But not really in enough, I suspect.

Civ has always been a rather odd design as a global game on the largest historical timescales that has always been about micromanagement and with limited macromanagement. I think that in principle Civ V took the game in the right direction in streamlining the micro aspect, but what it offers in place macrowise isn't really that much - happiness behaves much the same way maintenance did, but is less strategically involved to manage, while social policies offer greater control over overall strategy and game direction than civics (and don't rely on tech advances to unlock every single option), but at the same time are strategically limiting in their inflexibility (you can't switch from one to another as your playstyle changes over a game). And there aren't really any additional macro features the game offers, save for managing relations with city states.

If something is more difficult in V than it was in IV, it's trying to keep peace.

EDIT: Strongly agreed with this as well. What is simpler in Civ V is making peace with someone after a war, since in Civ IV they'll hate you forever more while in Civ V normalising relations with a past enemy is a real option. But that just means in Civ IV you know who your enemies are, while in Civ V the next attack could come from anywhere...

 

[MantaRevan]

I'm all for what this guy said.

 

[apocalypse105]

religions you're no longer automatically the target of hatred, indeed it's finally possible to play peacefully

You've got to be joking right peacepull playing at civ 5 ?

 

[seasnake]

Peaceful is a real option in Civ V, actually. You just need to not agress. You'll have to defend but fighting a defensive war and suing for peace without retaliation generally allows you to maintain good relations. Even taking a city or so will not work too badly if you are not the initial agressor.

But if you get into a war and wax the the computer and become this huge country, don't be suprised that everyone else hates your guts and doesn't want to be your buddy. Fortunately Tall Empires play just as well as wide empires in most situations so there's no pressing need to conquer your enemies. I've had some satisfying games with 3 cities the whole time, and others with almost 30. Just depends on your strategy.

The only civ that really needs non-peaceful play to be effective is probably mongolia, as their horse bonus and city bonus urge you to do things that will get you in trouble with the AI (pillage and pick on little city states). Everyone else is probably okay.

 

[MantaRevan]

People misunderstand the way that the game works in terms of peacefulness. If you are a jerk and kill everyone on earth, expect people to take a dim view of you. This isn't cIV where you commit practically any atrocity and the computer wouldn't mind as long as it wasn't one of *their* allies.

 

[Aristos]

a brilliant quote... especially the part where it says that "combat has become more strategic". I was so mistaken in thinking that combat became more tactical perhaps, but strategic...? Oh well...

 

[UWHabs]

I agree with the basics. As someone who liked some of the micro of the past, i miss that. But then sometimes when playing Civ 4 I felt like I was back in school with the complications, and trying to do mental math in my head ("Well I could do this deal, but does that put me too far ahead in WTYATFA calculations with my other friend? Can I refuse this and stay Friendly, or do I have to give in to prevent them from attacking me?")

They both have their fun, that why in the last month or so, I've played a bit of each, after basically not playing either for 5-6 months. Depends a lot on my mood at the time.

 

[Tabarnak]

a brilliant quote... especially the part where it says that "combat has become more strategic". I was so mistaken in thinking that combat became more tactical perhaps, but strategic...? Oh well...

In multiplayer it is more strategic, but since the AI sucks so bad at warfare in singleplayer mode it doesn't bring much more strategy.

I always think that an hybrid form of civ 4 and civ5 is the superior for a better overall game. Mixing both pros and get away cons from both games and you will get a masterpiece game of civ. Can't wait for civ6 !

 

[Sullla]

With no religions you're no longer automatically the target of hatred

wat

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: We don't allow OPs that contain no discussion value (simply posting a quote doesn't quite cut it; discussion requires questions to be posed to help shape the direction of the thread). If the OP would like to try again, you can either use the report feature to submit an improved post, or PM me once you've been here for 5 days with an improved post.