Civilization V Compared to Past Games

[King Flevance]

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.

Nostalgia goggles is always a weak argument to cling to in order to defend something. It is rarely true. It would be like Civ 4 fans saying the only reason you like Civ 5 is because its new and not because of any real merit the game holds. (You blame Civ 4 for not being Civ 5).

Health wasn't a redundant feature. It was put into replace aqueducts and sewer systems being population caps. In Civ 3 and before, to grow past size 6, you had to have an aqueduct. Otherwise, the city would never be able to grow past 6 even pulling in 100 food per turn. It would just be wasted.
Now, in Civ 5, no health caps at all. Just Global Happiness. So a city with the population of Tokyo is easy to achieve real fast. EDIT:Why not just remove the happy cap and let the city grow as fast as it can based off the land then? Dogpiling population into single cities is already the best bang for your buck by a longshot as it provides bonuses, and makes bonuses you have to build automatically effect the bulk of your people by only building it once instead of in every city. Plus, happiness is now the only reason to expand early to keep it "simple" as if 1 more reason is overwhelming in complexity. A whopping 2! What am I, Rain Man? If health was a redundant feature then so IS happiness for the same reason. You could argue morale but I can counter that with hygiene and civil services.

Health was really easy to get in 4 and didn't break your arm if you ignored it. I am trying to design a mod for 4 where a city with < has like a .5-1% chance for the plague to spread there every turn. The plague adds -25% to cultural defenses so far. (Had it at 50% but that seems too strong.) I am doing this simply to have health play an active role in the field. (A reason one may mistake it for redundancy.)
Managing health in your empire is something that offers challenge to the game and makes total sense. Healthcare is a HUGE issue in the US right now. This is a beef of mine and a case I do see as "dumbing down". It removes a logical feature because it doesnt offer a reward to the player only Consequences. There is a word for that, it's a challenge. If you don't think challenge is fun, why on Earth would you play a strategy game? Not that Civ 5 holds no challenge but it holds much less than Civ 4 and one of the main things I see lobbed at 4 is "hard to learn" -which btw blows my mind. Don't touch 1-3 if 4 is "hard to learn" you'll be so confused. I learned them by myself with no internet access available at all in 1993-02 starting with Civ 1 when I was 13. Civ 4 is only hard to learn because Firaxis thought it was a great idea to hide finances behind a curtain and that prevented you from planning your finances ahead. I have always hated that about Civ 4. Civ 4 is a trial and error style of play to learn economy which is stupid. (Psst, mods) It makes most people have their army go on strike and go bankrupt on their first game without a warning. However, if you can figure out how to guesstimate and gauge that city cost, your golden. Everything else is right there at your fingertips to plan around.

Some of us actually find merit in the design of 4 over 5. Such things are subjective to opinion and perspective. To wash our criticism off as crybaby nostalgia tantrums or to wash your praise of Civ 5 as fresh fanboy hype would be foolish on both parts. Each are right there offering another perspective on each game. A positive one at that. Disagree? Great! That's why both Civ 4 and 5 both sold enough copies to warrant a Civ 6. It will hold wonderful new things for us to argue over and draw new lines in the sand.

This is a niche title and the audience didn't really grow enough with 5 to say it is "clearly" the favored game in popular opinion. Civ 4 was clearly preferred to 3, 2, and 1. I don't know if VGCharts has access to Steams sales number for copies sold or not. If not, Civ 4 sold twice as many physical copies (3m) compared to 5 (1.5m) Would be interesting to see how many Steam Sales each made. Not that sales figures invalidate anyone's personal preference between the two games. I mention it to point out the small budget Civ 5 is probably constrained to. 2k is a small fish in a big pond nowadays. EA and Activision are monsters compared to it. However, Civ going to 2k was probably the best thing to happen to it, honestly. (Imagine if they had went to THQor something) Many would disagree with me, I know. (I loved fake Atari) and hated 2k when 4 released, but in hindsight, it probably was a very smart move. It looks like it is a good partnership as 5 restored my faith in 2k to handle the series smart even though I don't like 5. (Mostly because of financial limitations is my guess. But I'll take it.)

