HiroProtagonist
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 86
Lets see if I can get it right this time. Posting a pole doesn't seem to be my best strength. I'll drop my attempts at humor and get right to the pole.
Civ V = Builder vs. Civ IV = Warrior
- Thread starter HiroProtagonist
- Start date
*Poll, sorry.
As a building game it's definitely stepped back in my opinion. There are very few wonders I feel like wasting production time on building, and everything in general (without mods) seems to take ages to build. My emphasis is more on the lackluster wonders, though.
As a war game I think it's taken a step forward. 1UPT is nice (most of the time) and the ranged bombardment is a plus, making warfare more tactically based in approach than the SoD could have ever hoped to be.
As a building game it's definitely stepped back in my opinion. There are very few wonders I feel like wasting production time on building, and everything in general (without mods) seems to take ages to build. My emphasis is more on the lackluster wonders, though.
As a war game I think it's taken a step forward. 1UPT is nice (most of the time) and the ranged bombardment is a plus, making warfare more tactically based in approach than the SoD could have ever hoped to be.
Niedermayer
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2010
- Messages
- 20
To me the warring is a huge improvement. There's much less micromanaging in cities so going to war is made easier to handle. That said, I do hope they update the ugly trading posts graphics to something like the cottages in Civ IV. At least these superficial changes should be easier to change.
falconne
meep
You need two different polls here, one for builder and one for warrior.
Out of like a hundred games of Civ IV, only a handful would probably have been conquest-style ones. And I only remember finishing a couple of those.
In Civ V though, the whole building thing is so incredibly boring and the warfare so much better to manage, I play every game as a warmonger.
In Civ V though, the whole building thing is so incredibly boring and the warfare so much better to manage, I play every game as a warmonger.
Shafi-is-back
Prince
i'm a warmonger. but that does not mean i want to be constantly at war. war is too easy in civ V and even if you dont want to go to war the dumb AI DoW's on you and you then give them an ass whooping.
dont like it. back in civ IV you have to take a risk to rush a neighbour or you bide your time till you have an advantage to DoW someone. Now its all to easy. build some units and go to war whenever you want.
In Civ IV when i find Monty or Shaka next to me i'm always vary, now no matter who my neighbours i'm smiling
dont like it. back in civ IV you have to take a risk to rush a neighbour or you bide your time till you have an advantage to DoW someone. Now its all to easy. build some units and go to war whenever you want.
In Civ IV when i find Monty or Shaka next to me i'm always vary, now no matter who my neighbours i'm smiling
That's exactly what i think. Alot of people disliked the amount of units they had to control. Well, aldo i like to deal with big armies, that's was a weak part of the older CIVs. The user-friendlyness of dealing with multiple units. In TW for example, you have to deal with lots of units too, but it much more fun; because it's much more easier to control and direct them. Fireaxis should have gone that way, instead of this extreme 1 upt system. There is plenty of room to enhance the SOD type of playing. For example; i never understanded, why they did not extend the Armies capabilities. Instead of improving those units, you were left with a very restricted unit, only to add unit, only 3 a 4 units.
A missed oppurtunity.
Good poll.
I'm a builder and ciV is definitely a step backwards.
I'm a builder and ciV is definitely a step backwards.
51 to 26 so far in favour of people who think ciV is a step backwards.
Especially for the builders.
Especially for the builders.
I played both warmongering and buildmongering, depends on the game. Unfortunately I don't find either to be very captivating in V.
Warmongers may be among those who will be disappointed the most easily, because the combat AI stinks to high heaven, so the luster of 1UPT and hexes wears off very quickly because the computer can't even manage the most crude tactics, let alone mount a challenging military offensive.
Builders may also be disappointed because building is fairly hollow as well. And even if you enjoy the "buildering" part, you're likely to get dragged into war whether you like it or not. There's this strange conundrum where the AI cannot fight its way out of a paper bag, but it will not stop trying to start war regardless.
Warmongers may be among those who will be disappointed the most easily, because the combat AI stinks to high heaven, so the luster of 1UPT and hexes wears off very quickly because the computer can't even manage the most crude tactics, let alone mount a challenging military offensive.
Builders may also be disappointed because building is fairly hollow as well. And even if you enjoy the "buildering" part, you're likely to get dragged into war whether you like it or not. There's this strange conundrum where the AI cannot fight its way out of a paper bag, but it will not stop trying to start war regardless.
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
Civ 4 - warmongering builder
Civ 5 is a side-ways step.
Civ 5 is a side-ways step.
As a builder pacifist, I'd be hard-pressed to say it's anything other than a step backwards. The buildings and wonders are all generally uninteresting, weak, and take forever to build.
As a war game, I'm sure it has probably moved forward. I prefer to play as a pacifist though, so that doesn't appeal to me any.
As a war game, I'm sure it has probably moved forward. I prefer to play as a pacifist though, so that doesn't appeal to me any.
cr0ws
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 571
Disagreed...Ive played many-o-game in Civ 4 on defensive strategy rather than conquering, I must admit though it gets rather temping to send your armies on those annoying neighbors which keep asking you to declare war on their enemies and begging for handouts every few turns.
Civ V is a step backwards, period. The new combat system is awesome, but the AI doesn't know how to use it, so that doesn't count as a step forward.
Civilization 5 is defined by its economy in my opinion. You can't have a strong army without a strong economy in this game at all. With that said, the overall set of building bonuses are in my opinion very low. It is almost an art to build an empire with a formidable army and a balanced economy. Most of the time warmongering is to much trouble than its worth, though it is fun lol. I think for sure that the strategic development of the game can not go unnoticed. 1upt has made the game a bit more complicated when it comes to war, which is what the game needed in my opinion. No more SOD!!!! 
Agree 100%. Builders and Warmongers should both be extremely disappointed.
BTW, I want to again thank you for all your hard work in assembling all the ciV information. I may have sniped at you once or twice and for that I apologize. It's the shame that the developers didn't have as fine a sense of detail as you did.
