Antmanbrooks
Prince
There, I've said it. Not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing yet.
Civ V = Settlers of Catan Deluxe.
- Thread starter Antmanbrooks
- Start date
ZimbuTheMonkey
King
Why don't you also say why you think so?
There's no relationship. Among many fundamental differences:
* No such thing as victory points.
* No randomness in which resources you get.
* Many more tiles.
* Armies.
The only substantial relationships are that they are games about territory that occur on hex maps. But even then, in settlers you play on the edges and in civ you play in the hexes. Settlers is conceptually more of a triangularly tessellated board.
* No such thing as victory points.
* No randomness in which resources you get.
* Many more tiles.
* Armies.
The only substantial relationships are that they are games about territory that occur on hex maps. But even then, in settlers you play on the edges and in civ you play in the hexes. Settlers is conceptually more of a triangularly tessellated board.
Lord Tirian
Erratic Poster
Not seeing it - the only similarity is pretty much: has hexagonal terrain tiles. Where you place roads/cities at the corners to boot. And SoC is inherently focussed on rather peaceful expansion, you don't trounce around to conquer empires.
Cheers, LT.
Antmanbrooks
Prince
Ok there are a few reason's it made me think of a kind of super-sized, slightly more complex version of Catan.
The hex tiles are the big obvious thing, but the trade of luxury resources (Pearl for Incense, Gold for Wine, etc.) with AI leaders is a similarity because it's repetative. For a whole game I basically traded the same things with the same 3 Civs every 30 turns, simply because no-one else had anything to trade (standard sized, archipelago map).
Building roads is far less important and as long as my cities link up, that's all that matters. Who cares if my miners have to lug ore across open country for 100 miles back to my city? Why would I want to build a road to another Empire to share and trade resources when I only need to open a trade window? Why would I want to build a road to my hill fort to stock units against the enemy, when one unit sat there is all I can possibly have sat there anyway?
CiV just feels very basic and rigid to me, like Catan. It's simplified things. If you open the strategic view it's practically a massive Catan map. The graphical look adds to this similarity in my opinion.
In previous versions of Civ I felt like I had a lot more direct control of my Empire and how it developed and grew. In CiV I feel like I can pretty much just go on auto pilot, occaisionally re-opening a trade agreement or restocking my limited army and connecting my newest city. I don't have to be involved anymore. What I build in my cities is almost irrelevant and I don't feel like I need to build anything desperately like I have in previous games. I haven't once needed a City Wall as a maximum priority or any of the later defensive buildings. I don't need harbour's because the bonus is next to useless unless I have an island city. I haven't felt the need to build an Arsenal, Military Base, Hydro Plant, Medial Lab, Hospital, Solar Plant, Stadium and rarely even a basic Colosseum.
I'm still playing it though and I haven't picked up another game after 4 days but I'm not sure how long this one will keep me interested. The achievements have been the one thing that I've been actually thinking about whilst playing. I need the achievements and if you think about that, it's pretty sad. The thing keeping me wanting to play is not CiV but the achievments.
I think the one overwhelming similarity though is once I played the first game, I don't think I've discovered anything different, exciting, unexpected or new in any of the subsequent games and that isn't Civ, that's a standard board game with rules and no surprises.
The hex tiles are the big obvious thing, but the trade of luxury resources (Pearl for Incense, Gold for Wine, etc.) with AI leaders is a similarity because it's repetative. For a whole game I basically traded the same things with the same 3 Civs every 30 turns, simply because no-one else had anything to trade (standard sized, archipelago map).
Building roads is far less important and as long as my cities link up, that's all that matters. Who cares if my miners have to lug ore across open country for 100 miles back to my city? Why would I want to build a road to another Empire to share and trade resources when I only need to open a trade window? Why would I want to build a road to my hill fort to stock units against the enemy, when one unit sat there is all I can possibly have sat there anyway?
CiV just feels very basic and rigid to me, like Catan. It's simplified things. If you open the strategic view it's practically a massive Catan map. The graphical look adds to this similarity in my opinion.
In previous versions of Civ I felt like I had a lot more direct control of my Empire and how it developed and grew. In CiV I feel like I can pretty much just go on auto pilot, occaisionally re-opening a trade agreement or restocking my limited army and connecting my newest city. I don't have to be involved anymore. What I build in my cities is almost irrelevant and I don't feel like I need to build anything desperately like I have in previous games. I haven't once needed a City Wall as a maximum priority or any of the later defensive buildings. I don't need harbour's because the bonus is next to useless unless I have an island city. I haven't felt the need to build an Arsenal, Military Base, Hydro Plant, Medial Lab, Hospital, Solar Plant, Stadium and rarely even a basic Colosseum.
I'm still playing it though and I haven't picked up another game after 4 days but I'm not sure how long this one will keep me interested. The achievements have been the one thing that I've been actually thinking about whilst playing. I need the achievements and if you think about that, it's pretty sad. The thing keeping me wanting to play is not CiV but the achievments.
I think the one overwhelming similarity though is once I played the first game, I don't think I've discovered anything different, exciting, unexpected or new in any of the subsequent games and that isn't Civ, that's a standard board game with rules and no surprises.
The Boz
Nooblet
Yes, and StarCraft is the super-sized, slightly more complex version of chess.
this last post clearly show that you haven't played that much... When your gold are at 0 and you need it to maintain some units to go to war and you have to choose what strategy to adopt, it's great. When you learn how to build stock exchange and you know that it will give you +20 gold in that one city you pretty much desperatly need to build it...
This forum has seen it's fair share of contructive criticism, random unfunded complaints like that are annoying
This forum has seen it's fair share of contructive criticism, random unfunded complaints like that are annoying
Mrdarklight
Warlord
This game is really just a slightly more complex version of tic-tac-toe. I mean, the way you have to put your cities in a grid and stuff? Exactly.
Antmanbrooks
Prince
@franlato - I have played just about as much as I could have done in the last 4 days I have had the game. It's true I have not yet experienced the problem of my gold being at zero, despite gifting copious amounts to the City States, before deciding it was cheaper and easier to build 3 units and conquor their city, gaining all the resources I was paying so much for, not to mention an extra commerce and science bonus to boot. I have however built Stock Exchanges, that building was not one of the one's I mentioned above, I agree it has a purpose; to create even more gold to add to may stockpile now I'm not paying City States pointlessly.
How was my complaint random or unfounded? I haven't yet needed to build any of the buildings I mentioned above simply because my cities are better off pumping their time into research or gold, because the maintenance on the buildings outweighs their benefit?
@all others - I think you are all missing my point. It looks like Catan more than it does chess, hence the comparison. My point is it's too simple and many of the features, units, buildings, diplomacy aspects, techs and resources are pointless. What makes a sheep any more useful than a farm for example?