Civ 5 has a wonderful art style (I much prefer it over 4's), but there are texture pops and all kinds of graphical bugs that cheapen the hell out of it. Civ 4's turn times are an identical kick in the butt. Civ 5 is a little faster, but not much on my rig. and I will be able to run Watch Dogs on Ultra settings when it comes out. (The first truly next gen game) The turn times are bad on both really but Civ 5 does win out by maybe 30-40%. I haven't played Civ 4 without Better AI mod in probably 5 years or more so the AI on Civ 4 seems WAY smarter than on 5. (BTW Civ 5 probably won't ever see that because it requires source code access, I am almost positive) Would be cool if they released the source code with Civ 5 Complete. What do they care if they aren't going to do anything but sell the title and work on 6 and DLC/EXpansions anyways, right? (However, I would also like if they would release the source code for Civ 3.)

I would love to see them be like Bethesda and encourage an online modding community. This would allow the community to experiment with mechanics and come up with cool new ideas for the series. Civ 4 proved an online modding community was lucritive, I wonder how lucrative DLC was. Their DLC was all stuff that could have been modded into the game and into the community for free + WAY more with more variety. I don't think it is a coincidence that open modding went out exactly when DLC came in. That is one of my beefs with 5 and it doesn't appear at glance that it was more lucrative. Under this model, Civ 5 will age much faster than Civ 4. Civ 4 may even outlive 5 because of this.

Why do you like Global Happiness? I am curious. Can you elaborate on that? What do you see as the best parts of it vs. localized happiness as it was in 4.

 

[killmeplease]

King Flevance,
health in c4 has pretty the same mechanic as happiness. its like happiness-2. havent brought anything to the game. i like global happiness because it
a) reduces micromanagement
b) allows to differentiate the size of your cities more: in c4 city size was limited by some general number. in civ5 you can hold growth in one city to allow another city to grow more. its more interesting imho. you can disagree
c) allows for empire-wide effects like uprisings and reduced strength of military units. i know there was warweariness in civ4 but it wasnt integrated into the whole system that organically.

civ5 is easier to learn not because its "dumbed" (well, generally) but because some redundant complexity was removed.

source code for civ 5 was released and there are some dll mods already.

sales now are digital for most. none of my friends who play civ5 own a disk of civ5. another fact i know 90% sales of Paradox games are digital nowdays. For the Firaxis percentage should be lower but not much. also, it looks like civ5 content is more expensive than that of civ4 but they continue to make addons and dlcs and regular patches from which i conclude sales are good.

 

[Camikaze]

Health is essentially replicated in Civ5 with local happiness.

I find it interesting that a lot of Civ4's proponents play the game with mods; an admission that BtS on its own could be better. I think it's true to say that most people play BNW with fewer mods. Now, it could be tempting to say that this means Civ4 has an unfair advantage when making a comparison, but then modding capacity is an aspect of the game that shouldn't be discounted, and Civ4 clearly wins on that front at the moment. That is not to say that there aren't some great Civ5 mods, but I don't think many people would contend that the modding community is as well developed yet. Hopefully in a few years time there will be more mods available that will enhance BNW for more people, but as it is, the advantage gained by Civ4 through mods is a rightfully earned one; Civ5 modders simply haven't had the same tools to work with for the same length of time. So although I'm highly sceptical of the claim that BtS sans mods is better than BNW sans mods, it does make sense to me that those who are playing with their favourite Civ4 mods might not want to move on from that. And BtS + mods v BNW without is a fair enough comparison to make.

 

[Vaclac]

I never played Civ I, can't help there, so Civ II is really the starting point of the series for my personal experience, and I loved it, still play it occasionally. I still like the epic-ness of the huge maps with only 7 civs on them, gave lots of room for expansion. Though it does remind me of how many unbalanced mechanics there were in that one. They're still fun to exploit, but I feel like later parts of the series have tried to balance things out a little more. Rapid expansion was ridiculously powerful, some wonders were totally insane, caravans were phenomenal for getting them, buying cities and units with spies was fun too. The upgrades from one government type to the next were also game-breaking, even roads and railroads were extremely powerful, just seems like you could feel the huge impact of everything you did in that game in a bigger way than you do in the later ones.

