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 V Compared to Past Games

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by David McMurdo, Oct 15, 2013.

  1. David McMurdo

    David McMurdo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    23
    Location:
    Scotland
    Hey Everyone,

    I started playing the Civilization series with Civilization IV (I bought the complete edition) but I could never really get into it. It's my fault, not the game's; I just never got around to investing the time required to learn how to play, though I intended to give Civ a decent try for nearly two decades as some of my friends were massive fans.

    It was only really when Civ V was released that I finally gave the series its due and learned how to play (though I'm still an amateur even after two expansions and all the DLCs worth of time that has passed).

    I still kind of regret not getting into the series from the beginning. Some of my favourite games are Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic, Warlords, Total War, Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings, etc, so Civilization was something I always knew I'd probably love.

    I'm wondering about how you long time fans feel about Civilization V as compared to past games. I am glad they got rid of stacks, based on my brief experience with Civ IV. It's kind of strange for me as something of an "outsider" that people still talk fondly of Civ, Civ II, and Civ IV, but for some reason I almost never heard anyone mention Civ III at all. Why is this? I thought it might have been a bad game, but it wasn't judging by the reviews I found.

    The second question is: how much more content can we expect for Civ V? Since this is the first time I've really got into the series, I kind of don't want it to end so soon. I notice that the game is well supported with thought out patches, but I'm kind of hoping we'll see another expansion, or at least some more civs. Don't really want to see Civ VI any time soon.
     
  2. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    civ 3 was not much different from civ 2 afair. while it definitely was not bad.
    civ 4 was quite hard for an 'outsider' to get into, civ 5 is much better in this regard.
    and i hope too we'll see a third expansion :)
     
  3. King Flevance

    King Flevance Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    4,612
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    Weird I was just thinking at work of making a thread describing what I feel are the major changes between each sequel of Civ. Then I came here and saw this. :eek: You're freakin' me out, man!

    Civ3
    Civ 3 had some balance issues that compounded with AI's incompetence. Namely a ranged bombard attack given to siege units. They would also be captured like a worker in combat. These issues could be converted with self handicapping or even mods. Many people didn't like the model used in 3.

    I don't think the mod community blew up like it did with 4 though (Which also helped 4's online community grow. Many came into 4 just to play a mod.) But that is due to the source code being granted. I wasn't really that active in the online community with 3 myself though.

    It wasn't a bad game but Civ 2 was a hard act to follow. Many stayed with 2 during 3. Brian Reynolds did a pretty awesome upgrade with 2. However, Civ 3 gave us cultural borders, strategic resources, Great People, and a glimpse at 3D. (Fake 3D)

    I actually always preferred 3 over 2 and 1. I have preferred 4 to 3 since BTS came out. Before that expansion, I felt 4 was a step sideways more than a step forward or back. Civ 4 gave us a lot itself. I really liked ranged bombarding but I'll admit it was broken in 3.

    Civ 5 has brought back ranged bombarding which I should be excited for but I don't like that they put it back in with 1UPT (Unit Per Tile) and I can't stand 1UPT When I play Civ 5 I have to play Civ 4 soon after and I find myself playing Civ 4 a lot more often. However, I see Civ 5 as a step sideways so far with G&K. Faith is awesome. I haven't played BNW yet. I got Civ 5 for free with XCom and bought G&K off Steam for 5 bucks during the summer sale. I have about a hundred hours in it I think so far. But Civ 4 is over a thousand for sure. Probably over 2,000.

    I would like to see logistics come on in the tech tree and added stacking capacity to tiles or something. But it needs to go up to get rid of the frustrating micromanaging every single unit. Take it to 3 or 4 max or something. But IF that is gonna happen it won't be till Civ 6, probably.

    Which leads me to you last question: Civ 5 will come out with Civ 5 Complete for one more push at the market and then it will probably be time for Civ 6 to be announced.

    CiVIlization! :lol:

    It's on schedule according to the regular model they have used since 2. This is the first time they have sold DLCs though.
     
  4. PreLynMax

    PreLynMax Your Lord and Master

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,326
    Location:
    In the depths of computer hell...
    ...so you are in a Civ 5 thread because...?
     
