I'm new to the ''Civ'' series. What is the best in all the aspects? Civ4 or Civ5?

@Philbowles:

Thank you for your extensive reply. While you adress many of my points, I naturally come to quite different conclusions and fail to see my main argument refuted in any way. I find it interesting that despite picking apart my post in your usual meticulous fashion, you leave most of the core features I mentioned and criticized uncontested. Which is not surprising, since it is hard to argue that things like city states, social policies or global happiness represent anything that has been constitutive for our history. And in the core features you do pick up you fail to point out that Civ 5 is even remotely modeled around how our world actually functioned and functions.

You mention that Civ 4's combat system has unrealistic elements as well. And it does! In particular, the way siege weapons are handled is odd, to say the least. But given the frame of the game, in which units live forever and need no supplies, it is otherwise fairly decent in representing real wars and the clash of giant armies. Civ 5's combat however completely leaves any kind of historical representation. This doesn't change by saying that parts of Civ 4's combat are unrealistic too.

It's a similar case with war weariness. You criticize its implementation, yet your argument that it only has existed in modern times is plain wrong, which jjkrause has pointed out. Even if it is improvable in Civ 4 (to be honest I think it is already implemented in a very accurate way), it's a fact that Civ 5 leaves this important element of human history out of the equasion completely.

Regarding diplomacy, you once again don't argue that Civ 5 is realistic, but criticize Civ 4's system instead with, quite frankly, rather weak arguments. I don't see how being able to fight an enemy in an ally's land is a sign of a bad diplomatic system. If your enemy is your ally's ally and you are fighting in his land (a constellation which occurs extremely rarely) then ok, a small diplo penalty may make sense. But this is a very specific detail that hardly deserves the attention you give it.
You argue in favour of research agreements over tech trading, while in 95% of human history it's the latter which was predominant, albeit usually not occuring officially over state leaders.
And finally you understate the importance of govermental and religious similarities and differences. Throughout history, sharing the same government and/or religion has formed a kind of bond with the participating nations. That doesn't mean that they weren't in competition and would refrain from going to war against eachother occasionally, if the circumstances allowed and demanded it (quite similar to Civ 4, where Civs that are pleased with you may still attack you if it serves their plans). But they were (and are) certainly closer together than nations with different governments and religions.

You also address many of my minor features. Some, you say, will be fixed in the newest edition. Well, it's about time! One or two I was mistaken about. And with some you accept that their inclusion is based on fantasy, like the two mythical wonders and GDR. Anyway, even if my list of unrealistic features was somewhat shorter, it's hardly enough to show that Civ 5 is modeled around history in any reasonable way.

So while you have shown that Civ 4 also uses a certain level of abstraction, you have neither disputed that, at the base of its features, it is based on actual history, nor contradicted my statement that Civ 5 with its core features does not represent the development of our world but instead largely relies on elements of imagination and fantasy.


@eternalblue:

I can only repeat what I have said before. I am strongly criticizing Civ 5 for its lack of realism because this is an important point for me personally. As a game I don't like it for many reasons, but mainly for this one. But there are others who don't care about the historical aspects and find it is a good game. If you ask me, then of course I'll say get Civ 4 and enjoy it! But who knows, you might find Civ 5 more fun. I agree with jjkrause that you'll just have to try it out for yourself. In general, if history is important to you and you want your empire to function in a way that makes sense and is historically plausible, rather than the majority of core features being based on fantasy, then you'll prefer Civ 4.
 
Which is not surprising, since it is hard to argue that things like city states, social policies or global happiness represent anything that has been constitutive for our history. And in the core features you do pick up you fail to point out that Civ 5 is even remotely modeled around how our world actually functioned and functions.

I find that city states are one of the most realistic things added to the game, though i think their interactions need to be tweeked a bit. Every single conflict in history involved various minor parties associated with each side in some way. The Peloponnesian war was started over a conflict between too minor city states. The Roman empire had vast numbers of small tribal/city state allies during its early growth as did its allies. The two world wars involved lots of small parties like Belgium, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria who were not major powers but were associated with some of the larger ones. The city state mechanic quite effectively represents the fact that the 10 empires on the map are not the only people on the entire map.

