Civ 5 Vs. Civ 4 BTS+ RoM:AnD - a final conclusion

[lietkynes]

It doesn't. When planning its moves, the AI has no idea that there is an xUPT limit, and therefore cannot assign units to stacks smartly. Last time I checked, using the option was not recommended because of this.

I see. Then the OP should not advertise this feature..

Loading times vary hugely depending on the machine it's run on, I've seen all kinds of reports. Afforess had put a focus on making the game run quicker for a while during development, and there were many improvements compared to older versions of RoM, but if you have a slow machine, optimization can only do so much.

My machine is good, I play large maps in Civ5 and, even in the late game, turns are very fast. Yet when I tried RoM few months ago the waiting time between turns was unbearable and, even if I loved the mod, I uninstalled it because it was not playable for me. Maybe I will give it another try.

 

[Jharii]

Why are your expectations so low? Civ5 is a new game in a SERIES or CHAIN of games. Why throw out all the learning of previous incarnations? Success builds on success.

They are not low. I fully expect Civ5 to exceed Civ4 in just about every way. Just not vanilla Civ5.

 

[Psyringe]

I see. Then the OP should not advertise this feature.

It would have been better to note that the AI doesn't really understand it, yes.

My machine is good, I play large maps in Civ5 and, even in the late game, turns are very fast. Yet when I tried RoM few months ago the waiting time between turns was unbearable and, even if I loved the mod, I uninstalled it because it was not playable for me. Maybe I will give it another try.

Try AND instead of RoM. Afforress really did a lot of optimization, which - as far as i recall - didn't find its way into RoM. For the latest version of AND, you don't even need to have RoM installed (though AND still builds on top of RoM, it just includes all RoM files in its installer now).

 

[lschnarch]

Wait. A fully patched, expansion packed, and mod conversioned Civ4 is better than Civ5 vanilla?

Revolutionary!
<snip>
Great, I am glad you love Civ4+RoM. Sorry you don't love Civ5 as much. Glad you gave up on it so quickly. Enjoy.

You know, we even have to go to BtS mods and modmods to find severe flaws in Civ5, have we?

What about the missing information in diplomacy? Something like having an overview about international relationships?
Does it *really* take 5 years and a whole mod community to implement such a thing into a game?

What about easy things like renaming your units or cities? Is it really so hard to allow renaming units whenever I want? Why do I have to find the tiny word "edit" instead of clicking into the name field?
Does it *really* take 5 years and a whole mod community to implement such a thing into a game?

What about trying to find a certain unit on the map? You can't do it from the military advisor (F3), but you can do it from this drop down thing (however you will call it) on the upper left edge. Yet, you don't do it by *one* click, and you don't do it by a *double-click*. You do it by one click + one click.
And that is what you call "accessibility"?

What about the high-praised (well, up to release, after that they remained quite silent about it) so-called "4 lvl AI" which is so well developed that it sends workers and settlers in front of your attacking army?

What about the same high-praised AI being almost unable to create mounted units, which are the strongest early units?

What about a Civilopedia which is plainly wrong in some cases, because it doesn't retrieve values from the xml files?

And the list could go on and on and on.

Whenever you deviate a bit from the way of playing which the developers had in mind, you detect that there are bugs and flaws and misconcepted design decisions.

And then you wonder why people feel that the game doesn't meet the advertisements, that it is poor in comparison to the game before?

 

[Jharii]

You know, we even have to go to BtS mods and modmods to find severe flaws in Civ5, have we?

What about the missing information in diplomacy? Something like having an overview about international relationships?
Does it *really* take 5 years and a whole mod community to implement such a thing into a game?

What about easy things like renaming your units or cities? Is it really so hard to allow renaming units whenever I want? Why do I have to find the tiny word "edit" instead of clicking into the name field?
Does it *really* take 5 years and a whole mod community to implement such a thing into a game?

What about trying to find a certain unit on the map? You can't do it from the military advisor (F3), but you can do it from this drop down thing (however you will call it) on the upper left edge. Yet, you don't do it by *one* click, and you don't do it by a *double-click*. You do it by one click + one click.
And that is what you call "accessibility"?

What about the high-praised (well, up to release, after that they remained quite silent about it) so-called "4 lvl AI" which is so well developed that it sends workers and settlers in front of your attacking army?

What about the same high-praised AI being almost unable to create mounted units, which are the strongest early units?

What about a Civilopedia which is plainly wrong in some cases, because it doesn't retrieve values from the xml files?

And the list could go on and on and on.

Whenever you deviate a bit from the way of playing which the developers had in mind, you detect that there are bugs and flaws and misconcepted design decisions.

And then you wonder why people feel that the game doesn't meet the advertisements, that it is poor in comparison to the game before?

Great. All wonderful suggestions and things to address. What good is it going to do discussing it all here ad nauseum when all it results in is flaming back and forth from both sides of the Civ5 fence?

Did you make these suggestions and address these points on the 2k forums? In the modding section of these forums?

 

[Toady]

This exact same thread, in all its various incarnations, litter this forum. Civ4 vs. Civ5 topics never lead to anything productive, only Civ4 vs. Civ5 flame wars. It's old.