  5. ddd123

    ddd123 Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    387
    civ 2 was THE GAME, so much content for the first time
    civ 3 was so and so
    civ 4 was very good after exp but still its civ, not really originale
    civ 5 is still the best, the change of combat system is worth alone, too bad firaxis did it for money not to develop a game


    dunoo we will see expansione and dlc until the devs pocket can handle money i guess

    and NO patches are not supportin it well
     
  6. King Flevance

    King Flevance Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    4,612
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    Didn't know I wasn't allowed. I know there is a grudge between Civ 4 and 5 right now. Just like there was between 3 and 4, and 2 and 3 before that. And just like when 6 comes out half of the Civ 5 community will swear off 6 and stick to 5. This ain't my first rodeo and judging by your join date alone I know this is at least your second, maybe more. It'll happen again as it did with Civ 4 and 3.

    Plus, I ain't really hating on Civ 5 here unless you think it is flawless without any design flaws whatsoever and refuse to acknowledge any. Then I could see how my statements could be seen as an attack. I said I see it as a step sideways and maybe you think that is an insult, but if I wanted to troll I would say it was a huge step back or something. They got some variables wrong that I feel make for over-tedious gameplay while 4 had fixed micromanaging. The UI is not intuitive and feels restrictive or constrained compared to Civ 4's. Civ 3's UI wasn't bad but Civ 4 is basically Civ 3 reloaded. BUG mod makes it about 20 times better though on 4. Diplomacy makes sense in 4 due to AI relationships having weight and a decent gauge on that weight for you to easily see. (You can trust AI players to act according to relations.) Not Monty or a couple others but they are warmonger civs so it makes sense to me.

    5 has positives but for instance 1 UPT I hate but it is good that they are looking at tile capacity indirectly on a tiles using this model. That makes land have a stronger strategic advantage Which would reach out to more strategy fans. Tactics could be introduced. Civ 4 first gave us promotions. Before that it was Conscript, Regular, Vetran, Elite. That was how you "leveled" up. Which I have no idea what those even mean. Is that a bonus to atk, def, both? Dunno, but I know the higher the rank the less likely they died.

    CIv 5 is a game I don't like to play it seems, but I like that it exists. It shows Firaxis isn't afraid of change, which is good. They have always shown that. For that alone, I tip my hat to Sid Meier. I hate Civ Rev but do have it on iOS and play it occasionally, but I'll never own the full version. I do like CtP which seems rare. Man, I think it would be cool if Civ looked back at those games and played with a couple of its ideas. But don't know how much people would like that.
    Social Policies, I prefer civics. Really though you could do both but that would suck to have to balance. It would just over-complicate everything anyways. Maybe if they brought back the throne room and gave you bonuses there instead of in policies but they would have to rework a lot for ideas like that. I don't know, I just know I prefer civics. Spiritual was a good trait and anarchy wasn't too crippling. I liked it.

    Global Happiness I don't like. It encourages building up over building out. That removes an entire stem of grande strategy in a grande strategy game. I don't think the game should ever show preference to one over the other. To this day Civ 4 is still debated over specialist economy, cottage economy, or hybrid. Hybrid seems to have won out on shaky ground so far as I know. That is good balancing. Though Civ 4 has its weak spots that remain.
    I didn't like artillery. It got better with flanking and late game ranged bombardment being added and now I don't mind it. I don't like that they removed colonies and 5 brought them back in a cooler way with the GG.

    I don't like city states and much prefer just barbarian cities but would like to have relations with Barbarians. I would prefer if city-states were just barbarian tribes. Rework the mechanics a bit. Let them be able to settle new cities. However, all are warmonger tribes. (They are uncivilized - makes sense in a game called Civilization)
    I would make it possible to be Friendly with them. That would always require you to have to go to war with someone with them to get it. (It would be like +20 or whatever I need to make it.) Without it the highest I would let you go is pleased. (At which they could declare war on you) You could trade with them, Open Borders and all that stuff. They won't declare at friendly status. However, they can't become vassals. So if you keep them around, it can't be part of your empire. However, they can be swayed easily and cheap to war with you against someone else with pleased relations. Keep the fact that they send you units and stuff in though as for another reason you might find it handy to have them around.

    This is the reason I was thinking of making a thread about this very subject. I may still, but not this morning. I wondered into Civ 5 to just read some stuff the other morning when I posted. Right now, Civ 4's (and 5's) boards are a lot of people I don't recognize after a long absence from the forum. I have lurked a bit in the past year but haven't really said much.
    I don't care about 4 and 5 beef. I have a little myself but overall, I ain't mad or nothing. Just disappointed. I ain't trying to burst bubbles or claw at anyone but can see how someone may interpret it as that. I know how the feuds go. There were some ornery characters in the 3 vs. 4 wars.