Global happiness is just another way of representing public order in empires, just as civ 4's local happiness was. Both are simply different interpretations of how citizens are managed. I think the issue with the Civ 5 system is that it tries to also act as the limiting factor on expansion, wich changes it a bit. However, its also weird that in Civ 4 you could have one city having a "we love the king day" whilst the one next to it is in open rebellion because it doesnt have a couple of buildings.

Social policies are just another way of interpreting governmental developement, one that could be improved (like they are doing in the expansion). The problem with the Civ 4 system is that it is too rigid, it gives you a few options limited by technology and with set bonus's. For example, Sparta was an Oligarchy and Athens was a Democracy, yet Sparta had elected assemblies which desposed kings at various times whilst Athens had a great deal of non-democratic positions and elected dictators a few times. Similarly France, the USA and the UK are all democracies; but all work very differently, the UK is still a Constituntional Monarchy. Every government is a massive combination of different aspects.

Governements, with a few exceptions (France) evolved over time rather than after a quick period of anarchy.

Overall i think the Civ 5 system will be more realistic once is has been developed a bit more.


You mention that Civ 4's combat system has unrealistic elements as well. And it does!
In particular, the way siege weapons are handled is odd, to say the least. But given the frame of the game, in which units live forever and need no supplies, it is otherwise fairly decent in representing real wars and the clash of giant armies. Civ 5's combat however completely leaves any kind of historical representation. This doesn't change by saying that parts of Civ 4's combat are unrealistic too.

Civ 5's combat system would work if it was on a differernt scale, if a map held a maximum of two cities (i believe one of the devs said it would make sense on a map 4x the size). However, that is unfeasable if ou want to keep the empire bulding size so they scale it up. The realism is fine, its just the scale thats wrong.


It's a similar case with war weariness. You criticize its implementation, yet your argument that it only has existed in modern times is plain wrong, which jjkrause has pointed out. Even if it is improvable in Civ 4 (to be honest I think it is already implemented in a very accurate way), it's a fact that Civ 5 leaves this important element of human history out of the equasion completely.

War weariness is something that didnt exist in the same way in the past, empires like Rome were at war for hundreds of years at a time, some civilisations never signed peace treaties with eachother. In reality money was the main limiting factor in wars, civilisations stopped fighting because it was costing them too much. Other than a few isolated examples, governments being forced to stop the war by complaints from their people didnt happen untill the modern era.

A better way to represent war weariness would be to have a happiness modifier based purely on success or failure in war. A civilisation winning a war could pull an alexander the great and keep expanding simply on the momentum of past victories. On the other hand, losing a war would force them to make peace. This is much more realistic.

And finally you understate the importance of govermental and religious similarities and differences. Throughout history, sharing the same government and/or religion has formed a kind of bond with the participating nations.

Government, definatly not. Other than the USA's war on communism there are very few examples when governement has played that big a part. Most of Athens' allies were dictatorships, Most of Rome's (when it was a republic) were ruled by kings, Money and Conveniance are a much bigger factor.

Religion played much more of an effect, things like the Crusades and various religious wars are prevelent. However, it was much more often used as an excuse rather than being the actual reason, that is why medival empires put so much effort into controlling the Pope.


So overall i would disgree with your claim that you should play Civ 4 for realism, i think they are both as bad and as good as eachother in that respect.
 
@Philbowles:

Thank you for your extensive reply. While you adress many of my points, I naturally come to quite different conclusions and fail to see my main argument refuted in any way. I find it interesting that despite picking apart my post in your usual meticulous fashion, you leave most of the core features I mentioned and criticized uncontested. Which is not surprising, since it is hard to argue that things like city states, social policies or global happiness represent anything that has been constitutive for our history. And in the core features you do pick up you fail to point out that Civ 5 is even remotely modeled around how our world actually functioned and functions.

I'm not sure you appreciate the point I'm making - I've never denied that Civ V is unrealistic. The issue I have is your holding Civ IV to a different standard of "realism"; my intent was simply to point out that Civ IV is also wildly unrealistic. In the same post you arbitrarily decide that Washington in 4,000 BC can be accepted as part of 'being Civ' and also that founding Venice in 4,000 BC is an absurdity without historical precedent. Both are absurdities without historical precedent, whether you consider them part of "being Civ" or not. Religion in Civ V provides "magical bonuses", yet somehow free happiness and gold from religion in Civ IV (both effects that can be replicated with Civ V religion) slide without comment.

