That's a personal opinion not everbody shares...
Civ4 vs Civ5
- Thread starter DeathDealer314
- Start date
That's a personal opinion not everbody shares...
While I respect your placation attempt (which is certainly among the more sophisticated approaches to the differences between the two games among Civ 5 players), for me reducing the issue to varying tastes moves a tad too far in the direction of harmony-seeking relativism. While opinions obviously differ, I believe it is not too bold to admit that we actually understand something about game mechanics and their suitability for certain games. I believe there are objective guidelines by which games can be evaluated, just as books, plays, or movies, while subjective forms of entertainment, can be judged by objective measurements, at least to some degree.
Likewise, it is not too daring for us to claim that in a grand strategy game the ability to create armies in some sort of way is more appropriate than being prevented from doing so and having to spread out units across the entire land. It is not too impudent for us to state that global happiness in its implementation in Civ 5 is a less eligible system than the happiness design of Civ 4. We are not necessarily brazen apologetics to point out that Civ 4's diplomacy results in a more immersive, less gamey atmosphere for a game of this sort.
Of course opinions differ. There are people who think Star Wars episode one is the best of the films. There are people who teach their kids the earth is 6.000 years old. There are people who think the best thing to do is to put their wives into cloth bags and strip them of any rights. That doesn't mean their opinions aren't wrong. We don't have to cower behind the relativism of overindulged tolerance. The right to have different opinions is no less important than the obligation to point out that certain opinions are inferior to others. In fact, the latter leads to progress, while the appeal to tolerance and the relevance of different opinions denies us our own knowledge and understanding of certain matters. In the case of Civilization, progress would mean an engaging and inspiring Civ 6 for most of its players, to an extent that Civ 5 was not. However, invoking relativism of opinions will not get us there. Convincingly pointing out what Civ 4 did right and Civ 5 did wrong (and vice versa, if adequate) is what would potentially constitute progress.
drkodos
Emperor
all opinions are equal but some are more equal than others
Those which are based on reason and logic and make use of empiricism and established methods of evaluation are usually better than those which aren't.
drkodos
Emperor
full agreement here ... informed opinions trump uninformed
we living in times in which too many people think their opinion need be considered equal to those that are actually informed -- social media has elevated the uninformed fool to the point of self-delusional sage
Macksideshow
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 382
Is that opinion based on reason and logic?
MilesBeyond
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 444
Yes, just not empiricism. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
The only opinion that matters to me is mine. This isn't because I have any delusions about it being 'right' or in any way 'better' than the other six billion plus opinions available on this planet. My opinion's only distinguishing virtue is that it is mine. Since to anyone else that virtue doesn't apply I will keep my opinion to myself.
There is no Rhye's mod for Civ5 because sadly Rhye couldn't find enough time to convert it and/or enough modders to help him.
An earlier release of the DLL would have helped, sure, but the RFC base mechanisms could have be done without the DLL on civ5.
drkodos
Emperor
solipsism is perhaps for some the best chance at true happiness ... i know i often find it handy and in situations such as this, civil argument over a game, is hard to rebuke
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I'm not questioning the existence of other opinions...just acknowledging that my ability to judge their 'quality' is limited to near zero.
I can't get into Civ5 no matter how much I try. I even shelled out (admittedly at a great Steam discount) on the first expansion and the extra Civs. Global happiness, the stupidity of 1 UPT instead of implementing real supply and frontage mechanics to handle stacks o' doom, the early-game pacing, the vast swaths of empty land because expansion is so much slower, just a lot of stuff felt off to me.
And there'd be no reason to do so had they spent a bit more time on that aspect of the game. Instead they left the impossibility of an Archer firing a shot for 2 hundred miles or more, and the headache of moving units one at a time. Had they gone with a separate tactical screen for combat, similar to what the Total War series does, they could have eliminated both of those issues. The main map could have been used just for stack movement, which would have reduced a lot of the micromanagement, while the tactical map could have been used for 1UPT combat. While I like the tactical aspect of 1UPT movement, I really wasn't too impressed with how it was implemented. That was a big reason why I didn't bother getting the game in fact.
@Willem
I don't consider the ranged attack to be a serious issue because it replicates battlefield tactics. The primary benefit of even having archers on the battlefield is to use it in this ranged manner. You wouldn't deploy archers head on with swordsmen, that'd be a slaughter.