    One thing I always loved about CivFanatics was its community's attitude. Tensions can run high sometimes and it will always be that way. I can only imagine the crapstorm between 4 and 5 that went on because the balancing issues are almost identical to 3 and 4 only in reverse. So trust me, I don't fault your suspicion. I just came in to talk about Civ, I promise.

    I'll compare them all day long. I love all of them but 5, but I do respect 5 and l hope it is for the greater good. WHo knows, maybe 6 will please everyone. Stranger things have happened.
     
  7. PhroX

    PhroX Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,082
    Gender:
    Male
    I still feel that Civ 4 is the pinnacle of the series, but with the release of BNW, Civ 5 has gotten pretty close and the great thing about it is that it's significnatly different from it's predecessors. Civs 2-4 replaced the earlier games for me (the only time I remember going "backwards" was when my Civ 4 PC died and my crappy laptop could only run 2...), whereas I have both 4 and 5 installed on my computer and play both depending on my mood.

    3 for me fell at a rather awkward time - when it came out, I didn't have a computer capable of running it, and 3-4 months after I corrected that and bought the game, 4 was released and I've played that since so I don't have nearly the amount of time spent on 3 as I did on 2 or 4. It also seemed to be testing out a lot of new things that were later polished up and perfected in 4. Still a very good game though, just not as memorable, for me at least, as the others.

    Regarding stacks vs. 1UPT, I don't think either are perfect at the present. Massive doomstacks are somewhat silly and need some form of limitation (I did quite like the solution in one Civ 4 mod [I forget which] where a stacking penalty to strength was applied to all units in a stack if it exceeded a certain number of units), while Civ 5 operates at too large a scale to really do interesting tactical things with 1UPT - if there were, say, twice as many hexes in a given area and ranges/movements were doubled it'd be much better.
     
  8. King Flevance

    King Flevance Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    4,612
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    Hey, I recognize you! Not from a specific conversation but seeing you around a while back. I won't feel bad if you don't recognize me. (I can say that because you can't see me cry on the internet.)

    Stacks vs. 1UPT always seems to bring out a bunch of ideas.

    Personally, I imagine Civ 4 combat with better promotions based on a new mechanic that allows troop formations tactical abilities based on what is in the troop. (Cavalry allows flanking to be used and so on.) Early game there is like a capacity of 3. Techs unlock more. Max Hard cap on the tile of like 10. Cities aren't hard capped or it should be 20 (at least double) if they do.. Spies, workers, settlers, GP, etc. units have their own unlimited capacity. Subs and invisible military units use a separate capacity of 10. Cultural defenses over city strength. (An undefended city is ripe for the taking.)
    Cats and trebs works as they do in 4. Cannons is where ranged bombardment comes in. Navy gains ranged bombardment at Frigates. (Galleons can't) Bombarding attacks a unit for low damage if no cultural defenses are present on the tile. (A lvl 3 promotion allows immunity.)

    A soft cap on tile capacity isn't bad either though. I like hard caps myself is all.
     
  9. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,897
    Despite all the faults, war in CivV is still a tad more fun. Trade works a lot better than it does in IV, in which trade was something that just happened, not something you really had a ton of control over.

    Really, CivV Brave New World is better than CivIV Beyond the Sword is most aspects except modding, which is an area CivIV still has V beat in spades.
     
  10. Santa Maria

    Santa Maria Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    135
    I enjoyed CivIII really a lot, I think its a great game. Especially the CivIII Conquest was very fun to play. Always very Era specific and different. Also the Medieval European Mod and Scenarios for it were great.

    I didnt play Civ IV cause I thought it didnt bring much of an invention.

    Civ V, I find very inovative and there are many new aspects that change the game and make it much better than its predecessors.
    I also would like to see some more content-patching for Civ V.
     
