1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civilization "Depth" - A Civ 4 vs. Civ 5 Comparison

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by stethnorun, May 14, 2011.

  1. logintime

    logintime Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    177
    I absolutely agree. Civ 4 did a lot of things well, but I never felt like espionage was one of them. I'd love to see it back in the game, but with a different mechanic.

    Ditto with corporations actually. I liked the idea of them, but the implementation always felt a little rough to me. That was one of the areas where I thought Civ 4's complexity actually worked against it.
     
  2. stethnorun

    stethnorun Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    164
    I actually have learned a lot about what the vets think on the topic. It's been fun for me as well.
     
  3. stethnorun

    stethnorun Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    164
    Now we just need an AI that knows enough to cut them, as someone said previously :p
     
  4. jagdtigerciv

    jagdtigerciv Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Messages:
    468
    Good read, good article with good points. But it makes me wonder, is it worth comparing Civ4 to Civ5 at this stage? It seems more like beating a dead horse ... full of grenades, with a GDR inside ... commanded by Alexander.
     
  5. stethnorun

    stethnorun Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    164
    Yeah I know, been there done that. Still I'm glad some people humored me in my thought process. I was trying to keep the focus on complexity, rather than "worthiness", hoping that at least some of that debate would be new ground. But probably not on this site. :lol:

    But wow...there's a new feature that would be ridiculous/kinda fun: Your own avatar unit in the game world. Washington riding a tank or Oda flying a Zero. Funny to think about!
     
  6. Babri

    Babri Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,450
    Location:
    Pakistan
    If you recheck my list on page 1, I've not mentioned navy as ciV weakness. I've just mentioned that no international trade routes is a letdown.
     
  7. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,886
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Sorry to disappoint you.

    Have you tried the Weplayciv, Apolyton or 2K Forums?

    Perhaps you'd get some good insight there.
     
  8. stethnorun

    stethnorun Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    164
    No I'm saying you all have probably covered this topic ad naseum. Which is why I'm glad people humored me anyway. The insights have been great.
     
  9. stethnorun

    stethnorun Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    164
    Yeah now that I think about it, they really should bring back the "you have to connect harbors or roads" in order to trade anything with other civs.
     
  10. Disraeli

    Disraeli Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    26
    I stopped reading when you compared the religion system to racism.

    That's the entire point of religion! To simulate the historical bad relations between different religions! That's why it's a good system, because it makes sense from both a historical and gameplay perspective. Christian kingdoms tended to dislike Islamic ones and vice versa; religion played a part in this and removing religion ignores an incredibly large part of history. You can overcome the negative modifiers of religion, but it always is a factor as it was historically. It's certainly not perfect, but you don't perfect something by removing it, you actually improve it. It's also a great system gameplay-wise as it adds complexity by creating religious blocs and the opportunity to choose which one to join and switch between them -- you could also bow out of the whole thing by switching to free religion.

    I also disagree that 1upt is a good thing. I never saw anything wrong with the Civ4 model as large armies are historical and they don't remove depth as there's a great deal of rock-paper-scissors style combat; do I build a Pikeman to counter their Knights pillaging behind my lines or do I build a Maceman to assist my own advance? It also doesn't take away the potential for tactical and strategic combat, you still have choices like "do I split my invading army to counter their surprise naval attack or press the invasion and hope my defenses can repel them?" or even smaller things like "do I send a cavalry to kill that musketman or do I let him retreat and focus on the city?" In Civ5 you certainly see these very same decisions but that doesn't mean you don't see them in Civ4.
     
  11. seasnake

    seasnake Conquistador

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,880
    Location:
    California, United States
    I agree that his take on religion was an oversimplification of diplomacy, but the article was a worthwhile read and it would behoove you to finish it. And further, no one ever said there wasn't a need to pick the types of units you build, it's the matters of position and their effects on gameplay. Civ IV combat was an intense game of paper rock scissors, Civ V combat is tactical in the field. The problem is it's much, much easier to get an AI to understand paper, rock scissors than tactics.
     
  12. stethnorun

    stethnorun Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    164
    Heh, thanks for saying I'm worth reading until the end. I know it sounds silly to say, but as an aspiring game writer, it is appriciated.

    So does that mean that if they added some rock, paper, scissors gameplay to Civ 5 on top of the tactics, my processor would literally combust?
     
  13. Kaosprophet

    Kaosprophet Warlord

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    244
    On the other hand, Christians and Muslims tend to hate themselves almost as much as they hate each other; and the relations between Christians and Jews often boils down to "only we can bash them, anyone else tries and we'll bring the Wrath of God down on them."

    And then there's the non-Abrahamic faiths... Buddhists, from what I can tell, weren't generally big on 'kill the heathens' thinking - though some did go for "subjugate the barbarians," religion didn't seem a big part of it. At least, not the way it was between Christians and Muslims.
    Granted, some of that is reflected through leader-traits, in that Isabella cares more about your religious affiliations (positive or negative) than Stalin does.