Civ III I never got that into, not too sure why. I think I tried to play it like Civ II and got frustrated with things like the extreme level of corruption that occurred when you tried to do that. I think I was also just playing other games at that time.

Civ IV I really loved - I think it's much more balanced than any other of the series from a builder perspective which is usually how I like to play. The war mechanics were a little weak with the stacks of doom. I thought the maintenance mechanic was fantastic for balancing pace of expansion, but it wasn't that simple and took some time to figure out, so I can see how it may have put off newcomers to the series. I also liked that civics had tradeoffs rather than just an accumulation of bonuses.

Civ V I have mixed feelings about, but it's still a fun game, it made some improvements, and the expansions have helped out. I really like the use of hexes and the slowly evolving cultural borders rather than the tiers of city cultural border expansion. I like getting away from stacks of doom, but 1UPT gets congested and silly later in the game with tons of units, so like others I would prefer to allow stacking, but provide some penalty to doing it that increases with units stacked, like damage taken per turn or reduced combat power. City-states are a cool addition but I find them very gimmicky with their bonuses and quests, I wish they would act more like major civs, just a smaller version. I think the happiness mechanic is a much worse way of controlling expansion than maintenance was, so I feel like that was a step backwards.

 

[gps]

I find it interesting that a lot of Civ4's proponents play the game with mods; an admission that BtS on its own could be better.

Which does not automatically mean that V is better than IV. And we're talking a game that has been released eight years ago. No wonder people start using mods for variety after they played the base game to death. It's not exactly like FFH2 or RFC were so successful because they brought much needed improvement to a game that was bad -they were successful because they brought variety and flavour to something that already was (and still is) quite brilliant. Btw. most people play BTS modded because they use the highly successful BUG (which stands for Better UNALTERED Gameplay and just improves information display) or BAT mods (which is BUG with improved graphics).

 

[Camikaze]

Which does not automatically mean that V is better than IV.

Which is essentially what the bits of my post you didn't quote say.

 

[King Flevance]

King Flevance,
health in c4 has pretty the same mechanic as happiness. its like happiness-2. havent brought anything to the game. i like global happiness because it
a) reduces micromanagement
b) allows to differentiate the size of your cities more: in c4 city size was limited by some general number. in civ5 you can hold growth in one city to allow another city to grow more. its more interesting imho. you can disagree
c) allows for empire-wide effects like uprisings and reduced strength of military units. i know there was warweariness in civ4 but it wasnt integrated into the whole system that organically.

I can see where point B could be seen as a benefit. It makes sense that you could control your population easily. However, I think Liberty should somehow effect this and remove control. (This could be why I prefer civics - they offer bonuses with consequences) Social Policies only offer benefits. So, your basically getting more super powers. That may seem harsh but it just my view on it. I honestly haven't figured out exactly why I like civics better yet. I just know I do.

Point B is cool but feel it could still be improved with the addition of health. I disagree with A. Health didn't require micromanagement in 4, at all. It was everywhere on the map. Now, those same resources are as abundant as just food bonus tiles in Civ 5. Like wheat and cows. Those used to give you health. Now they are just bonus tiles and health building give you food bonuses. In a current game of 5 with Kamehameha (So need to check for a Civ 4 mod with him in it.) I have 12 cities. I have around 3-4X as many bonus tiles as I do luxury tiles. Health is everywhere. Health could be introduced and made global in 5's model. I would cut back on the tiles a bit though.

Or have pollution be the anit-health mechanic instead of sickness. Then buildings could have pollution costs instead of maintenance or even in addition. This would make health a roadblock in production as buildings like forges and factories should provide pollution. However, I would also add them to colloseum and maybe market type of buildings as well. Still have buildings in the game like hospitals that add health.