You mention that Civ 4's combat system has unrealistic elements as well. And it does! In particular, the way siege weapons are handled is odd, to say the least. But given the frame of the game, in which units live forever and need no supplies, it is otherwise fairly decent in representing real wars and the clash of giant armies. Civ 5's combat however completely leaves any kind of historical representation. This doesn't change by saying that parts of Civ 4's combat are unrealistic too.

Again, I didn't claim otherwise. I wasn't making any commentary on Civ V at all, let alone making any claims about which is better in any given respect. As I said in a follow-up post, I was doing nothing more than pointing out a double standard in your arguments.

It's a similar case with war weariness. You criticize its implementation, yet your argument that it only has existed in modern times is plain wrong, which jjkrause has pointed out.

jkrause pointed to civil unrest generally, and weariness in small tribal societies, and I made those points in my responses.

Even if it is improvable in Civ 4 (to be honest I think it is already implemented in a very accurate way), it's a fact that Civ 5 leaves this important element of human history out of the equasion completely.

Which I noted myself in another post.

Regarding diplomacy, you once again don't argue that Civ 5 is realistic, but criticize Civ 4's system instead with, quite frankly, rather weak arguments. I don't see how being able to fight an enemy in an ally's land is a sign of a bad diplomatic system. If your enemy is your ally's ally and you are fighting in his land (a constellation which occurs extremely rarely)

The fact that it can happen is immersion-breaking in itself. And even if you allow that an ally might turn a blind eye to you fighting his ally in his territory (a very questionable assumption at best), you don't think he'd object if you're doing so in the streets of his capital city?

You argue in favour of research agreements over tech trading, while in 95% of human history it's the latter which was predominant, albeit usually not occuring officially over state leaders.

I pointed out myself that research agreements are essentially a modern construction. But they have precedent while tech trading doesn't. It's not an either-or - it doesn't follow that because research agreements weren't common, therefore peoples bartered technology.

And finally you understate the importance of govermental and religious similarities and differences. Throughout history, sharing the same government and/or religion has formed a kind of bond with the participating nations.

For reasons I've already stated this is a drastic oversimplification, and indeed for most of history few cultures have thought of themselves primarily in terms of being nation-states or as a specific type of government. Yes, religion can be a unifying factor, but not in the ways modelled in Civ until rather recently - even the perception of being "Christian" vs. being "Muslim", for instance, is something of a modern distinction. To those Elizabethan English, Catholics were not following 'Christianity' any more than Muslims were, but as I noted commonalities of doctrine were of more relevance.

That doesn't mean that they weren't in competition and would refrain from going to war against eachother occasionally, if the circumstances allowed and demanded it (quite similar to Civ 4, where Civs that are pleased with you may still attack you if it serves their plans). But they were (and are) certainly closer together than nations with different governments and religions.

Again, see my example - Elizabethan England was a lot closer to Morocco than to Spain or France diplomatically.

Anyway, even if my list of unrealistic features was somewhat shorter, it's hardly enough to show that Civ 5 is modeled around history in any reasonable way.

I never claimed otherwise.

So while you have shown that Civ 4 also uses a certain level of abstraction, you have neither disputed that, at the base of its features, it is based on actual history,

Given that I disputed pretty much every base feature you highlighted, including all the systems initially introduced in Civ IV, I'd be interested to know what the base features based on actual history are, insofar as these differ from similar base features in Civs I-III (as your claim was initially that the Civ series had got progressively more realistic) or Civ V.

nor contradicted my statement that Civ 5 with its core features does not represent the development of our world but instead largely relies on elements of imagination and fantasy.

You seem to have fixated on almost the opposite of my point. It's not that Civ V doesn't rely on "elements of imagination and fantasy" over historical plausibility, rather it's that this is true of every Civ game, including Civ IV. Which is somewhat fatal to a claim that Civ V can't be considered part of the Civilization series on grounds that it's not historically plausible. If, as you say, you dislike the game for its lack of "realism" and prefer Civ IV as a more "realistic" game, then you're deceiving yourself into imagining Civ IV is something it's not.
 
