I mean you take the things I like away?

[Nicol.Bolas]

I mean I would just look at friends screen and immediately could tell how good he is doing.
I mean lack of roads: your doing bad bro, need more them roads
some roads: keep building roads
full Rs: good, but tech railroads
full RRs: very good, thats how you can tell an advanced empire
I mean in civ4 it was mostly a waste of worker turns, but I still build them roads, never know when it will be useful. But I could do that if I wanted and liked it.

I mean, I want to build an army, I am the 5 star general. I leave issues like where to fire arrows or where to move individual units to my petty officiers
I mean, if i wanted to do a tactical combat, I would load xcom or some real TB tactics.

I mean, as the name of the game implies, it should not only be about navigating a hexworld, but about about building and optimizing your empire, where is that gone?
the game looks so ugly and confused? its like someone took hexagonal photos of random terrain and then mashed them together randomly. I mean, tries so hard to look realistically that its just funny?

I mean, if I wanted to play a simple game, there is a full internets of flash games out there
I mean, what happened to individually managing my cities health and happynes, lol that was the core of the game. whatis this? some interactive google map with hex combat overlay?

Seriously, anyone out there, if civ V is your first game, do try civ IV, then make your opinion.
civ V does not represent the spirit and core of the series at all. maybe it´s because the designer changed.
definitely Sid Meier should renounce the title, and the name should be changed to: Hexivilization tactics

 

[builer680]

I like the name Hexivilization. Trivilization was another good one somebody had.

Most likely your thread will be swept underneath the rug and moved to "rants," but it's one of the funnier ones I've seen. +1

Your poll is pretty weird though, and unrelated to your OP... but oh well

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

well the poll is very smart. just polling which you like most would be bad, and depend on the subforum.

but my theory was, that most people who like civ5, did not try the other games at all.
so far its disproven

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm sure people played civ3 and civ4 and like civ5. My theory is people who like civ5 play previous civs as conquerers. For us builders, civ5 is severely lacking. I never actually realized I was a builder type of player until civ5 came out and then I realized how lacking the building options are in this game. I spend hours wasting time moving units, when I'd rather just manage what I'm building in my cities and lands, and my science/economy. Who cares about moving around military units? bleh.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

well thats a good point. combat in civ4 is also more about what units you build.
but you can definitely change the output of the combat with tactics as well. if you use what you build badly, you will be wiped

 

[rumpelkiste]

Hi, (bad english approaching, sorry)

civ5 is a nice game about war/tactitcs, but it lacks imo the ... epic feeling of previous civs. The subtitle "Build a civilisation to stand the test of time" is gone from the package, and it's no more in the game, too. I want to rule an empire, not just some kind of soulless fraction.

EDIT: In the beginning Civ4 was simple, too, the addons (warlords/bts) added some nice festures. I think, civ5 is still like civ4 without addons. I'll give it a try again, when at least one "big" addon was released.

 

[Bandobras Took]

As I never tire of pointing out , Civ 3 was worse for Builders than Civ 5. I definitely prefer to play builder games and like Civ 5 just fine (and will like it moreso with the February patch); while I dislike the reintroduction of building maintenance, the fact that defensive wars are now actually viable is nice, as well as research no longer being linked to gold production, which means I can have both a research and industry-heavy Civ if I desire.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

defensive wars is always a reality in civ4 if you go for peacefull VC

how can you talk about reasearch and industry in this game, when all of it was dumbed down?
this game is really more lik a spinoff, like civrev

 

[forty2j]

This isn't a poll; it's a rant with a weird question to start it.

I've played every version of Civ since 1 (and remember the long wait for Civ Net for multiplayer)..

I really like 5. I liked them all, really.. probably the one that had the hardest time keeping me interested was 3, I only got 3 playthroughs or so on that one. I'm well past that on 5 already.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

well i didnt remeber civ3 i played it a lot, but after civ4 came out i didnt touch it. the same didnt happen with civ5.

the reason i liked civ3 was simply because at that time it was great compared to civ2 and after a long wait, and honestly, it got many new mechanics and tweaks

 

[eris]

In Civ 5, as a builder, I can go along with an empire with minimum military and depend on some cleverness of tactics to make up for my military weaknes. In Civ 4, I had to maintain a higher level of military and fignt more wars or face obliteration just because of my play style. Like other builders, I would like more stuff to fuss with, but I see them adding buildings and features already. So, I am as happy with Civ 5 as I was with Civ 4 when it first started.

They are definitely not the same thing, and I can see why those who were fanatic fans of Civ 4 would be disappointed, but I like that Civ 5 is trying to be radically different and encourage its progress.