    Meh. Army sizes are pretty abstracted in both games anyway, so I think this one's a moot point all around. Apart from AI limitations in handling either, 1UPT vs SoD is a wash IMO.
     
  14. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,312
    Location:
    Sydney
    Moderator Action: The discussion of religion need not go any further here. You're welcome to continue such a discussion in our OT forum.
     
  15. Kerosene31

    Kerosene31 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2001
    Messages:
    402
    I really like Civ V and a few of your points, but I have some disagreements as well.

    Civ V diplomacy does need some improvement. In Civ 4, you had too much influence with diplomacy. You could work the AI civs like puppets. In Civ V, you have the opposite, too little influence.

    Civ V does need more positive diplomatic tools (and I think we'll see them in the future).

    I do like your point about tech trading. This is something some feel should be in there, but I like that it isn't. In Civ 4 techs would work their way around and nobody ever had an advantage for long.

    City management vs empire management is a deep topic and really comes down to personal preference. I get why people don't like it in Civ V and feel it is too simplified.

    Comparing Civ V to Civ 4 + warlords + bts + countless patches is pointless. The games are at different stages in the process, and they are just different.
     
  16. Disraeli

    Disraeli Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    26
    There's much more rock-paper-scissors in Civ4, and that adds greatly to the complexity of Civ4's warfare and he didn't really mention this in the article. And stack of doom vs stack of doom or city is never your only kind of combat in Civ4. On the defense tactics matters a lot more than on the offense, and even on the offense there's far more depth than just "charge SoD at city, repeat".

    I read the full article now by the way.

    Civ4 doesn't model things like the hatred between Protestants and Catholics and Sunni Muslims or Shia Muslims. That's one of the problems with its religion system, one which I had hoped would be fixed by Civ5.

    And you're right about army size being abstracted, but Civ5 ignores scale (which to be fair I'm sure a lot of things in all civ games do) with things like archers shooting across cities and it also helps immersion for me when there's a massive army attacking a city rather than just a few units. Definitely a minor point though.
     
  17. krc

    krc King

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    890
    While I enjoy playing both versions, the change in the set of available unit types is emblematic of design changes that deliberately simplified some aspects of the game in Civ5 by removing decision points. In Civ4, you had to decide whether to promote a warrior to an axeman of a spearman. You had to decide whether to promote a maceman or a pikeman to a grenadier or a rifleman. You had to decide whether to promote a grenadier to a machine gun or an infantry unit. You could eventually promote that infantry either to a SAM or to a mechanized infantry. Every one of the units that caused these decision points (axeman; grenadier; machine gun) has been removed from Civ5. This set of changes has not been discussed much, but I think it underlies part of the reason that some people have claimed that Civ5 is less complex; during many turns of the game, there are simply fewer decisions to make.
     
  18. lepruk86

    lepruk86 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    England
    I read your article and most of the replies here.

    I agree with the earlier comments that Civ 4 had more intertwining subsystems that all worked together to objectively yield a far more complicated game; but we are talking about a GAME. That is to say, an entertainment product whose sole purpose is to amuse the audience. In this regard it is kind of redundant to discuss the philosophies of complexity without consideration for fun (which in turn nullifies the objectivity as fun is subjective after all).

    I find Civ 5 a far more approachable and playable game; I also found it a game that is much easier to master however. I like Civ 5 a lot and haven't touched Civ 4 since Civ 5's release. However I think at this stage and that is to compare an end product (Civ 4 BTS) to a young product (Civ 5); Civ 4 is indeed the more 'complicated game'. I feel I can confidently claim this on the grounds that I can play Civ 5 at much higher difficulties and keep up with the AI, where as with Civ 4 I could barely keep up at Warlord difficulty.

    But like me; your article and indeed your comments in this thread seem to suggest that you prefer the slightly easier nature of Civ 5 (which is not a bad or wrong thing; I certainly prefer Civ 5 even if the experience is far more shallow overall).
     
  19. Disraeli

    Disraeli Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    26
    This is true; complexity does not equal fun. However critics of Civ5 tend to cite the game's alleged lesser complexity as a reason for why they dislike it, which I think is why this article was written. I personally tend to like more complex games better for example I like Paradox games which tend to be more complex than either game. I also prefer Civ4 over Civ5.

    About the article though, it occurred to me that you didn't discuss the smaller more complex aspects of Civ4 such as whipping and drafting and Civ4's tech tree which usually has more options and different paths and thus complexity. You also didn't seem to talk about smaller aspects of Civ5 but as I don't play Civ5 nearly as much as 4 I'm not sure whether there are comparable features which are complex but not as obvious as things like the combat system and social policies.
     
  20. GenjiKhan

    GenjiKhan Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,117
    Civilization V is more balanced than Civ IV about victory conditions with these differences. For example, in Civ V, I can win by playing with only one city that isn't so vulnerable to wars,thanks to the 1UPT.Besides,big empires has less social policies,less golden ages and bigger amount of unhapiness.You can analyze the details,but try to see how they make the game fair.
     

Share This Page