I find that city states are one of the most realistic things added to the game, though i think their interactions need to be tweeked a bit. Every single conflict in history involved various minor parties associated with each side in some way. The Peloponnesian war was started over a conflict between too minor city states. The Roman empire had vast numbers of small tribal/city state allies during its early growth as did its allies. The two world wars involved lots of small parties like Belgium, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria who were not major powers but were associated with some of the larger ones. The city state mechanic quite effectively represents the fact that the 10 empires on the map are not the only people on the entire map.

I think the difficulty here is that the previous poster is focusing on mechanics rather than outcomes - as discrete entities in play CSes work just as you describe and add both flavour and relevance to the diplomatic game (although post-G&K they seem a lot more passive than previously). Mechanically they do seem odd, but still no more so than America in 4,000 BC.

Global happiness is just another way of representing public order in empires, just as civ 4's local happiness was. Both are simply different interpretations of how citizens are managed. I think the issue with the Civ 5 system is that it tries to also act as the limiting factor on expansion, wich changes it a bit.

This may be a key issue, since the objections raised about its "realism" related to the effects of capturing cities, say, on happiness (which isn't really different from Civ IV - capture a city and that city won't be happy with you either. Civ V just includes that city's unhappiness in your aggregate happiness score).

However, its also weird that in Civ 4 you could have one city having a "we love the king day" whilst the one next to it is in open rebellion because it doesnt have a couple of buildings.

In fairness you can have exactly analogous situations in Civ V, if you secure a resource one of your cities needs it will love the king even if the empire is unhappy or indeed in revolt.

Social policies are just another way of interpreting governmental developement, one that could be improved (like they are doing in the expansion). The problem with the Civ 4 system is that it is too rigid, it gives you a few options limited by technology and with set bonus's. For example, Sparta was an Oligarchy and Athens was a Democracy, yet Sparta had elected assemblies which desposed kings at various times whilst Athens had a great deal of non-democratic positions and elected dictators a few times. Similarly France, the USA and the UK are all democracies; but all work very differently, the UK is still a Constituntional Monarchy. Every government is a massive combination of different aspects.

Governements, with a few exceptions (France) evolved over time rather than after a quick period of anarchy.

It also wasn't usually the existing government's decision to abolish a particular governmental system and move to a new one, as it is in Civ IV (and indeed all previous Civ games).

I think unhappiness and civil disorder is a whole theme that could form the basis of a third expansion; I agree that Civ V should represent it in some way (unhappiness thresholds for reduced output and rebellion are so high that this never happens in practice unless you've just won a war and been given a whole bunch of cities in a peace deal).

But more than anything else social policies perform an important function as a gameplay mechanic - they tie culture to the main game. In Civ III and IV the culture war flip was a mini-game in itself, but culture had very little relationship with any other system within the game; as has been argued for G&K's religion and espionage, it was somewhat tacked-on. Social policies give culture a relevant role in developing your empire, and also allow more flexibility in going for cultural victory because you no longer have to commit to a victory condition unrelated to any other game objectives at a very early game stage.

A better way to represent war weariness would be to have a happiness modifier based purely on success or failure in war. A civilisation winning a war could pull an alexander the great and keep expanding simply on the momentum of past victories. On the other hand, losing a war would force them to make peace. This is much more realistic.

Tricky to pull off within a typical Civ framework in which the results of a war are perceived as being binary, and determined only when the war is over.

Religion played much more of an effect, things like the Crusades and various religious wars are prevelent. However, it was much more often used as an excuse rather than being the actual reason, that is why medival empires put so much effort into controlling the Pope.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was an excuse - it was a motivating factor, but in Civ terms it would be a diplo modifier that would usually only lead to war if other factors are in play. Religion can rouse the rabble, but the expense of war isn't something governments historical or modern could usually justify without some material gain to be made.
 
