Civ V = Builder vs. Civ IV = Warrior

[dannythefool]

So what I take away from this poll mostly boils down to "builders have stronger opinions"

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Yes, so it was a major letdown understimating the empire building features.

So it is clear that who wants to play war with Civ, maybe needs to play another game more specific, like TOAW, if likes hex, or Total War, if likes a similar managing of empires with more attention to the wargame side...

 

[Jediron]

That;s fine. But i would have like to make WAR, atleast as good as in previous CIV's. They took that away from me

I do more fighting in Civ 5 because it more fun and I don't have to try to control a lot of units.

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.

That's exactly what i expected, from those who favoure the 1 upt rule.

You are right, it is a nightmare, handling all the units in older CIV's. However, in my mind that can be fixed. Like i am perfectly fine with handling hundreds of units in TW.
Insteaf of taking SOD away from us, they should have improved the SOD system, making handling all those units much easier. Army-grouping under a General (see TW) is one such solution.

 

[lschnarch]

I am a builder who likes to have a good war every now and then.
Both aspects are ... meh.

As far as warfare is concerned, you even get some satisfaction in slaughtering the enemy.
The building aspect is just a mess. You only build something if it is absolutely unavoidable.
Even most wonders are nothing you would want to go for.

 

[Civnerd]

I think designers try to introduce a degree of realism, albeit a very little bit of it. For most (lasting) empires in history Romans, Chinese, British, ottomans etc. building and conquering goes hand in hand. If you only build and not have a powerful military to protect what you have build, you are going to get screwd by others who has a powerful military. On the other hand, if your only focus is on conquest, like the mongols, or sparta, you ultimately will get out-teched and out-cultured. That is why both warmongers and builders fin civ5 backward because it is a bit more realistic and no longer allow them to just build or just war.

 

[Tylerryan79]

I voted it's a step forward for builders. The reasoning behind this is due in part to the lackluster AI. I only have to build a small, well rounded force, and then am able to build up cities to my hearts content. Building picks up towards the end of the BC's for me most of the time, and build times start becoming more and more shorter. Also around this time is when I fully embrace city states, who then allow me to focus on specialist, give me units I need, and allow me to focus less on farms, and more on gold and production.

 

[Jediron]

Civnerd - That is why both warmongers and builders fin civ5 backward because it is a bit more realistic and no longer allow them to just build or just war.

You could not be way off more on this.
I believe CIV 5 is LESS realistic then ever, and i think alot will agree on this with me.
We feel it's backwards; because they trown out alot of the good balanced stuff out and gave us a new very unbalanced gameplay back, on different levels.

 

[Civnerd]

You could not be way off more on this.
I believe CIV 5 is LESS realistic then ever, and i think alot will agree on this with me.
We feel it's backwards; because they trown out alot of the good balanced stuff out and gave us a new very unbalanced gameplay back, on different levels.

Just curious, not try to argue with you, but what do you think that is unbalanced and what are the most balanced in civ4 they should have kept?

 

[Samson]

Just curious, not try to argue with you, but what do you think that is unbalanced and what are the most balanced in civ4 they should have kept?

I know I am asking a question directed at someone else, but:

I think the maritime city states are the most unballanced bit of the game. On top of that, the randomness of the city state quests further unbalances it. The possible power of ruins seems pretty unballanced. The power of bombard units as well as units not usually dying in combat allows casulty free wars for the human which I think is unbalanced.

The major thing that was balancing that is lost is the gold cost of cities. Now as long as you build a collesium and connect it to your empire you can have as many size 4 cities as you want. Back to the infinate city spam of civ 3.

 

[Thormodr]

Warriors prefer ciV 33-20. No surprise there as Mr. Panzer General wanted ciV to be a war game.

Builders prefer cIV 102-35. No surprise there as Mr. Panzer General didn't consider empire building and immersion to be that important.

ciV is a warmongers dream and a builder's nightmare.

 

[ssh08]

That is why both warmongers and builders fin civ5 backward because it is a bit more realistic and no longer allow them to just build or just war.

i disagree, i had to fight wars in civ4, and i dont have to now. and even if i do have to fight, i just trash the AIs inferior strategy and go back to building

 

[Lord Parkin]

I'm both a builder and warmonger, but more of a builder at heart so I voted in that way. Basically, in the simplest form, I think these are the pros and cons of Civ5 for warmongers and builders.

Warmongers - (Pros) Hexes + Great new combat system, (Cons) Lack of balancing + Near-useless military AI
Builders - (Pros) Neat social policy concept, (Cons) Crappy buildings and wonders + Awful diplomatic AI

I think both warmongers and builders have reasons to like and dislike Civ5 in its present state, but I have hopes that the cons will be fixed in the future. It's interesting to see the immense skew in the poll though - apparently far more Civ players are builders than warmongers, which would make sense.

 

[dexters]

Civ 5 draws a clearer lines between builders and warmongers.