The only reason they never lead anywhere productive is because certain people, who all seem to be Civ V enthusiasts, dismiss the critisisms based on the comparison between Civ 4 and Civ 5 with no real argument.

How on earth do you judge the evolution of anything if you don't compare it to it's previous versions, incarnations, manifestations etc?

Do car manufacturers reinvent the wheel, or internal combustion engine with every new model they make?

 

[lschnarch]

Did you make these suggestions and address these points on the 2k forums? In the modding section of these forums?

We have been assured by the most reliable source ever, 2k_(insert name here) that the boards are under close surveillance of him/her/them/their dog AND the developers.

So, there is no need to go over there.

But honestly, I would if I could stand their layout. This white on black makes my eyes hurt within a minute. I just can't stand it at all.

 

[lietkynes]

Try AND instead of RoM. Afforress really did a lot of optimization, which - as far as i recall - didn't find its way into RoM. For the latest version of AND, you don't even need to have RoM installed (though AND still builds on top of RoM, it just includes all RoM files in its installer now).

I will try it for sure, I really loved that mod and I was a bit sad when I put it away. Thanks a lot for your answers.

On another topic: I wonder how people are not tired of the Civ4 vs Civ5 argument
I plan to try AND and I also plan to keep playing Civ5.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Are there people who like Civ4, but dislike RoM? Where are they? Surely there are people who dislike the "more" philosophy of its design?

I'm not sure. To start, it's a massive download which is already a barrier to some people, though admittedly this is not a big deal to most.

Anyway, I am downloading AND (not the best abbreviation IMO) and will try it out again. I think I've tried it before and was rather overwhelmed by what was laid before me. I realise some people love throwing themselves into great complexity, but even if that complexity is really fun, there still needs to be a way to ease people into it. This is why professional quality games have tutorials. Not everyone wants to learn everything the slow way by figuring it out trial and error, or reading it in documentation.

I have a feeling that Afforess and I have a silent little battle going, because the two mods of ours (AND, PIG) pretty much have designs at opposite ends of the spectrum, and we both allude to this in our descriptions of our mods. Of course, his is a much more comprehensive, detailed and well-done mod that has had much more development skill poured into it, and a much larger fanbase probably for those reasons. Mine is a simpler (could I say 'streamlined'? ) mod that focuses more on unaltered rules or content mods (e.g. Better AI and BUG - those two mods are pretty much what PIG is, thanks to Fuyu) and otherwise only tweaks the gameplay to try and make it more balanced based on the experience and detailed opinions of all the players who are very familiar by now with the standard BtS 3.19 game.

Grr.. Looks like the mod has stalled 20MB from finishing. Looks like I might have to download the 850MB again, unless cfc allows resuming downloads.
BTW: PIG is less than 10MB

 

[poncratias]

Great. All wonderful suggestions and things to address.

This are NO suggestions and things to adress, this stuff lschnarch mentioned should be standart features!


ok, you don't get it, maybe you need cars to understand it better:


It is as if Wrangler's newest Jeep comes out without Backseats, Airbags, a roof, mirrors, is half the size of the old one, and only has got automatic gear, no manual.

Wrangler Enthusiasts call it "streamlined".

 

[Geddy]

I am constantly amazed at the arguement put on this board that says that Civ 4 Vanilla should be compared to Civ 5 as a fair comparison and that a fully patched and expanded Civ 4 is not a fair comparison to Civ 5.

Bunkum!

Civ is a series and each game in the series has taken the previous, added to it, changed a few things (no more than 20% arrording to Sid) developed it and made it more playable. Civ 5 is not a new game, it is the next in the series and has to be see compared to Civ 4 BTS.

In their arrogance ( and juvenility) the designers of Civ 5 thought they could scrap most of the game, start again and do better than those that came before them for the last 20 years. All they needed to do, for example, was to modernise the graphics, go to hexes, fiddle with religion and espionage, develop the tech tree a bit more and perhaps make a few changes to combat and that would have been it.

Instead they made a huge mess of their dumbed down concept. As they say in the classics, you can't polish a turd. No ammount of modding and patching will help this game. Well done guys, you screwed up the un-screwupable.

 

[Jharii]

We have been assured by the most reliable source ever, 2k_(insert name here) that the boards are under close surveillance of him/her/them/their dog AND the developers

I was not aware that 2k monitored this forum in its entirety. I thought it was predominantly the sticky at the top which keeps a concise list.

This are NO suggestions and things to adress, this stuff lschnarch mentioned should be standart features!

What "should" or "should not" be standard features is not up to us. We can offer suggestions.

The only reason they never lead anywhere productive is because certain people, who all seem to be Civ V enthusiasts, dismiss the critisisms based on the comparison between Civ 4 and Civ 5 with no real argument.

You haven't been paying much attention then. There are "enthusiasts" on both sides of the coin who are equally offensive. These threads deteriorate quickly.

_____

It's all good. I'll take a deep breath. I'm just more patient and fully expect Civ5 to surpass Civ4 when it's all said and done. Sorry if I jumped the gun on this thread, but I just grow wearisome of these Civ4 vs. Civ5 threads. They devolve fast. And maybe I didn't help that along in this case.