I would like that too. It doesn't HAVE to be Civ 4's model. Trust me, I still see some cons in 4. I think 5 could really benefit from 3's UI. It's pretty close as it is in design. Put unit controls down by the mini-map or near the center of the screen at least. That was one of the best features to Civ 3's UI, I think.

So with Point C, I counter it with pollution and health care. EDIT: Not War Weariness

I really like that the source code was released. So that is wonderful news. When did they release it? My bad, I had heard it was locked out and haven't cared much since.

As for digital sales - yep, I know. I wish Steam would just share its numbers though. They claim stuff about them but never provide actual numbers. I like to be able to watch the market on stuff like this. I have no doubt Civ 5 made enough money to warrant a Civ 6 which means it did well. But would like to see the actual market draw it had comparatively. Civ 4's numbers also get unknowably screwy because of this.

 

[killmeplease]

I disagree with A. Health didn't require micromanagement in 4, at all.

I meant happiness micromanagement
my cities were frequently revolting in civ 4 and it was very annoying
you should to check every city on the end of each turn or 'enjoy' those revolts every other turn. while with global happiness you can control the whole situation with only a glance at the top panel.

about health i don't really think another factor restricting city growth is needed. don't see any problem here. why even to restrict cities having production buildings from growth? they already have problems with it as they work less food tiles. And if coliseums and markets produced sickness what could be a gameplay purpose of it?

i like idea of making bonus resources more important, you can check the food resources mod in my sig, in this mod i have tried to think out something interesting about those. (concept is kinda a 'global health')

source code was released quite long ago maybe a year! but theres was not much activity as i think people dont want to start dll modding before the last addon/major patch.[/QUOTE]

 

[King Flevance]

@Camikaze

I can't play Civ 4 without mods anymore. I'll admit that freely. I have been tweaking Civ 4 since vanilla. I don't even think I have played unmodded BTS.

It was modding that dispelled most of my gripes with 4. That doesn't even begin to step in to the credit of all the total conversion mods. (Of which, I have modded those mods even) The community that rose around 4 and discussed mechanics was also really awesome. I haven't been here for 5 so I don't really know many new members or exactly where the community sits.

Speaking of mods, Many past active members in 4's community I see as moderators now. I like the choices too. I think I remember you but with a different Avatar. (I don't remember what it was though) In my time, I visited the escapist to discuss all other games. Holy cow, it made me appreciate the community here at Civfanatics. As bad as things get here it isn't even comparable to the vitriol of other gaming sites.

I really like what you all have all done since I was last active. Red Diamond threads and the skins idea are two I think are cool and unique ideas. So, a tip of the hat to the mods here. The mods here have always been great.

 

[qutsemnie]

I think civ 5 has more replay value than civ 4 at the higher settings difficult for the player. I feel like the rather distinct opening decisions makes it more interesting, and there is a fair number of emergent properties that contribute to that. Firaxis really understand the concept of decisions having obvious, big and distinct consequences. Though I think to realize that interestingness you have to play at a difficultly that you only win about 1/3rd the time. Late game civ 5 kind of drops off (G &K)

An example of an emergent complexity comes from the fact that you only get around 4 cities at the start. A civ 4 puriust would say: "The optimality of 4 cities versus ICS shows civ 4 is more interesting." A point true, but a counter point is that if you only get 4 cities: placement becomes a meaningful and has lasting consequence. On the other hand if 8 cities is a viable start than you will eventually blanket all your territory equally and it really didn't matter too much where each was placed individually. So, yes by not having ICS you are denied a binary strategy decision, but in place of it is the more difficult decision of how to optimally use turf with just 3 to 5 cities. It is different, but not entirely as simple as not having ICS would indicate.



Even though combat is rightfully maligned because of the AI, the combat is more interesting, and I think the proof of that is it is tolerated even though the AI is bad at it because maneuvering troops takes a fair bit more mental effort. It gives clashes a somewhat grittier feel than civ 4. Though at the cost that won battles often feel tedious as you finish maneuvering on cities.

Civ 5 is kind of full of that "This is nice when Y is going on but it gets tedious when X conditions are present". Despite that effect, the sum of the interesting parts is greater than the tedious parts, and it surpasses civ 4 for that reason.

