Civ V is a game about evolutionary growth

[EmpireOfCats]

After finally being allowed to play the full version -- don't do that again, Firaxis -- the difference between Civ V and Civ IV becomes rather obvious: Civ V is about evolutionary, organic growth, while Civ IV let you change things in leaps and bounds. In the new game, you build your buildings and choose your social policies, and the immediate effect is small, but down the line, it becomes frightfully important. It's sort of like gardening that way. Don't chit your potatoes and you'll be unhappy two months later.

Or, for a more fitting example, we're comparing the histories of the USA and Germany. Civ V is like America: You write a constitution in the late 18th century, and then you change a little here, amend stuff there, and 200 years later you end up with something very different. But it happens slowly. Civ IV was more like Germany: You start with a country in 1871 and -- wham! -- you go through a monarchy, two democracies, fascism, and communism in (relatively) quick succession.

Personally, I like this new form of growth. It does require a completely different kind of thinking and strategy, which is probably why a lot of people don't like it. Personally, I like it. But I also grow potatoes.

 

[Crezth]

Evolution is an elitist-corporate-Firaxis plot designed to keep us Civ 4 creationists in the gutter.

 

[HamTard]

This is a good way of putting it. Maybe that's why I like this game more, I like gradual change.

 

[Fookison]

Well said! This certainly is a game that requires you to pre-plan your long term goals. I like it!!!

 

[RD-BH]

Yep, good description.
Not a game I'm interested in playing.

 

[mattavich]

I love Civ5, best civ game yet and i've played them all.

 

[InterAl]

Yeah, getting that 50% build time for settlers bonus from a social policy is a very "slow and evolutional growth" decision. Also all those crazy +5 happiness bonuses from every damn luxury resource are very small and evolutionary changes. What about those huge amount of food, units and other gifts you get from city states? Sure, very evolutional and slow.

The only evolutional thing here might be the AI. It might go through some sort of evolution in the forthcoming patches/expansions. Its evolutionary state right now is somewhere underneath the ocean.

 

[Auncien]

Excellent way of looking at it. I too like the evolutionary aspect of development in V. It gives your civ a personality and rewards planning.

 

[TLF]

I thought that you weren't allowed to change your social policies.
How is that evolutionary if you can't change to adapt.

I knew you evolutionists didn't even understand the theory you espouse.

 

[Aristos]

Personally, I like this new form of growth. It does require a completely different kind of thinking and strategy, which is probably why a lot of people don't like it. Personally, I like it. But I also grow potatoes.

soooo... civ5 is for farmers?

I thought Sid said he wanted a game that "even granmas could play"... was he referring to farmer grannies?

 

[NovaDream]

Civ V, with its hidden modifiers, slower deliberate pacing, and the fact that borders arent pressed against eachother 100 turns into the game (slight exaggeration), reminds me a lot of Civ II. And because of those things, and some others, Civ II was probably my favorite.
Now if I can figure out how to keep my economy from crashing mid Renaissance, Ill be golden lol.

 

[Crezth]

I thought that you weren't allowed to change your social policies.
How is that evolutionary if you can't change to adapt.

I knew you evolutionists didn't even understand the theory you espouse.

Hahaha! You are so clever! Well, we all know that change is so gradual that the final product bears only cursory resemblance to its predecessor, in the same way we resemble bacteria because even though we have added eyes and other complex organs, we also both still breathe and require water!

 

[Slecht]

But I also grow potatoes.

What do they become when you harvest them? Ah you don't know, you just like suprises?

 

[gunter]

You start with a country in 1871 and -- wham! -- you go through a monarchy, two democracies, fascism, and communism in (relatively) quick succession.

Germany has been communist ?


I missed that, ouch !

Can you please teach me a bit of story ?

Thx

 

[Slecht]

Germany has been communist ?


I missed that, ouch !

Can you please teach me a bit of story ?

Thx

I think he meant the east part (East Germany) / berlin walls

 

[dannythefool]

Germany has been communist ?


I missed that, ouch !

Can you please teach me a bit of story ?

Thx

I get what you're driving at, but parts of 1871 Germany *have* actually been part of communist nations So let's just add socialism to the list.

 

[gunter]

I think he meant the east part (East Germany) / berlin walls

Ok now I focus that .....


Weird to notice how walls in history always played a crucial role, just few examples the Berlin one, The Great Wall and nowdays the Israelian one too.

 

[Yfelsung]

Yeah, getting that 50% build time for settlers bonus from a social policy is a very "slow and evolutional growth" decision. Also all those crazy +5 happiness bonuses from every damn luxury resource are very small and evolutionary changes. What about those huge amount of food, units and other gifts you get from city states? Sure, very evolutional and slow.

The only evolutional thing here might be the AI. It might go through some sort of evolution in the forthcoming patches/expansions. Its evolutionary state right now is somewhere underneath the ocean.

50% build time on Settlers isn't a big deal in a game where it appears that four cities is probably your best road to victory, having the best culture production to culture inflation ratio.

Those luxery resources are not that common even on abundant settings. I played a game last night where I only had access to two well into AD.

Keeping city states in the green requires a lot of work and isn't some instant gratification. You need a continual influx of gold to keep them happy and producing for you.

This game is quite slow and organic compared to previous civs, it's also A LOT deeper than people realize.

 

[timtofly]

Civ V, with its hidden modifiers, slower deliberate pacing, and the fact that borders arent pressed against eachother 100 turns into the game (slight exaggeration), reminds me a lot of Civ II. And because of those things, and some others, Civ II was probably my favorite.
Now if I can figure out how to keep my economy from crashing mid Renaissance, Ill be golden lol.

When they get a Sci-fi version of V, then it might be better than TOT.

 

[RD-BH]

I appreciate the positive nature of additive choices in building a civilization. [planning]
Out on the borders of that mathematical model, you still need dynamic choices. [reaction]
Civ V is static, ... and static is boring. [dead]
I want FUN 8)
... [planning, strategy, tactics, action, reaction ... LIFE!]