Civ V - way better than Civ IV

[Zoolooman]

I quit Civ IV after playing for hundreds of hours because BTS was engorged with useless or uninteresting features.

Corporations, espionage, the binary nature of religious diplomacy, gobs of meaningless units and ungodly stacks generated through the best civic, Slavery. Suicide catapults and trebuchets! There was a lot of excess without much purpose, flavor without meat. I went to play first person shooters for years.

Now I have Civ V.

There's nothing in the game that feels purposeless. Better yet, the AI actually plays to win, which excites me a great deal. The only parts that should be concentrated upon for improvement are the combat AI (for lower difficulties) and the clarity of diplomacy. Otherwise, I'm vastly more interested in the maintenance of my empire, my army, and my finances. I'm having more fun playing this game.

 

[Aristos]

I went to play first person shooters for years.

Now I have Civ V.

that explains so much....

 

[jaythewise]

that explains so much....

I like both troll....
Moderator Action: Warned for flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[DMOC]

From my limited experience playing on another computer. Civ 5 = Civ 4 in terms of excellence for now. Of course, my opinion will change soon as I play more.

 

[12agnar0k]

I think Civ5 is better and ive only played the demo .

 

[Aristos]

I like both troll....

of course you do...

 

[mattigus]

I like how it's considered trolling on this site if you praise Civ5 instead of bash it.

 

[malitano]

I am a civ 4 fan but some of the bts game mechanics were a bit too ambitious. However, I believe it is too early to tell if Civ 5 does not have any flaws of its own.

 

[bitparity]

The only thing that made Civ4 worth playing, was the Rhye's Fall of Civ RAND mod, which introduced unique historical victories, stability caps on expansion, civil wars, and re-emerging empires. Mother@#$%ing loved it.

That said, Civ5 has a very short learning curve, is definitely very engaging, combat is no longer stack driven. It's no longer the tedious factory fest that it used to be. The fact that I'm a dyed in the wool builder and am totally enjoying the combat aspects of it should say a lot.

Will await Rhye's Civ5 mod now.

 

[Senethro]

I agree Zoolooman, especially on BTS being bloated with unnecessary features. Its a problem that satisfied players don't post on forums.

 

[Warspite2]

I quit Civ IV after playing for hundreds of hours because BTS was engorged with useless or uninteresting features.

Corporations, espionage, the binary nature of religious diplomacy, gobs of meaningless units and ungodly stacks generated through the best civic, Slavery. Suicide catapults and trebuchets! There was a lot of excess without much purpose, flavor without meat. I went to play first person shooters for years.

Now I have Civ V.

There's nothing in the game that feels purposeless. Better yet, the AI actually plays to win, which excites me a great deal. The only parts that should be concentrated upon for improvement are the combat AI (for lower difficulties) and the clarity of diplomacy. Otherwise, I'm vastly more interested in the maintenance of my empire, my army, and my finances. I'm having more fun playing this game.

EXACTLY what I was saying, nothing feels purposeless and the game just plays and plays even without any patches yet first released version. Civ 4 was the prior king though but time to move on now.

 

[Arrowhead]

I like how it's considered trolling on this site if you praise Civ5 instead of bash it.

I like how trendy it is for people to say they like stuff when they really mean that they hate it and wished it would stop.

 

[rujikin]

There's nothing in the game that feels purposeless. Better yet, the AI actually plays to win, which excites me a great deal. The only parts that should be concentrated upon for improvement are the combat AI (for lower difficulties) and the clarity of diplomacy. Otherwise, I'm vastly more interested in the maintenance of my empire, my army, and my finances. I'm having more fun playing this game.

Tell that to Ghandi or the Dutch. They always try to rule the world in my games.

I cannot stand this game due to its terrible UI >.< Seriously did they get their inspiration from the ass of a buffalo

 

[mrhell]

I agree Zoolooman, especially on BTS being bloated with unnecessary features. Its a problem that satisfied players don't post on forums.

I am extremely satisfied with BTS.

 

[Niptium]

Civ5 is better than Civ4. No useless espionnage and hardcoded diplomacy (aka religion). Gone are also the corporations which had no meaningful purpose. The single player experience is marvelous.

Civ 5 is way better than Civ4 in every way possible except multiplayer which will need to be worked on (you cannot add AI players to the preset number of civs per map, clunky chat that you need to re-click everytime, no way to reconnect to an ungoing game, no save except with autosave)...

 

[Stefanskantine]

agreed. civ V is better. 1 unit per tile and hexes should have been implemented a long time ago. This is a long overdue improvement all around.

 

[digitalcraft]

People who consider espionage 'useless' and didn't like religion will like Civ 5 better, but please remember that just because YOU like it better it doesn't make one better than the other.

Other people loved the tactical complexity of manipulating religions to your advantage or espionage, and to them, all these things out is a big hit and they won't like 5 better, and that's perfectly valid too.

 

[Zaimejs]

I thought this thread was a joke... I'm what... turn 187 in my first game, and I'm thinking... SIMPLE> Too simple.

Maybe I just don't get the nuance yet, but there doesn't seem to be much to do... each turn is just... click and sit... I guess I could do more managing. I just have to keep playing.

I'm really disappointed in the lack of world view zoom and zooming in to see the cool stuff in the cities. If they aren't going to let you have cottages and cool cities growing and spreading... then give us a throne room or something.

The government system is super simple and doesn't really seem "real" like Civ IV. I could play Civ IV and imagine that I was really ruling "the world". This game feels like a board game.

Maybe that's what they were going for. Not a sim that makes you feel like a ruler... just a board game.

 

[Selous]

The only thing that made Civ4 worth playing, was the Rhye's Fall of Civ RAND mod, which introduced unique historical victories, stability caps on expansion, civil wars, and re-emerging empires. Mother@#$%ing loved it.

That said, Civ5 has a very short learning curve, is definitely very engaging, combat is no longer stack driven. It's no longer the tedious factory fest that it used to be. The fact that I'm a dyed in the wool builder and am totally enjoying the combat aspects of it should say a lot.

Will await Rhye's Civ5 mod now.

im waiting for the next FFH

 

[Krall]

Civ5 is better than Civ4. No useless espionnage and hardcoded diplomacy (aka religion). Gone are also the corporations which had no meaningful purpose. The single player experience is marvelous.

Civ 5 is way better than Civ4 in every way possible except multiplayer which will need to be worked on (you cannot add AI players to the preset number of civs per map, clunky chat that you need to re-click everytime, no way to reconnect to an ungoing game, no save except with autosave)...

Civ V is like driving a Chevy Aveo after having owned a Corvette for years.

Civ IV was a luxury sedan with all the bells and whistles a boy could dream up. I will never understand for the life of me why (beside money) a game developer will take their finest production, strip out all of it's best features, redo things that worked great and re-release it as the next best thing and then follow that up with new releases that put back in all of the features that the previous version had.

Mind boggling!