 

[gps]

An example of an emergent complexity comes from the fact that you only get around 4 cities at the start. A civ 4 puriust would say: "The optimality of 4 cities versus ICS shows civ 4 is more interesting." A point true, but a counter point is that if you only get 4 cities: placement becomes a meaningful and has lasting consequence. On the other hand if 8 cities is a viable start than you will eventually blanket all your territory equally and it really didn't matter too much where each was placed individually. So, yes by not having ICS you are denied a binary strategy decision, but in place of it is the more difficult decision of how to optimally use turf with just 3 to 5 cities. It is different, but not entirely as simple as not having ICS would indicate.

If you really believe that Civ IV supportes and encourages ICS while Civ V does not, and that city placement in Civ V is more important that it was in Civ IV - then I guess you have still much to leran about both games. Just as a reminder: the Civ IV city maintence costs (vs. buildings costs in III and V) actively prevented ICS by forcing players to only build cities that really were worth it and in the long run could pay for themselves. An although I never really tried ICS myself in V from all I've read around here there seems to be a common understanding that ICS is still alive and kicking even in BNW.

 

[qutsemnie]

If you really believe that Civ IV supportes and encourages ICS while Civ V does not, and that city placement in Civ V is more important that it was in Civ IV - then I guess you have still much to leran about both games. Just as a reminder: the Civ IV city maintence costs (vs. buildings costs in III and V) actively prevented ICS by forcing players to only build cities that really were worth it and in the long run could pay for themselves. An although I never really tried ICS myself in V from all I've read around here there seems to be a common understanding that ICS is still alive and kicking even in BNW.

Well to be fair I am not pro at either game, but then again I am real, so the question is what really happens to me that makes it seem like 5 is more interesting.

I will tell you my memory of 4 compared to 5, and whether or not it is bad or good doesn't matter as much as it is believable.


Here is civ 4:
I would plant cities as long as they were good cities (it is not ICS but it fits in with your description). I would stop when I couldn't find a good spot. That was viable.

Here is civ 5:
I can't do that...


In civ 5 I have never found a way to use all my good city spots (assuming for some reason I am over-flowing with them). In civ 4, as long as they weren't so far away from my capital that corruption out weighed the value of the spot I was cool to utilize what I saw.

That seems like a believable memory doesn't it? So which game makes me think more about cities 4 or 5?


Maybe using the word ICS was where I went wrong.

Like for example I have a civ 5 immortal game that is going more or less well. I am not sure if I will win as I am behind where I should be in several ways, but there is hope.

Early on I planted a city on a choke point blocking most of a continent to myself. I made a 5th city because my happiness could handle it and the 5th spot was better than a lot of my other spots (it just didnt have a new luxury so it was regulated to 5th). In civ 4 that would have been easily made into a good decision. In civ 5 I kind of feel like I downgraded my empire a little while I wait for this thing to pay off and catch up. I feel like I could have just as easily have ran with 4 cities, and the only good thing about that city is it denies the AI from settling on my flank. In civ 4 I feel like great city spots near your capital were nearly always an automatic good decision.

Attached screen shot, 3 luxuries, 2 fish,2 stones, 1 cow, and a river system, and I have doubts about whether I should settle it because it was a tad late. A manifestation of what I was talking about is in this game I have an inferior city spot #3 because it had a unique lux, and I wasn't sure at all if I would get this really good spot. In civ 4 the decision would be about order, not about whether or not I was going to take the other spot at all.

This to me is a difference between civ 4 and civ 5, and it makes early placement very dramatic and adds to the replayability of the game.

 

[King Flevance]

I'll try the mod out soon once my overtime at work calms down. Probably have until the end of the month before then though.

It kind of sucks it was released so late as the mod community may have to compete with Civ 6's release. Perhaps Firaxis can make XCOM: Terror from the Deep and give Civ a break for a bit of time?

