Differences between Civ 4 and 5

[whirl]

Me too.

The pace of the game is too fast as well. I dont like to play with slower speeds because they have a huge impact on production and is boring just keep hitting the next turn button forever. The solution would be a bigger tech tree, with the Eras lasting longer.

Now that I've played again after a long break (since release, really), I find that Epic speed is just fine. I too like big maps and slower pace, and post all patches it doesn't get boring at Epic, the game flow is pretty good.

At release I think things were more unbalanced in regards to building times vs teching times than is the case now.

 

[Morningcalm]

Having just had a taste of Civ4 has got me thinking...

The only thing I have noticed that Civ5 does better than it's most recent predecessor is a stronger emphasis on strategy and tactics by swapping the layout from a square grid to a hex grid and eliminating stacks with exception to military and civilian sharing the same tile.

Anyway, what are your thoughts of Civ5?

Civ 5 just lacks depth, and feels the same to play no matter what civ you are, partly because traits (which directly modify the all-important production, science, etc) all throughout the game are removed. Only a few civs in Civ 5 get traits that directly impact them, and most (such as Korea's new ability to improve its science) are very specific and depend on many contingents. In Civ 4, on the other hand, Financial = +1 commerce, virtually universal.

I really, really miss having those Civ 4-esque traits. Why not include them in a Civ 5 expansion? And allow each civ to *choose* from traits, i.e. Mongolia could choose between Aggressive, Imperialistic, Expansive? Korea could choose between Cultural, Scientific, Commercial, Protective? Or have Civ Rev-like bonuses which give each civ a slightly different feel for each age.

I'd also really like to see a more robust diplomatic system. Allow humans to demand AI move their units, allow humans to peacefully request things of AI, etc etc. All the same things the AI can request of us. Allow us to see what AI think of each other. Give more trade options, including foreign trade.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Merged two pretty similar threads.

 

[Becomedeath]

I think that a lot of the criticism of Civ 5 is unfair.

Yes, in a lot of ways its a simplified version of Civ 4, grossly simplified. But in order to incorporate it's giant leaps forward, it needed to be.

To judge Civ 5 against Civ 4 is ultimately pointless. Civ 5 is a new game, taking the series into unfamiliar territory and as such that exploration is going to have it's twists and turns.

Lets not forget that Civ has always aimed high when it comes to features and AI and while in some respects it's fallen short, it's nothing that's unfixable. But those aspects which require fixing aren't necessarily easy to fix.

1upt logic is hugely different from SOD logic, and I think it would be rather difficult for anyone with a straight face to argue that it's not, conceptually, a better move in terms of strategic play. It needs ironing out but it's hardly unfit for purpose, it's just not very good at present.

Civ 5 is not Civ 4. Too many of the complaints about Civ 5 on these boards utterly fail to recognise that.

Civ 4 wasn't the utopia that it's being made out to be. The AI would stack itself into unconquerability, the SDI was utterlty overpowered making modern warfare extremely difficult and you were forced to create seemingly limitless stacks of collateral damage units to achieve anything.

Science made very little sense as it was consitantly forcing you to balance your economy which could rapidly descend into madness if you had the audacity to expand too quickly and not with the immediate hit that Civ 5's global unhappiness restricts so you could be four or five turns after making an expansion error before your gold deficit decided to catch up. Religions, for all their ills, either crippled you or rendered you utterly OP in the early game before becoming virtually pointless in the industrial era.

The major difference between Civ 4 and Civ 5 is that we now expect Friaxis to immediately do something about it. But that's a shift in the game industry as a whole, where patching and hotfixing are commonplace whereas 5-6 years ago they were pretty much exclusive to MMOs.

Civ 5 is a massive improvement in a lot of ways. Even though it requires work, one can only hope that either an expansion or Civ 6 will bring the elements that work together and make Civ whole again.

But the sky, ladies and gentlemen, is not falling in and the grass was never as green as it's being made out to be.

 

[Roxlimn]

Morningcalm:

You can already do that via the SP system. If you have to be "Aggressive," you complete the Honor Tree. If you want to be "Financial," you do the Commerce Tree.

I'd also really like to see a more robust diplomatic system. Allow humans to demand AI move their units, allow humans to peacefully request things of AI, etc etc. All the same things the AI can request of us. Allow us to see what AI think of each other. Give more trade options, including foreign trade.

Aside from unit moving, I think you can already do all of that.

That said, I don't much see the point of the player asking the AI for something as a specific diplo issue. Humans already exploit the AI pretty badly over unequal resource trades. The AI asking you for a gift is an open offer for a permanent positive modifier. That's a bonus asking to be checked. I don't see why anyone would refuse, if they're planning for the long game.