As for the issue with stacked units. I believe any plot of land should have a finite number of units it can support. But the limit of one unit is excruciatingly absurd, especially toward the end of the game when you spend a considerable portion of your time just shuffling units around to make space.
I don't consider the ranged attack to be a serious issue because it replicates battlefield tactics. The primary benefit of even having archers on the battlefield is to use it in this ranged manner. You wouldn't deploy archers head on with swordsmen, that'd be a slaughter.
As for the issue with stacked units. I believe any plot of land should have a finite number of units it can support. But the limit of one unit is excruciatingly absurd, especially toward the end of the game when you spend a considerable portion of your time just shuffling units around to make space.
It's not the ranged attack I have a problem with. It's the fact that a tile can represent 200+ miles, yet an Archer has no problem hitting a target in the back rows. That's one hell of a strong bow arm! That stretches the boundaries of believability way too much for me. I would have had no problem with that ability if combat took place on a separate map that represented a smaller scale area. But it just seems ludicrous to have it take place on the world map.
That too could have been easily avoided had they used a tactical battle map. The world map could allow for stacked movement while the tactical map would have involved the current 1UPT manoeuvres. That would also have allowed the use of things like ocean transports, instead of units being able to miraculously finding a boat that would allow them to sail to the next continent.
plastiqe
Grinch
Thanks, I knew it was something like that.
Tactical battle map you suggest turns Civ into Total War where you have a world map and fight on little battlefields. IMO just as un-civ-like as 1UPT.
The easy way to put limits on stacks is that units cost more in maintenance if they're in a stack than if they are by themselves. Bigger stacks = more expensive upkeep. I posted this idea for Armies and Logistics in Civ VI if anyone is interested in that sort of thing.
But in terms of the next game there are a few things I really liked about Civ V such as hexes and no suicide catapults. There are way, way, way, way, way more design choices in Civ IV that appeal to me but I find it funny/sad that it's always up to the modders to finish any Civ game. Why aren't the people who make Rhye's/BUG/BULL/BAT/K-Mod AI/etc the ones making the Civ games in the first place?
I get a chuckle out of seeing What is the biggest problem in Final Frontier? as the biggest thread in the Civ IV scenarios section or when I go back and read me vs Shafer from 2004.
That probably wouldn't be very good for the AI though. The human would no doubt be better at organizing a stack in order to minimize the unit costs withing it, giving the player a clear advantage over the AI.
One advantage of using a tactical map is that it would force the AI to use it's units better. Once on the battlefield, all the units would be properly arranged, with melee in front, ranged units in behind and mounted units on the flanks. One complaint that I've read repeatedly about Civ 5 is that the AI just doesn't know how to use it's units properly. Having them already in formation at the start of a battle would no doubt help it.
And I don't see why a tactical map has to be un-civ like. The game can be anything the developers make of it. As long as the overall gameplay remains more or less the same as it has been, it will still be Civ. Just compare Civ 5 now to how things were in Civ 1. Can you honestly say that the latest version bears any resemblance to Sid's original vision? It's evolved greatly over the years, yet it's still Civ in essence. If taking that approach eliminates a number of problems with the game, I see no reason why it shouldn't be used.
I too am not keen at all about a seperate tactical map. The argument that it would be un-civ like may sound dogmatic, but the point is that it would result in a shift towards emphasis of battles and battle tactics, away from aspects which many of us find a lot more interesting, i.e. diplomacy and economy.
Think about the Total War games. Take the last TW game you played and remember the experience. Do it for a moment.
What did you think of? The long-term management of your economy? Your clever diplomatic negotiations deterring your rivals from attacking you? The thought process of whether to build a smithy or a marketplace first?
Most likely you had the battle screen in your head, perhaps even some specific battle which made a cognitive impression on you. This assumption has less to do with me being able to read minds than the game's focus resting on the warfare aspect of expanding an empire.
Now think about Europe Universalis 4. Or 3, if you are foolish enough not to have bought EU4 yet. (Seriously, buy it. It rocks.) For those who don't know, EU, like most Paradox games, autoresolves battles. A wise leader will manipulate the preconditions, like assigning an appropriate general or making use of terrain modifiers. But the battle itself is based on dice rolls. While the system may not be perfect, it sure does one thing: the focus of the game lies heavily on managing your economy and diplomacy. Where to send your merchants to support your trade is usually a larger concern than war. And using diplomacy to create strong alliances or isolate your rivals is crucial, a lot more so than war itself. As a player you have many ways of influencing and managing war, yet they all lie in the realms of strategy rather than tactics.