But I don't need to see a tl/dr recap of a Civ4 conversion to know the differences. Everyone gets it. The game is different. Let's start addressing how to improve Civ5 instead of beating on it incessantly.

 

[SuperJay]

Ignoring all the repetitive sound and fury signifying nothing...

...I have a confession. I've never played Civ4 with any significant mods like RoM or FFH. (I know, grab the torches and let the lynching begin!)

I'm thinking now would be a good time to do so. Where should I start?

EDIT: Nevermind, I'll ask elsewhere. This isn't the appropriate forum and this thread is just gonna degenerate into another flamewar anyway. Carry on!

 

[lschnarch]

I'm thinking now would be a good time to do so. Where should I start?

Completely impossible to answer that question without knowing your personal preferences.
I have never played FFH, since I am not that much interested in fantasy games. But RoM/AND offered to many new options (techs, units, features..) that this has kept me busy the past 2 years.

It really depends on what you're looking for.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Ignoring all the repetitive sound and fury signifying nothing...

...I have a confession. I've never played Civ4 with any significant mods like RoM or FFH. (I know, grab the torches and let the lynching begin!)

I'm thinking now would be a good time to do so. Where should I start?

EDIT: Nevermind, I'll ask elsewhere. This isn't the appropriate forum and this thread is just gonna degenerate into another flamewar anyway. Carry on!

If you want a fairly simple and balanced mod, try PIG. To put it briefly, it's mainly about interface, AI, and various tweaks. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

 

[Windsor]

Are there people who like Civ4, but dislike RoM? Where are they? Surely there are people who dislike the "more" philosophy of its design?

I'm here and while I dislike Civ5 I'm very glad they didn't choose the RoM-philosophy. In RoM just seeing that huge and dense tech tree is enough to kill my interest in the mod.

Main features of RoM(from official RoM feature list):

"288 Techs in tech tree
* 300+ Units total
* 199 Buildings
* 107 New Random events
* 84 Wonders
* 53 National wonders
* 54 Civic options
* 52 Improvements for terrain/resources
* 33 Unit categories, modern units are superior to ancient units
* 34 New resources"

That's the 10 things highest on their list. It's easy to see the focus of this mod. More of everything. It doesn't appeal to me at all. More techs isn't a selling point by itself and RoM offers just that, more.

 

[Toady]

You haven't been paying much attention then. There are "enthusiasts" on both sides of the coin who are equally offensive. These threads deteriorate quickly.

Who said anything about being offensive?

I certainly don't find someone that states opinions devoid of proper arguments offensive, it just means that he is a poor debater and therefore he provides no usefull or productive feedback.

But I don't need to see a tl/dr recap of a Civ4 conversion to know the differences. Everyone gets it. The game is different. Let's start addressing how to improve Civ5 instead of beating on it incessantly.

Well this forum isn't solely about you though is it? Civ5, being a more streamlined version of Civilization, has attracted newcomers to the scene which might benefit from the knowledge of Rom:AND and other successful mods.

As for the Civ 4 - Civ 5 debate, it's not about complaining that it's "different". It's complaining about core mechanics - concepts - features of the game that don't work (at least not as intended), either on their own, either in correlation with each other. Civ 4 core mechanics - concepts - features are used in comparison to illustrate this.

 

[SuperJay]

Er, I guess we'll stay here after all?

Completely impossible to answer that question without knowing your personal preferences.
I have never played FFH, since I am not that much interested in fantasy games. But RoM/AND offered to many new options (techs, units, features..) that this has kept me busy the past 2 years.

It really depends on what you're looking for.

New content, really. I played "stock" Civ4 off and on for years, as recently as this summer. So at this point I'm more interested in seeing what all the excitement is about as far as things like RoM, AND, and FFH go. But I'm not sure how / if they're related and what, if anything, I should install or play first.

If you want a fairly simple and balanced mod, try PIG. To put it briefly, it's mainly about interface, AI, and various tweaks. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Sounds good, maybe I'll try that too. Thanks.

 

[Danei]

Yet, you don't do it by *one* click, and you don't do it by a *double-click*. You do it by one click + one click.
And that is what you call "accessibility"?

That almost looks like a parody of the Civ V detractors. I mean, yeah, there are tons of big problems with the game, but the fact that you have to click twice instead of once to find units is an incredibly minor gripe.

 

[lschnarch]

That almost looks like a parody of the Civ V detractors. I mean, yeah, there are tons of big problems with the game, but the fact that you have to click twice instead of once to find units is an incredibly minor gripe.

Just for you, I will explain it in more detail:
Selecting items in windows-based programs typically is done via severel ways, which have become "common" ways.
a) one click
b) double click

Firaxis in all their wisdom have chosen to make use of an un-common way of doing so. For whatever reason.
Like it is with the "edit" functionality. A tiny word serving as button, while since years the customer is used to click just into the naming field.

Things like this mean re-inventing the wheel, and unfortunately, it turns out not to be a wheel, but an octagon.

This tells quite some story about the design philosophy. Obviously they thought to be more clever than generations of developers before. Turns out, they just aren't.