Civ IV or Civ V?

[Optical]

Still 4 for me. The devs have to do one thing to change that for me: the new XP has to be good. Removing the Steam requirement would be nice too, since I can't seem to get that to work.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Civ 4 BtS.

I also like Civ 2 MGE, mainly due to nostalgia.

Civ V's nuke explosion graphics suck, so I won't play it.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Am I the only one who finds the AIs in Civ V a little too trigger-happy compared to IV? Im just curious as to whether I screwed up somewhere.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I happened to have a lot of fun playing CivIV vanilla, even before the first patch came out.

Yeah, I shouldn't have said "crap", a little too brash on my part. What I was getting at was that vanilla, looking back, is nothing compared to the fully expanded version. And that the same thing will happen with Civ V.

Am I the only one who finds the AIs in Civ V a little too trigger-happy compared to IV? Im just curious as to whether I screwed up somewhere.

I liked it. Kept you on your toes, and gave you a good challenge.

 

[Antilogic]

Am I the only one who finds the AIs in Civ V a little too trigger-happy compared to IV? Im just curious as to whether I screwed up somewhere.

The Aggressive AI option makes the Civ4 AI pretty aggressive. Although more than half the time I am the instigator so I don't tend to notice one way or the other.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

The Aggressive AI option makes the Civ4 AI pretty aggressive. Although more than half the time I am the instigator so I don't tend to notice one way or the other.

I never eneble that anyways

 

[Antilogic]

I never eneble that anyways

That'd be why. Does Civ5 have that option? I don't remember.

 

[Camikaze]

Civ5 AI are generally more aggressive. They're actually playing to win.

*Moves topic away from diplomacy because it's the weakest part of the game*

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Civ5 AI are generally more aggressive. They're actually playing to win.

*Moves topic away from diplomacy because it's the weakest part of the game*

Wasn't it Sullla who described the AIs not as playing to win, but as mindlessly lashing out at anyone and everyone near them, forever?

 

[Tee Kay]

Hence why Cami said diplomacy is the game's weakest point.

 

[Camikaze]

They have opinions of you. If you settle too close to them, their opinion of you goes down. The also don't like it if they think you're trying to win the same way as them. And these negative opinions stick around throughout the entire game, so it's much easier to form enemies than friends. The other half of the diplomatic mechanics is approach, which is different to previous titles, and where AI actually comes into it. This is how the AI is actually playing to win (in theory). In previous titles, there was no diplomatic AI in the same sense, so there wouldn't be any sort of adaptation, even if you were closing in on a victory. Approach has to do with the AI's deceptiveness, and whether they'll try and backstab you (if they think it furthers their aim of winning, for example; a big problem here is that the combat AI isn't good, so what they think will further their aim of winning ends up in them losing their capital).

The problem is that these mechanics aren't very transparent at all, and few people understand what is actually going on ('few people' as in, a really really small amount of people; I don't fully understand how it works). Combined with opinions being weighted towards the negative end of the spectrum, this can give the impression of a schizophrenic and overly-aggressive opponent.

Indications from recent previews/interviews of the expansion are that diplomatic modifiers will lose their permanency, however, and I'd hope that other areas of diplomacy are improved, too.

It's important to note, though, that diplomacy was pretty weak in Civ4, too. Especially in how it intersected with religion. It's never been a particularly strong part of the series.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

They have opinions of you. If you settle too close to them, their opinion of you goes down. The also don't like it if they think you're trying to win the same way as them. And these negative opinions stick around throughout the entire game, so it's much easier to form enemies than friends. The other half of the diplomatic mechanics is approach, which is different to previous titles, and where AI actually comes into it. This is how the AI is actually playing to win (in theory). In previous titles, there was no diplomatic AI in the same sense, so there wouldn't be any sort of adaptation, even if you were closing in on a victory. Approach has to do with the AI's deceptiveness, and whether they'll try and backstab you (if they think it furthers their aim of winning, for example; a big problem here is that the combat AI isn't good, so what they think will further their aim of winning ends up in them losing their capital).

The problem is that these mechanics aren't very transparent at all, and few people understand what is actually going on ('few people' as in, a really really small amount of people; I don't fully understand how it works). Combined with opinions being weighted towards the negative end of the spectrum, this can give the impression of a schizophrenic and overly-aggressive opponent.

Indications from recent previews/interviews of the expansion are that diplomatic modifiers will lose their permanency, however, and I'd hope that other areas of diplomacy are improved, too.

It's important to note, though, that diplomacy was pretty weak in Civ4, too. Especially in how it intersected with religion. It's never been a particularly strong part of the series.

Wow. It's no wonder you earned a moderatorship.

 

[History_Buff]

Wasn't it Sullla who described the AIs not as playing to win, but as mindlessly lashing out at anyone and everyone near them, forever?

Generally yes. The fact that Civs that have no capability of winning anything from you repeatedly declare war on you, only to realize after 20 turns of no combat that they can't win and give you everything they have leads me to conclude the system is horribly broken.

Last game I played, I was on friendly terms with the Aztecs (it's Monty I know), who were on a different continent. Out of the blue they DoW me. Wait 10-20 turns, he comes begging for peace. I haven't done a damned thing, since conquering him would be more trouble that it's worth. He offers me everything he can give, I accept. The moment the truce expires he DoWs again. Repeat ad nauseum.


But really what turns me off of Civ5 is that once you play on large maps and longer time frame, it's impossible to run the game at a reasonable speed. I have a brand new (January), top of the line computer, and it still lags horribly, due to what I can only assume is graphics bloat.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I've never tried either of them. My computer can barely manage Civ III. My favorite is, and ever shall be, Civ II: Test of Time.

It's interesting, though, having to readjust my thinking to participate in a PBEM (play by email) game of Advanced Civilization (the board game that came out a long time before the computer game)...

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, I shouldn't have said "crap", a little too brash on my part. What I was getting at was that vanilla, looking back, is nothing compared to the fully expanded version. And that the same thing will happen with Civ V.

I hear that often, but don't really buy into this. Civ 4 vanilla was lacking in balance and AI, but Civ5's problems only begin there.

In my opinion the whole game's built on wrong premises without the repercussions fully thought through, and salvaging it from the consequences will take up so much focus that it can't improve wholesale. This is made worse that aspects which were cut because of time issues were advertised as "design decisions" and are now sheepishly brought back anyway.

I posit that Civ5 is the result of plain bad game design and that Jon Shafer is no Soren Johnson by a long shot.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Civ5 AI are generally more aggressive. They're actually playing to win.

*Moves topic away from diplomacy because it's the weakest part of the game*

The problem for me is that I like to play peacefully and win via cultural or diplomatic or something.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

The problem for me is that I like to play peacefully and win via cultural or diplomatic or something.

Walk softly and carry a really big stick.

 

[W|M]

Production and research don't seem to be balanced in Civ V, from what I've seen, and the fact that roads cost money is ridiculous.

 

[CommonKnowledge]

Civ V tried to reinvent the genre whereas IV built on prior incarnations. Perhaps after a lot of patching and DLC it might become playable but it doesn't really seem like it's worth the effort. 1upt was a nice idea but without a substantially smarter AI it only makes the game feel smaller; less like a civ game and more like a cheap RTS.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Curious to know how many of the 10% voting Civ V have actually played both games. Be surprised if it was a large percentage.