@eternalblue:

I can only repeat what I have said before. I am strongly criticizing Civ 5 for its lack of realism because this is an important point for me personally. As a game I don't like it for many reasons, but mainly for this one. But there are others who don't care about the historical aspects and find it is a good game. If you ask me, then of course I'll say get Civ 4 and enjoy it! But who knows, you might find Civ 5 more fun. I agree with jjkrause that you'll just have to try it out for yourself. In general, if history is important to you and you want your empire to function in a way that makes sense and is historically plausible, rather than the majority of core features being based on fantasy, then you'll prefer Civ 4.

ok thanx funky , if u said that it worth very much, deffinetly I will try civ4 with expansions from tomorow because civ5 I was playing a lot of my time... I'm just curious how it is to play it for a long time to see the differences from both...
 
Originally posted by The Low King
A better way to represent war weariness would be to have a happiness modifier based purely on success or failure in war. A civilisation winning a war could pull an alexander the great and keep expanding simply on the momentum of past victories. On the other hand, losing a war would force them to make peace. This is much more realistic.

I think Civ IV got it right with war weariness, and I think it is a great feature. The problem with the above quote is that it may be more realistic to a point (even a successful war will eventually test it's general public), but it doesn't work for this game. War weariness in the game, keeps the game more balanced and requires you to have more strategy instead of just steamrolling your opponent. Being able to continue a war in the game, with no negatives like WW, could make the game boring after awhile, since it would be so one sided. In the above quote, the part "losing a war would force them to make peace", makes no sense because if you are losing a war you are going to make peace because you are losing, not because of WW from a reverse implementation of the feature.
 
Phil are you suggesting that tax slider rates in civ4 effect happiness? Because they don't, only the luxury slider does, and generally you leave taxes as low as possible to research more, so more taxes take away from research having nothing to do with happiness.

I also fail to see how civ4 has tons of micro management anyway, I see people complaining about it all the time but don't get a lot of examples. Because in civ5 I still go into my cities and do manual specialists or set a focus. You just have to do it tile by tile in civ4. Only the really advanced strategies in civ4 micromanage every turn. You don't have to do that at all if you don't want to.

I think possibly what people think is micromanagement is specialist research. You can have huge tax deficiets yet still research fine because of specilists, building research etc. There's more options, I guess that is a sense of micromanagement but it's not that drastic.
 
Phil are you suggesting that tax slider rates in civ4 effect happiness? Because they don't, only the luxury slider does, and generally you leave taxes as low as possible to research more, so more taxes take away from research having nothing to do with happiness.

Large armies require upkeep even in Civ IV - sometimes you do need to raise gold income, and those times are often through war. But I had forgotten that there wasn't a happiness modifier for taxation - I've played Civ IV recently, but haven't needed to raise tax income for the very reason you point out. In Civ IV, gold has no purpose other than covering maintenance costs (unless you adopt universal suffrage), and science is all-important. Of course the realism of this is also open to scrutiny...

I also fail to see how civ4 has tons of micro management anyway, I see people complaining about it all the time but don't get a lot of examples. Because in civ5 I still go into my cities and do manual specialists or set a focus. You just have to do it tile by tile in civ4. Only the really advanced strategies in civ4 micromanage every turn. You don't have to do that at all if you don't want to.

A lot of people have pointed out, rightly I think, that the feel is more important than the reality. In reality Civ IV and Civ V are remarkably similar games in most respects, and both are wildly unrealistic. But people feel a greater sense of 'realism' in Civ IV.

The same's true here - Civ IV does not have a great deal of micromanagement (as I noted, what it has is essentially macromanagement disguised as micromanagement - making the same decisions again and again to control macro-level effects but on a city-by-city basis), but what it does have is varied tile improvements (the choices between which are no-brainers in most circumstances, but they still present an illusion of choice), a larger building roster to choose from, happiness and health to manage in individual cities. The way trade routes worked meant that per-city commerce output was relevant, which is not the case with gold in Civ V.

I think possibly what people think is micromanagement is specialist research. You can have huge tax deficiets yet still research fine because of specilists, building research etc. There's more options, I guess that is a sense of micromanagement but it's not that drastic.

That's pretty much it, yes. People seem to like to confuse breadth with depth - if you have more options, you have a wider breadth to choose from, but not necessarily any more depth. For example, take Civ IV's tile improvements - if you have a production city, you have a choice of building a mine on a hill or a windmill. It's not a real choice - you'll always go with the mine. In Civ V, you'll always go with the mine.