Warmongers have more to manage, admittedly the system needs to be fleshed out some more. But essentially, builders just need enough to repel invasion, and they have tools, like city states, to make them grow to immense power.

pre Civ5, builders were essentially war-monger lite. In fact, Diplomatic victory was often called domination lite, because the population weighting made it neccessary for you to secure enough votes from your own population, and take away votes from those who will vote against you, which means massive expansion. And all the OCC and variants therein require exploiting the AI, like using the same religion crutch, than actually playing a good diplomatic/defense game, which Civ5 allows you to play.

I can't imagine a line more distinct than a small builder empire with 20+ policies, 5 CS allies, always in a gold surplus, vs a large sprawling empire with -200 gpt.

 

[Lord Parkin]

pre Civ5, builders were essentially war-monger lite. In fact, Diplomatic victory was often called domination lite, because the population weighting made it neccessary for you to secure enough votes from your own population, and take away votes from those who will vote against you, which means massive expansion.

I keep hearing this over and over again, and it's just not true. They fixed this issue in Civ4 by disabling the ability to ask for a diplomatic vote if you have enough votes to win by yourself. Not the best solution, I'll admit, but it's not as if you could vote for yourself and win diplomatically with no help from anyone else. I don't know why this myth keeps getting repeated.

And all the OCC and variants therein require exploiting the AI, like using the same religion crutch, than actually playing a good diplomatic/defense game, which Civ5 allows you to play.

You're kidding, right? The diplomatic game in Civ5 is laughable. Bribe X City States = You Win. How's that any kind of strategy?

 

[dexters]

I keep hearing this over and over again, and it's just not true. They fixed this issue in Civ4 by disabling the ability to ask for a diplomatic vote if you have enough votes to win by yourself. Not the best solution, I'll admit, but it's not as if you could vote for yourself and win diplomatically with no help from anyone else. I don't know why this myth keeps getting repeated.

I remember my first full game on retail build of Civ4. I did exceedingly well and wanted to win by UN, then I found out I was a few votes short. but i had no military. I did the math, backwards and forward, only way was for me to invade someone to change the pop weighting. it was frustrating to say the least.

Vassal states was 'introduced' as part of warlords then became integrated in BTS , but either way, Warlords and BTS fixed it by further encouraging the diplo-lite victory. So yes, that aspect of UN vote hasn't changed, except in Civ5, there's a a legit way to win UN without massive invasions and military conquests.

You're kidding, right? The diplomatic game in Civ5 is laughable. Bribe X City States = You Win. How's that any kind of strategy?

Well unless you've followed all my threads, I've also suggested various tweaks to the UN victory, such as requiring more votes, or weighting votes more heavily towards longer term allies. But as it stands, no civ, outside of liberated ones will vote for you.

So if you're in the position to liberate a Civ, you've already won the domination lite version of the diplo victory. Getting 9 CS to sign off is not easy or cheap. 8 if you assume you've won the UN.

 

[Lord Parkin]

So yes, that aspect of UN vote hasn't changed, except in Civ5, there's a a legit way to win UN without massive invasions and military conquests.

The problem is, it's not really "diplomatic" at all any more. You don't have to curry favour by carefully performing actions to please certain civs over the course of a whole game. You just have to accumulate enough gold to buy out every city state at the last minute. That's not diplomacy in any sense, that's outright bribery.

Well unless you've followed all my threads, I've also suggested various tweaks to the UN victory, such as requiring more votes, or weighting votes more heavily towards longer term allies. But as it stands, no civ, outside of liberated ones will vote for you.

Yeah, and that should definitely be fixed. Hopefully it'll be one of the things fixed alongside the changes where the AI is made more cooperative and friendly.

So if you're in the position to liberate a Civ, you've already won the domination lite version of the diplo victory. Getting 9 CS to sign off is not easy or cheap. 8 if you assume you've won the UN.

Really? I haven't had too much difficulty getting enough gold to buy out most of the city states, even much earlier in the game. Of course, you have to keep a minimalist empire to be able to do so, which is another issue I have with Civ5.

 

[Mathochism]

Builder.

Believe it or not, I enjoy Civ V more than BTS.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Builder.

Believe it or not, I enjoy Civ V more than BTS.

Good for you. I wish I could say the same. Hopefully I will be able to once a few more patches and perhaps an expansion or two come out.

 

[UKScud]

Interesting poll and results

I would have guessed that the warrior results would be fairly equal, but would never have thought that builder are 2.5:1 haters of Civ5.

I wonder why the difference is so large?

 

[UKScud]

Good for you. I wish I could say the same. Hopefully I will be able to once a few more patches and perhaps an expansion or two come out.

I appreciate your point of view. I just not sure I can be that tolerent.

Civ4 became an excellent game built upon a satisfactory start and some good expansions.

Civ5.... Given the poor start I'm not sure I'm prepared to invest my trust [and money] into something that should really have been found satisfactory by pretty much all players at the start. This 50/50 split that seems to have developed [however valid the question behind the specific poll] between lovers and haters kind of says that isn't the case. Can anyone give me anything to trust in?