Civ 5 to me falls on its face the same way Fallen Enchantress did. Not to say Fallen Enchantress sucks, I quite like it. It focuses way to much on the military angle and skimped on the economy angle. Wouldn't want to lend merit to economical warfare like the economy in Civ 4was starting to. Corporations were a mechanic with potential in 4. I see a mod adding corperations to Civ 5 offers you special thanks. So I will offer you thanks as well. Having economy be more weighted overall (Health and happiness are economy related - just happiness in 5 though, removing some weight) actually helped balance, I think. It offers virtual roadblocks to success across the board.

*************************************************************​

Something I have been considering posting in the AI thread is what I experienced with the Better AI mod in BTS. Paraphrasing Blake's announcement to the community, which was, that he had to make the AI a little dumber because people weren't enjoying truly fair AI. Ideal AI is every bit as competent of the player. Which means, theoretically, that your win rate will be 1: (Number of AI opponents) if you keep playing the same settings. People who play with 20 AI's dont like only winning 5% of their games, they feel like they suck. People like to win 70-80% of their games. However, luck and starting location will play a role in making these all soft numbers.

Now, I had his old version installed when I read that and it made me sad. Eventually, I had to upgrade. Still wish I had saved the old version somewhere as a backup. But I did not. It beat me senseless sometimes and I loved it. I hate conquering a civ that SHOULD have been able to take me down if the AI wasn't an idiot. A better AI mod could really benefit Civ 5.

The revolting citizens stuff in Civ 4 I wouldn't call micromanagement, just management. It doesn't require every turn checks. Even with a HUGE late game empire its maybe every 5-10 turns but you are about to win a domination victory. Most of the game can be done with minimal checking at around maybe 40-50 turn cycles. That is on Monarch. Emporer is a little bit less and probably needs city checkups every 20 turns at least. Mistakes can happen, but usually the mistake will probably be that you forgot and checked it in 24-25 turns instead 20, if you are like me. Early game this can be a little more hectic with a lot of food resources but that is true for both.

*************************************************************​

Being able to control happiness (and health) without having to go into the city screen is a positive I will agree with. Pehaps put health as a value on the city name info bar on the main map instead of on the top panel though. You shouldn't have to go into a city unless you have to change something, not just to see something. Namely something that could have negative effects.

 

[gps]

Well to be fair I am not pro at either game, ...

...

(it is not ICS but it fits in with your description).

...

This to me is a difference between civ 4 and civ 5, and it makes early placement very dramatic and adds to the replayability of the game.

Well, all I wanted to point out that it's difficult to discuss Civ IV vs. V in terms of ICS with someone who does not really understand what ICS really means. ICS means to spam out as many pointless cities as fast and as close to each other as possible without ever intending to really develop any of them, taking advantage of the added (and cumulated) production bonuses of the city square. This is clearly not possible in Civ IV. And if you have played Civ IV on higher difficulty levels you should know that city placement in IV is one of the main differences between winning and losing. Because only if you place your early cities in the perfect spots you&#8217;ll be able to keep up with the AI and gain an early advantage over them. Can&#8217;t see how this should be a serious &#8220;disadvantage&#8221; of IV.

I have no problem with anyone actually preferring V for whatever reasons. If you are happy with building four cities and then winning the game, if you care or worry about surreal balance &#8220;issues&#8221; like "tall vs. wide" then V is the perfect game for you. Real world history has proven many times that size (and only size) matters. Big and powerful empires are always the important ones. Because only if you&#8217;re big you&#8217;ll have the resources to build up your army or get ahead in science and culture. Being Monaco or Swiss is nice, but if you really want to rule the world (and thus &#8220;win&#8221; the &#8220;game&#8221 you better make sure you&#8216;re big like the Greek, Persians, Romans, Mongols, British, US or Russia in their respective time. This is something that I see much better reflected in any other version of the game than V. And that's why I personally feel that any other version of Civ does the job of "empire builder" much better than V does. And the strange thing is: even Jon Shafer, the lead designer of Civ V himself, admitted that simple but basic fact in a recent interview: an &#8220;empire builder&#8221; should be about building a big &#8220;empire&#8221;. And that&#8217;s the whole point of it..!

