How I learned to stop worrying and love "Civ War"

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by EmpireOfCats, Dec 18, 2010.

  1. EmpireOfCats

    EmpireOfCats Death to Giant Robots

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    522
    Location:
    Europe
    I played a very fun Mongolian scenario last night, and had one of those epiphany things: If you see Civ V as a spin-off, not the continuation of the franchise mainline, it is actually very enjoyable. It's "Civ War", not "Civ V" -- you don't build an empire to stand the test of time, but a life-support system for an army. That's the whole secret.

    (I'm tempted to call it "Civ Var" with a German accent, but I'm not sure everybody would get it.)

    This explains why the game is so much more shallow than Civ IV BtS, why stuff like health and religion were removed, why the other froms of victory seem like an afterthought, and why resources and yields are so brain-dead. They are. You don't need any of this for war, so they took it out.

    I still have some hope that in about half a year, they will release a "beyond the sword" expansion that adds the depth and complexity that are the hallmarks of a real Civ game. But even if they don't, I'm sort of at peace now with the game: It's war, baby. And I'll be keeping the "real" Civ, Civ IV BtS, on my hard drive until Civ VI comes around and hopefully continues the main series.
     
  2. joyous_gard

    joyous_gard Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    476
    Nice thread title
     
  3. Fabien

    Fabien Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    133
    Location:
    Switzerland
    I have to disagree. Most of the empire building elements of Civ BTS were artificial as well (Health and Religion were especially one dimensional in their applications) ; War has always been common in the civ franchise. Hence 95 % of the units you build in game are for war, regardless of the Version you're playing ;).

    The Diplomatic and Science Victories are much easier to accomplish by war in Civ 4 BTS than anything else, especially the diplomatic victory is just a cheap version of the domination Victory and not much else. On higher difficulties it was imperative that you had enough cities to support your economy and you had to acquire them by war. There was no way around that. Once you had the critical Landmass you were actually able to pick the victory condition you liked and try to win the game; the same is much or less true in Civ 5 (But you can't annex cities if you go for the cultural Victory). As soon as the computer players become dangerous, Civ becomes a War Game anyway, since there are no other ways to hurt the enemy but war. Espinoage was certainly not powerful enough to totally cripple an opponent, but it was a good mechanic nonetheless.
     
  4. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    I think you're missing his point. It was entirely possible to win - and enjoy - prior entries in the series without engaging in war (yes, even at higher levels). The peaceful game in Civ V is very, very shallow and boring - and this is different from earlier entries in the series. I suspect that you enjoy the war aspect of the series. As someone who has never viewed the Civ series as a good wargame, on the other hand, I'm left only with the war aspect as even slightly interesting. And, relative to other wargames, even Civ V is pretty sorely lacking. That's the problem.
     
  5. charon2112

    charon2112 King

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Messages:
    990
    Location:
    Massachusetts USA
    I don't seem to have a problem playing as a builder, but maintaining a military that's close to the level of the AI's seems to be a necessity.
     
  6. Malkaviel

    Malkaviel Prince

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    338
  7. Fabien

    Fabien Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    133
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Again, I disagree. in the average standard game of Civ BTS 4 (Immortal +) winning without actively dowing (or inviting an attack) the AI will ultimately always win (since they have very high passive bonuses), unless you're very lucky and can go for a cultural or science win without being bothered in the meantime. Almost all Games (Sisiutlis ALC and so on) I've seen on civfanatics so far contained war in one way or another, which leads me to believe that war in Civilization is not a situational strategy you apply when needed, but a core mechanic. Hence I consider civilization a war game of some sort. Sure it has a big empire building component as well, but when it comes to it, the critical thing is still war.

    Now I agree, they took out a lot of options in Civ 5 (Especially when it comes to city specialization) but the general feeling is still the same, atleast for me. Civ 5 does not really change the balance, you just have fewer popups telling you to build stuff ;).

    PS: Out of curiosity, which wargame does not work like civ or are superior to it?
     
  8. Uniform Sierra

    Uniform Sierra Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    139
    Dr. Strangelove
     
  9. Babri

    Babri Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,450
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Well you're right but you forgot that majority of civ players play around noble/prince difficulty not Immortal or higher & a fair portion of them don't prefer warmonger too much. Personally I love ciV but the real problem is that it is not optimized properly & lags too much on anything larger than standard map.
     
  10. bonafide11

    bonafide11 Worker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,185
    Location:
    STL
    I don't think Civ V is a war game. Diplomacy and cultural victories are much improved and, along with space race, give good options for peaceful victories.
     
  11. CornPlanter

    CornPlanter Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,067
    Location:
    Lithuania
    You'd be right, except that there are quite a few better war games at the moment. Civ5 doesn't fit anywhere.
     
  12. Dralix

    Dralix Killer of threads

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Messages:
    2,407
    I always thought I was part of the (small) minority that plays more a builder style. But reading a lot of the threads, it sounds like most people here went the peaceful route. I wonder if there are any polls from a few years ago I could dig up ...
     
  13. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,899
    I have to disagree on the grounds that it's now fully possible to go through an entire game without going to war.

    It's just that you can't keep a grand total of 3 units and then abuse the Friends/Pleased Garbage like you could in CivIV
     
  14. Senethro

    Senethro Overlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,223
    Location:
    The cutest of cephalopods
    So this is another thread about how a player has noticed that Civ5 isn't Civ4?
     
  15. Horizons

    Horizons Needing fed again!

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,401
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    I have to agree with the OP's point about your civ being a life support system for your army. :D If you maintain a large standing army and don't use it, your support costs will drag your civ closer and closer to bankruptcy as the units age (for example, older workers cost more upkeep than newly-built ones even although worker units never gain any experience) ... and if you don't keep a standing army, you get invaded and royally raped by the AI. :D
     
  16. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,899
    What gave away? The amount of praise levied towards BTS?

    Because it's totally impossible to find a good middle.
     
  17. playshogi

    playshogi Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,479


    What are the better turn-based war games out there?
     
  18. trueblue

    trueblue Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2010
    Messages:
    353
    Location:
    Scotland

    this.
     
  19. Horizons

    Horizons Needing fed again!

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,401
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Well I have never said that I would prefer to go back to any edition of Civ4 which was equally flawed (and worse than Civ5 in many ways). I am more concerned in Civ going forward and becoming progressively better. Now that being said, there ARE one or two things from previous civs that they took out, which would be better 'back in' the game, going forward. ;)
     
  20. ChaplainDMK

    ChaplainDMK Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Evrey Civ game was sooner or later about war for most of us. Sure you could make it easier on yourself by making a tight diplomatic net, but most games are still about making an army either to defend or to attack. Civ IV just had a load of stupid variables in between so people would go "omg this is so hxc!"
    Like most people point out health and religion are one dimensional as hell, and while improving the concepts would be a far better alternative to just taking them out, I still think that the only reason Civ V seems so shallow is because the diplomacy is kinda broken and buildings and tile improvements do so little.
     

Share This Page