• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Honestly, what warrants a new roman numeral?

civhawaii

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
50
I am a long time Civ fan, since the first. Every release has added a multitude of features as well as updating the graphical interface.

Civ 5 it seems has only three major things that update it from Civ 4.

-An updated user interface and graphics
-Hex tiles and one unit per tile
-Updated diplomacy

There may be minor features here and there, like city-states, but the major ones are listed above.

Some things to me seem unfinished. My pyramids in the ocean, red glitchy spots on my tiles. The civilopedia. DX11 issues. In some respects it seemed like they pushed this game out too fast. Does a fancy new UI warrant the number 5?

I wanted to praise this game as much as the next person, and who knows, maybe patches will enhance the game, but as it stands right now, it hasnt sucked my life away like Civ4 did.
 
In light of the mixed feelings about CiV, it's interesting to think about why sequels get made rather than expansion packs. An expansion pack is appropriate I think if you want to add more features to or tweak existing features of a game. However, if you want to radically overhaul the structure of a game, add things to it which are fundamentally new, and just improve the game in such an extensive way that isn't practical by doing another expansion pack, then a new iteration of the game is warranted.

For example, some things which warranted a CivIII were:

animated graphics
culture
armies
more victory conditions
more moddability
resources
broken diplomacy and espionage in CivII
focusing more attention on city quality vs city quantity

Some things which warranted a CivIV were:

religion
unit promotions
greater emphasis on specialisation of cities / great people
improved empire size penalty
civics
even more moddability
tedious end-game in CivIII


What do people think has warranted a jump from CivIV to CiV, rather than just releasing another expansion pack to CivIV for example?
 
IMO it was time to dump Civ IV due to some of the issues like massive unit management. Good game, but time to move on.

Having said that I can't say for sure what I think of Civ V as a whole yet as I need more time. I do think so far it is disappointing short on many minor features that we've already seen in past Civs, and has some polish issues that are disappointing. I don't have a problem with the primary game play system and I like many of the changes but I agree that some things also make me wonder about how this was worth a whole new major release. I would hope they'd get off to a better start than what I've seen so far.

Mostly it is little things that get me. No clock, game options are awfully limited (the config options), can't skip the intro video. Pretty much the same tech tree... even with the same quotes. They couldn't bother to come up with a nice new tech tree? All new quotes? Heck one of the quotes doesn't even match the text, how do you miss that?
 
IMO it was time to dump Civ IV due to some of the issues like massive unit management.

I reckon a CTP -type solution would have been the way to go i.e. you can put multiple units on a tile but only up to a certain point (e.g. 9 units per tile max), and you can move those units to together and have them attack and defend as a unified army.
The CTP games left alot to be desired, but the way they did upt limits and battles was quite good imo.
 
I reckon a CTP -type solution would have been the way to go i.e. you can put multiple units on a tile but only up to a certain point (e.g. 9 units per tile max), and you can move those units to together and have them attack and defend as a unified army.
The CTP games left alot to be desired, but the way they did upt limits and battles was quite good imo.

9 sounds like a lot, but then a gain I never played CTP so I'll take your word for it. I was too tied up with SMAC at the time to try CTP.

I felt there were other issues with IV too. I grew tired of micromanaging tons of cities on large maps to get the most out of them.

Don't get me wrong IV was great but it was as far as I thought they could take it.
 
9 sounds like a lot, but then a gain I never played CTP so I'll take your word for it. I was too tied up with SMAC at the time to try CTP.

9 was the limit in CTP 1, in CTP it was 12. Yeah it probably is a bit much, but a new iteration of Civ could just make it 5 or 6 for example, with cities and forts allowing a few more.
SMAC was a much better game than CTP imo, and has certainly stood the test of time much better than CTP. However on the unit combat aspect, I think CTP was at the very least competitive with SMAC.
 
Top Bottom