 

[Camikaze]

@Camikaze

I can't play Civ 4 without mods anymore. I'll admit that freely. I have been tweaking Civ 4 since vanilla. I don't even think I have played unmodded BTS.

It was modding that dispelled most of my gripes with 4. That doesn't even begin to step in to the credit of all the total conversion mods. (Of which, I have modded those mods even) The community that rose around 4 and discussed mechanics was also really awesome. I haven't been here for 5 so I don't really know many new members or exactly where the community sits.

Speaking of mods, Many past active members in 4's community I see as moderators now. I like the choices too. I think I remember you but with a different Avatar. (I don't remember what it was though) In my time, I visited the escapist to discuss all other games. Holy cow, it made me appreciate the community here at Civfanatics. As bad as things get here it isn't even comparable to the vitriol of other gaming sites.

I really like what you all have all done since I was last active. Red Diamond threads and the skins idea are two I think are cool and unique ideas. So, a tip of the hat to the mods here. The mods here have always been great.

It's nice that you remember me; you're a face that I recall seeing around a few years back too. The feedback is welcome and appreciated also. It's good to know that people like the way we deal with things!

I have no problem with anyone actually preferring V for whatever reasons. If you are happy with building four cities and then winning the game, if you care or worry about surreal balance “issues” like "tall vs. wide" then V is the perfect game for you. Real world history has proven many times that size (and only size) matters. Big and powerful empires are always the important ones. Because only if you’re big you’ll have the resources to build up your army or get ahead in science and culture. Being Monaco or Swiss is nice, but if you really want to rule the world (and thus “win” the “game”) you better make sure you‘re big like the Greek, Persians, Romans, Mongols, British, US or Russia in their respective time. This is something that I see much better reflected in any other version of the game than V. And that's why I personally feel that any other version of Civ does the job of "empire builder" much better than V does. And the strange thing is: even Jon Shafer, the lead designer of Civ V himself, admitted that simple but basic fact in a recent interview: an “empire builder” should be about building a big “empire”. And that’s the whole point of it..!

This seems more a complaint about the present balance of the game than the underlying features. Yes, currently the consensus seems to be that a 4 city tradition empire is optimal, but firstly, it's still entirely possible to win with a smaller empire and with a larger empire, and secondly, it's only the current consensus, not something that's been ever-present throughout all versions of the game. At one stage, ICS was the way to go. Then tall was. Then wide was. Etc. With much discussion and argument as to optimal strategies going on with these changes. This would seem to suggest that the underlying mechanics governing empire growth and constraints are flexible and able to accommodate either small or large, simply depending on balance. It's not like Civ5 is invariably geared towards small empires or large empires.

This doesn't actually seem all that different to Civ4, though I'm extraordinarily rusty on Civ4 strategy. Did an Apostolic Palace victory really require a big empire, or was it optimal to go for something smaller?

 

[gps]

This seems more a complaint about the present balance of the game than the underlying features.

True, but as stated before this is another grudge (and one of the most serious ones) I actually have with V: the fact that three years after release we are still talking about the "present balance of the game". Three years into the lifecycle I personally would prefer and expect a product the makers want me to spend a lot money on to have reached a status that I would call at least "close to stable and finished". But that is - I have to admit it - just some really crazy and egocentric personal preference of mine.

Did an Apostolic Palace victory really require a big empire, or was it optimal to go for something smaller?

Nice move to bring up the one of the lasted, most unbalanced and most controversial additions to the Civ IV package - that was not part of the original Johnson game design but was added under the supervison of Shafer (Civ V lead designer)/Mantzaridis. But as it can be switched of easily I guess this sure is not the feature that kills IV...

 

[King Flevance]

This doesn't actually seem all that different to Civ4, though I'm extraordinarily rusty on Civ4 strategy. Did an Apostolic Palace victory really require a big empire, or was it optimal to go for something smaller?

It is more reliant on how you work missionaries than actual empire size in my experience. You can do it both ways but a larger empire is a noticeable convenience. You can spam missionaries easier but gold from the holy city provides money either way.