Getting back to Civ, it was always kind of between the two aforementioned games, though it arguably leaned more towards the Paradox style. Civ, at least before 5, was primarily won by making the best out of your cities economically. War itself was greatly influenced by how well your economy worked. In other words, in an empire management game the focus lay on empire management. That is a good thing!
I'm all for advanced war mechanics, such as supply limits and attrition. Give us armies, give us morale, I'll take it all! But limit the player's tactical options in warfare and keep the game in the dimension of strategy. Focusing on battles will invariably shift the focus away from the strategical elements which should be the core of an empire building game. And don't say you can have both, unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The more tactical influence you have, it is virtually by definition that management of economy will weigh less, since strategical mistakes or short-comings can be compensated by tactical prowess.
I think I'll leave it at that.
Think about the Total War games. Take the last TW game you played and remember the experience. Do it for a moment.
What did you think of? The long-term management of your economy? Your clever diplomatic negotiations deterring your rivals from attacking you? The thought process of whether to build a smithy or a marketplace first?
Most likely you had the battle screen in your head, perhaps even some specific battle which made a cognitive impression on you. This assumption has less to do with me being able to read minds than the game's focus resting on the warfare aspect of expanding an empire.
Now think about Europe Universalis 4. Or 3, if you are foolish enough not to have bought EU4 yet. (Seriously, buy it. It rocks.) For those who don't know, EU, like most Paradox games, autoresolves battles. A wise leader will manipulate the preconditions, like assigning an appropriate general or making use of terrain modifiers. But the battle itself is based on dice rolls. While the system may not be perfect, it sure does one thing: the focus of the game lies heavily on managing your economy and diplomacy. Where to send your merchants to support your trade is usually a larger concern than war. And using diplomacy to create strong alliances or isolate your rivals is crucial, a lot more so than war itself. As a player you have many ways of influencing and managing war, yet they all lie in the realms of strategy rather than tactics.
Getting back to Civ, it was always kind of between the two aforementioned games, though it arguably leaned more towards the Paradox style. Civ, at least before 5, was primarily won by making the best out of your cities economically. War itself was greatly influenced by how well your economy worked. In other words, in an empire management game the focus lay on empire management. That is a good thing!
I'm all for advanced war mechanics, such as supply limits and attrition. Give us armies, give us morale, I'll take it all! But limit the player's tactical options in warfare and keep the game in the dimension of strategy. Focusing on battles will invariably shift the focus away from the strategical elements which should be the core of an empire building game. And don't say you can have both, unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The more tactical influence you have, it is virtually by definition that management of economy will weigh less, since strategical mistakes or short-comings can be compensated by tactical prowess.
I think I'll leave it at that.
Reg Pither
Warlord
I could list a whole list of technical gripes that I think don't work or should never have been attempted, features that were bafflingly left out or altered beyond repair, or that 1UPT has irrevocably changed the very foundations of all of the traditional Civilization gameplay mechanisms, but it really all comes down to one thing.
It's cold. Uninvolving. Dull. Pointless.
Nothing seems to have any real or dramatic import, no matter what I do. I capture a city? Meh. I lose a city? Meh. I just don't really care enough for it to matter.
In CivIV my empire seemed like a genuine, living, breathing historical world. Civ V just seems like a rather stodgy game, and a frustratingly constricting one at that.
Admittedly, I've not got either of the expansions, but an expansion of a game I just don't enjoy isn't going to help much. I tried to like it, I really did, and I genuinely envy those who are enjoying it, but when CivIV is only a click away, why would I spend valuable gaming time playing something that is so - to paraphrase Douglas Adams - like, and yet almost completely unlike, Civilization?
Got BNW cheaply and has been on my HDD for two or three weeks. The great, new, incredible, best Über-Civ ever. The curios thing is: it just sits there on my HDD but I haven't even started a single game. There's no motivation or curiosity at all to actually play it. Matter of fact I started a game of Civ III PtW instead. The only thing I really did with it was to extract all it's city state names to spruce up my Civ II @extra city list...
Similar threads