  11. Pepo

    Pepo Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    335
    I think that Bts is better than BnW.althougth the expansion has fixed many flaws of the game,there are still some really bad.the global happiness is a really bad system,research isn't has good has in civ 4,we don't have the health system nor energy and ai doesn't use units well enougth.althougth i agree that the stacks of doom make civ4 unbalance,i still prefer stacks over 1Upt

    Also one important aspect to think is that until BnW civ 5 was much worse than civ4.i also dislike some decisions of the developers like making the game simplier,overpower range combat or the 1Upt

    Still i like both games and they are great for playing
     
  12. Janig

    Janig Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    358
    When Civ III was released a lot of innovative titles were coming out, but despite all of the innovation that was around Civ II remained a quality go-to game. So when Civ III was released in 2001 I wasn't quite sure how they could improve it. Upon buying Civ III enough had improved to make it interesting. However the main difference of Civ III was the social side of it, because previously Civ was only a family experience for me, but then there was this internet phenomenon which was taking off too. Civ IV was an all round improvement on Civ III, and Civ V simplified it.
     
  13. Jimbo30

    Jimbo30 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    575
    Location:
    Scotland
    Civ 5 is the worst of them all taken at their respective times. Just nothing new and a lot of the good old stuff was forgotten. It's not a bad game by any means though, actually it's quite good.

    I doubt many who played 1-5 for 20 years would disagree.
     
  14. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    in civ 4 there were many redundant things like health, everything was overcomplicated like tech tree and in some aspects it was bad designed e.g. great people spawn (it was random) and diplomacy (which was too gamey). while in civ 4 there was much of everything and it was quite balanced it was not ideal. civ 5 resolved many problems, global happiness is great imo and 1 upt too. AI is now much better with units than in vanilla, and It seems people are forgetting that civ4's AI wasn't very smart too and particularly quite badly sucked at war, but there were mods which improved it. maybe we'll have such mods for civ5. it takes a time for community to develop such things. so I want to say civ5 is a refined civ game which solved some long standing problems of the series by innovation. its solid and ofc is better than everything that was before. imho people blame it for not being civ4 because they got old (most of users on this forums were born in 80s) and lost overall interest in gaming and they would blame everything new because their 'golden age' is in the past.
     
  15. gps

    gps King

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    885
    That sure makes sense, people who lost overall interest in gaming coming here in masses complaining about a game they are not interested in... ;)
    According to your theories (born in the 70ies) I should hate everything that came after Civ I. Strangely enough that's not the case.
    To be honest I was a bit disappointed with Civ I. I was a big fan of Sid's flight and submarine simulator and also like Railroad Typcoon very much. So a Sid Meier game to "Build an Empire to stand the Test of Time" really got me hooked in '91. Sadly the turn based gameplay and substandard graphics even for early nineties did not really appeal to me at that time. Also without internet and sites like Civfanatics it was quite hard for me to get into the game. For example I never really managed to launch a spaceship because I had no clue how many parts of what were needed. Also the constant revolting of cities and the unit support micromanagement were annoying. Nevertheless with the background of the rest of the series today I admire the brilliance of the game design and the complexity created from comparatively simple game rules. It's not that long ago that I played my last game of Civ I.
    Civ II was the first Civ title I really got into deeply. It looked much better and it also was much easier to get hints on gameplay. Even today I still like and fondly remember the wonder movies or the advisors. II is also great for how easy it is to mod it. Despite its AI stupidities and some minor issues (AI units blocking my territory, unit support, revolting cities) still one of my most favorite games of that time.
    Civ III I kind of missed when it was released. It was a time when I was not playing that many games for various reasons. I only started playing III after I got Civ IV and found my notebook of that time unable to run it properly. Improvements: better graphics, larger maps, more civilizations on the map, individual characters for the tribes, improved diplomacy, some automation of routine tasks possible (assignment of entertainers!). Cons: C3C from my point of view has been abandoned without proper finalization/patching, so I still prefer and mostly play Civ III PtW.
    Civ IV clearly is my most favorite version - in all its incarnations. The one I spent most time on. Even Colonization is a nice addon. I like the many leaders and civilizations and the logical and transparent diplomatic options (what some people call gamey), the many map script options, the choice of great mods, the quality of the finished product (all patches included and despite some technical issues at the beginning). I like how the game is still true to the original version but has a lot of annoying micromanagement stuff removed. It's the game I always imagined when I heard the line "Build an empire...". SOD never was an issue for me. It makes total sense for an empire builder with a scope of 6000 years of history. No need at all to change that.
    When Civ V came out I felt no need at all to buy it. Game quality was a catastrophe, the hundreds of one-star-reviews at Amazon being a clear indicator for that. If I hate one thing in video gaming, then it’s unfinished beta releases where it’s completely unclear and doubtful whether the mess will ever be fixed and patched properly. And the fact that it was Steam only for me only added insult to injury. Although I bought Vanilla, G+K and BNW later for a handful of bucks each (to see whether it really is THAT bad), I never really got warm with it and actually don’t feel the urge to play it. Reasons: even today AI is moronic, 1upt for me is a pointless clickfest and tactical warfare micromanagement (where do I have to put my archers?) and WWI like frontlines dividing continents (in 200 BC!) for me does not really make sense in an historic empire builder. I also don’t like the whole city state mechanic creating two artificially different statelike entities in the game. If a nation stays small it should be due to bad starting position or bad strategy, not due to surreal game rules. And while the first four titles in the series develop deep and interesting gameplay and decision making from a simple and easy to learn set of rules, Civ V for me is the other way around: what on the surfaces looks like deep and (sometimes actually too) complex game mechanics erodes into shallow and routine gameplay once you get a bit more into it. And even after three years and all the patching and DLC for me it still feels more like WIP than a finished product. Not good preconditions for me to start loving it…
     