I think shrines are still way overpowered in 4 with the 1GPT on huge+ maps and feel this directly impacts AP. I don't think AP is really that overpowered if it was possible to have found a religion and be poor. I feel they are overpowered on anything above standard map size really. I much prefer 5's religion model.

 

[Idleray]

Ffh2>smac>bnw>bts>civ 2>civ 3

 

[WillisNYC]

Well, all I wanted to point out that it's difficult to discuss Civ IV vs. V in terms of ICS with someone who does not really understand what ICS really means. ICS means to spam out as many pointless cities as fast and as close to each other as possible without ever intending to really develop any of them, taking advantage of the added (and cumulated) production bonuses of the city square. This is clearly not possible in Civ IV. And if you have played Civ IV on higher difficulty levels you should know that city placement in IV is one of the main differences between winning and losing. Because only if you place your early cities in the perfect spots you’ll be able to keep up with the AI and gain an early advantage over them. Can’t see how this should be a serious “disadvantage” of IV.

I have no problem with anyone actually preferring V for whatever reasons. If you are happy with building four cities and then winning the game, if you care or worry about surreal balance “issues” like "tall vs. wide" then V is the perfect game for you. Real world history has proven many times that size (and only size) matters. Big and powerful empires are always the important ones. Because only if you’re big you’ll have the resources to build up your army or get ahead in science and culture. Being Monaco or Swiss is nice, but if you really want to rule the world (and thus “win” the “game”) you better make sure you‘re big like the Greek, Persians, Romans, Mongols, British, US or Russia in their respective time. This is something that I see much better reflected in any other version of the game than V. And that's why I personally feel that any other version of Civ does the job of "empire builder" much better than V does. And the strange thing is: even Jon Shafer, the lead designer of Civ V himself, admitted that simple but basic fact in a recent interview: an “empire builder” should be about building a big “empire”. And that’s the whole point of it..!

This point about building a BIG 'empire' is the crux of the entire game to me. You can't build a big empire without a lot of warfare. Therefore warfare should be as realistic as possible without being too tedious. Warfare in Civ4 with its stacks of doom is ludicrous and unrealistic. The 1UPH limitation makes warfare at least somewhat like real warfare and far more real than the crazy stacks of doom!

I have played all versions of this game starting with Civ1 way back in the early 90s. All the different variables and ways to handle city growth, religions, economy and so on are just that. Different in each version of the game. However, how warfare is handled is critical to the realness and thus enjoyment of this game.
The game producers have created a fabulous product that has kept me engaged for 20 plus years and continues to suck up my free time to this day. However, until a later version comes out with a better warfare system and/or an AI that handles it better, Civ5 will continue to engage my interest because of the more realistic warfare system.

There are tons of ways to easily improve their warfare system as well. Allow armor to stack with infantry and both units gain bonuses in certain terrains. Same with swords, cav and archers. Certain units work quite naturally as teams in the real world and they could do that in Civ as well. They only need to allow stacks of 4 or 5 units to accomplish all the things that modern and ancient warfare entailed. For those of you that don't like the added warfare complexity of 1UPH, perhaps you should find a different game like Build a Culture to last or Corporate Raiders or Religious Fanatics!

 

[gps]

Warfare in Civ4 with its stacks of doom is ludicrous and unrealistic. The 1UPH limitation makes warfare at least somewhat like real warfare and far more real than the crazy stacks of doom!

That's a matter of perspective. SOD is exactly what happened when Alexander conquered Persia or when Napoleon tried to conquer Russia. One big blob of troops taking city after city. Waterloo, Austerlitz, Hastings, Völkerschlach Leipzip, Thermopyles, Gergivia, Lexington, Gettysburgh, whatever - take whatever major historic battle you want before the beginnging of the 20th century, they all have on thing in common: huge "stacks" of troops meeting and fighting it out on very (locally) limited battlefields. The first war ever that developped front lines dividing continents like we have in Civ V was when? WWI? So 5.900 years of warfare are represented perfectly by what we have in Civ IV, only 100 years or so are represented by what we have in Civ V...