 

[moscaverde]

...but I like that Civ 5 is trying to be radically different and encourage its progress.

I don't, why change things that people like? I understand making it better, but changing just for the sake of it I don't get.

 

[Smote]

I mean I would just look at friends screen and immediately could tell how good he is doing.
I mean lack of roads: your doing bad bro, need more them roads
some roads: keep building roads
full Rs: good, but tech railroads
full RRs: very good, thats how you can tell an advanced empire

I prefer not to judge a book by its cover myself.

 

[forty2j]

I don't, why change things that people like? I understand making it better, but changing just for the sake of it I don't get.

"If you're going to make an omelet, you need to break a few eggs."


A lot of the stuff people liked from 4 will probably reappear in expansions.. e.g. some form of religion.

But there's a lot of stuff I don't like from 4 that I hope never appears again.
- Stacks o' Doom
- Road Spaghetti
- Running Spy trains into cities to Culture Bomb
- Corporations
- Anarchy on tweaking any part of your policies
- Corruption

.. for a start.

 

[dudedellrocks]

As I never tire of pointing out , Civ 3 was worse for Builders than Civ 5. I definitely prefer to play builder games and like Civ 5 just fine (and will like it moreso with the February patch); while I dislike the reintroduction of building maintenance, the fact that defensive wars are now actually viable is nice, as well as research no longer being linked to gold production, which means I can have both a research and industry-heavy Civ if I desire.

I really dont get alot of people on this board sometimes if you liked civ 3 better why did you stop playing it, If you dislike this game why not just go back and play civ 3. I also agree I like that research is not tied in with gold.

Moderator Action: Respond to the points someone makes, don't attack them personally.

 

[Guardian_PL]

I really dont get alot of people on this board sometimes if you liked civ 3 better why did you stop playing it, If you dislike this game why not just go back and play civ 3. I also agree I like that research is not tied in with gold.

I really don't get annoying spammers like you, I thought that Sneaks explained the whole thing to you already?

dudedellrocks

It seems you have opinions as set and immovable as those you complain about. As for my game forum explanation, there is a very big difference between an official forum for a video game an a subforum on a web site focused on the entire agglomeration of the Civilization series. Civ V exists as a subforum for CivFanatics, meaning that its postings in this section are General Discussions about Civilization V by CivFanatics members. Since CivFanatics easily pre-dates Civ V, most CivFanatics users will also pre-date the game, and their opinions and thoughts will be shaped as such. As members of this community, they have as much right to post their thoughts on the game as anyone else. I would say that at minimum 50% of the complaints are about problems within Civ V as it exists now. Those problems, however, often lead those same users to point out in past iterations (Civ IV, Civ II) similar things that were done right. I will not defend the small minority of users that continuously belabor the point of their animosity towards Civ V, but most of the complaints seen in this thread and others are not that. If the goal is to find a Civ V subforum to discuss the gameplay itself in a more tactical sense, or to recount games, there exist forums for that as well. This is the place for complaints lodged against this game to be posted.

If I make a statement that this title did not live up to the banner of Civ IV, you are free to disagree with me, dissect my argument, etc. However, it is simply not beneficial to any discussion to simply tell those with opposing views to go play another game and move on. You certainly have the right to say it, but once again it tends to leave this all or nothing feeling where customers faithful to the series feel alienated by this venture.

Or was it too long for you to read?

Moderator Action: Don't flame other members please. Report them instead.

 

[Nares]

I'm amazed that virtually 99% of respondents already had prior Civ experience. I thought CiV was intended to attract new players. It's not like this site is hard to find. I suppose these mythical new players reach the official forums and stop there.

 

[Tealeaf]

Well, the Civ franchise has been around pretty much since home computing took off. I remember playing it way back in the day when I was young and edgy. I'm sure that the makers of Civ5 would love to attract flocks of new players to the series, but there are enough old timers around that we would be well represented as well.

 

[Jaybe]

I started with civ2.

As much as I am frustrated/disappointed with some aspects of civ5, I tried going back to civ4 and ... yuck! Didn't even finish the game (I almost ALWAYS finish a game I start).

Went immediately back to the new.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

I'm amazed that virtually 99% of respondents already had prior Civ experience. I thought CiV was intended to attract new players. It's not like this site is hard to find. I suppose these mythical new players reach the official forums and stop there.

yes, this is interesting. since the reason to dumb the game was done to get new players.
so now it does neither. doesnt attract those who want smart game, and for dumbs its till too hard


so civ6 will be dumbed even more.