There's no difference in depth - you're presented with a situation which has one 'best solution', whether you have one suboptimal alternative or a hundred.

There isn't even, in this case, any difference in choice - Civ IV called a food-producing improvement you can build on a hill a windmill. Civ V just lets you build a farm on a hill to provide the same benefit. There's just an illusion that, because Civ IV has a different name and graphic for a 'farm on a hill' improvement, therefore it offers more depth.
 
I find that city states are one of the most realistic things added to the game, though i think their interactions need to be tweeked a bit.
No doubt, city states could have been implemented in a way that actually makes sense. The way they behave in Civ 5 though, acting as gold sinks, providing your cities with magical food or other bonuses, giving random quests etc, is downright ridiculous.

Global happiness is just another way of representing public order in empires, just as civ 4's local happiness was. Both are simply different interpretations of how citizens are managed.
Again, some form of empire stability could make sense. But you can't deny that global happiness as implemtented in Civ 5 leads to many scenarios which make no sense at all and are simply absurd.


Social policies are just another way of interpreting governmental developement
This one however is worse than silly, this one is dangerous. It gives a completely false sense of how nations developed and distorts historical awareness. Unfortunately, your quote shows why Civ 5's compete detachment from realim is so fatal, people actually believe what they see in the game. Social policies are in no way a "matter of interpretation", they are at best a fantasy construction, and at worst the opposite of how societal progression has worked throughout our history.


Civ 5's combat system would work if it was on a differernt scale, if a map held a maximum of two cities (i believe one of the devs said it would make sense on a map 4x the size). However, that is unfeasable if ou want to keep the empire bulding size so they scale it up. The realism is fine, its just the scale thats wrong.
Of course there were ways of making combat make sense, but in Civ 5 it doesn't. Saying realism is ok but scale is wrong is self-contradictory. The way combat works in Civ 5 has nothing to do with anything even close to reality.




War weariness is something that didnt exist in the same way in the past, empires like Rome were at war for hundreds of years at a time, some civilisations never signed peace treaties with eachother.
As said before by me and jjkrause, this is wrong. There was definitely war weriness in ancient times, though the reasons were less ideological than today. And Rome didn't fight any war for hundreds of years (the lack of peace treaties didn't mean they were constantly in war).


Government, definatly not. Other than the USA's war on communism there are very few examples when governement has played that big a part.
This isn't true. Today it is very obvious that the same governmental forms bring countries closer together. But think also of the communist countries of last century, or the alliances of monarchies in the 19th century. Going back to the ancient times, certain governments, e.g. the Jewish dual government of monarch and high priest, were very suspect for the Romans.

Religion played much more of an effect, things like the Crusades and various religious wars are prevelent. However, it was much more often used as an excuse rather than being the actual reason, that is why medival empires put so much effort into controlling the Pope.
Does it make a difference of the outcome is the same? Fact is that millions and millions of people lost their lives in wars fought in the name of religion.


So overall i would disgree with your claim that you should play Civ 4 for realism, i think they are both as bad and as good as eachother in that respect.
A certain level of abstraction is always needed in games. In Civ 4, real occurences from our history are taken and abstraced into game features. If we look what Civ 5's features are abstracted from, we arrive at fantasy concepts and false assumptions, and in all cases things without precedent in history, which more often than not don't even make any sense at all.
 
You seem to have fixated on almost the opposite of my point. It's not that Civ V doesn't rely on "elements of imagination and fantasy" over historical plausibility, rather it's that this is true of every Civ game, including Civ IV. Which is somewhat fatal to a claim that Civ V can't be considered part of the Civilization series on grounds that it's not historically plausible. If, as you say, you dislike the game for its lack of "realism" and prefer Civ IV as a more "realistic" game, then you're deceiving yourself into imagining Civ IV is something it's not.
Well Phil, what can I say? I could list all the main features from Civ 4 and show how, despite their abstraction, they are based on real concepts in our history. But not only would that take this thread pretty far off-topic, I also don't really feel the need to do so, since it is so obvious. Just look at my list of Civ 5 absurdities and take their counterparts in Civ 4. You will find that most of them represent real occurences (or at least avoid sillyness), even if in some cases the abstraction may make the connection seem loose at first. That's not to say there are unrealistic things in Civ 4 too, but the core features are all abstacted from reality. Civ 5's concepts are abstracted from nothing that ever occured, but from fantasy concepts and false assumptions of our history. As a history teacher I have a rather high sense of awareness of these things and one of the reasons I like Civ 4 so much is that while it is still a game more than a simluation, it still models the world in a reasonable way and behaves the same way as our own world actually functioned. I hate to argue with the authority of my job rather than with arguments, but in this case I'll leave it at that.
 