  16. Vraslosken

    Vraslosken Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2003
    Messages:
    240
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    Having played every civ game since number I in succession, I would rate them in this order:

    CIV V > CIV IV > CIV III > CIV II > CIV I

    Every game has been better than its predecessor. I believe number VI will follow the same pattern.
     
  17. PreLynMax

    PreLynMax Your Lord and Master

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,326
    Location:
    In the depths of computer hell...
    Wait... I was born in the 80s (early 80s, in fact), and I think Civ 5, despite of what I said about it earlier, has succeeded Civ 4.
     
  18. householder

    householder Lord of the Fleas

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    320
    I have only played Civ for 15 years, so perhaps my opinion doesn't count, but I disagree.

    Civ V did innovate. City-states were new, 1UpT was new, strategic resources limiting the number of units which could be supported was also a new feature. There might be others, but those are off the top of my head.

    Civ II was, and still is, a gem. Civ !!!, I am happy to forget. Civ IV was good straight out of the box, but I was amazed how much better it got with each expansion. BTS shines even today, especially with mods.

    I was disappointed with Civ V when it was first released. Although it was made somewhat better with patches, it just never appealed to me and I shelved the game. G&K convinced me to explore V once again, but only with BNW did Civ V come into its own. Is it better than BTS? I think so, other than the relative shortage of mods.
     
  19. sendos

    sendos Immortal

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,418
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I enjoyed civ 2 a bit, more so than civ 4. Although unit stacking was in civ 2, AI didn't exploit it as much. Leonardo's Workshop was literally the most epic wonder ever: free upgrades for units until you get combustion. Expiring wonders was a bit irritating but oh well.

    First time I tried to play civ 4 and, as you expect from newbs, I lost a city to barbs. Tried again and managed to pull off a domination victory on chieftain, with domination victory requirements being 40% of land under your control and 56% of world population. I then tried warlord difficulty and the difficulty jump was incredible. However, after numerous attempts, I still lost interest. Expansion was also a pain because for each settlement you found, it costs about 5-10gpt. And of course, the fighting--don't mention the fighting system: no wonder civ 3 and civ 4 are mocked with :spear: this emoticon!

    Then came civ 5. That reinvigorated my interest in civ games again. Fighting made more sense, happiness system makes sense and culture actually means something. If this game had failed miserably, I'd still be wandering the Alpha Centauri forums, because that game is still awesome after 14 years. Why? Because you customize your own units and there is no cost when expanding.

    So yeah, I'll never ever really understand civ 4 fans. As for thoughts about civ 6, I highly doubt it. Civ 5 has set the standard: why bother making civ 6? What more could you add? Firaxis might run the risk of making the game so complex, it might backfire badly for their business model.
     
  20. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    i think its a probability. older you, higher the chanse to 'stick' in some dreams of foregone times. i've seen people alleging everything past civ 2 was crap (!). generally they arent mad but they just dont really want to play games anymore, only maybe their beloved one sometimes to awaken nostalgic recollections. its the same mechanism which make ppl to listen only to music from their youth (and disregard everything else).
     

Share This Page