No doubt, city states could have been implemented in a way that actually makes sense. The way they behave in Civ 5 though, acting as gold sinks, providing your cities with magical food or other bonuses, giving random quests etc, is downright ridiculous.

During the Peloponnesian war Athens relied completely on food imported from City States around the Agean.
Similarly Rome relied on imports from cities across the empire.
Throughout history empires have relied on vassal states supplying armies.
Wars have been fought over controlling imports from certain places.
Friendship with the Papancy in Europe often resulted in religious backing for your wars etc

Every city state gift can be explained with real examples.

Missions simply represent you helping the city state in order to gain favor, taking out a rival state? Protecting them from barbarians? Defending them agaisnt rival empires? Proving your Cultural/religious/Technilogical strength? All are very viable and realistic ways to gain allies.

Gold is simply a bribe, going to the city state and saying "i will make you rich if you join me" is hardly out of the ordinary.

They make complete sense.


Again, some form of empire stability could make sense. But you can't deny that global happiness as implemtented in Civ 5 leads to many scenarios which make no sense at all and are simply absurd.

And there are scenarios in Civ 4 which equally make no sense and are simply absurd. There are also far more in both games where it makes sense and fits. As i said, they are both different ways of interpreting the same thing.

This one however is worse than silly, this one is dangerous. It gives a completely false sense of how nations developed and distorts historical awareness. Unfortunately, your quote shows why Civ 5's compete detachment from realim is so fatal, people actually believe what they see in the game. Social policies are in no way a "matter of interpretation", they are at best a fantasy construction, and at worst the opposite of how societal progression has worked throughout our history.

Lol. You are really claiming that my understanding of politics/History is based on Civ 5?

As i explained in my previous post, there are plenty of real world examples of governments developing in ways that fit with social policies. Political systems very rarely suddenly appear, they develop over time. Sometimes there are revolutions, but they are almost always due to outside influences.

Of course there were ways of making combat make sense, but in Civ 5 it doesn't. Saying realism is ok but scale is wrong is self-contradictory. The way combat works in Civ 5 has nothing to do with anything even close to reality.

The total war games have realistic battles yet their army numbers are in the thousands compared to real armies at the time of tens of thousands (if not hundreds).
Civ 4 was realistic in that armies were all on one tile, on the other hand it involves Giant men, catapults damaging half the enemy army at a time and almost no tactical realism.
Age of empires games are realistic in some senses yet involve population caps of 200, resource costs and completely off scale.

Just because something's scale is wrong does not mean other aspects are not realistic.


As said before by me and jjkrause, this is wrong. There was definitely war weriness in ancient times, though the reasons were less ideological than today. And Rome didn't fight any war for hundreds of years (the lack of peace treaties didn't mean they were constantly in war).

The lack of peace treaties actually does mean that if we are talking about the context of a Civ game given that you still count at war untill a treaty is agreed on even if no fighting is taking place.

Also, the Roman empire was almost constantly fighting for huge chunks of its existance at a time, against multiple enemies.

Another example in the hundred years war between England and France.

This isn't true. Today it is very obvious that the same governmental forms bring countries closer together. But think also of the communist countries of last century, or the alliances of monarchies in the 19th century. Going back to the ancient times, certain governments, e.g. the Jewish dual government of monarch and high priest, were very suspect for the Romans.

The USSR and China did not get on paticualrly well, in fact many Communist countries didnt ally with the USSR because of the political implications (Yugoslavia).
The "Democratic" USA allied itself with (and set up) Dictators and Tyrants across the world.
Im not even going to start on some of the people the West is backing these days.
The Roman rebublic gave no special considerations to other democratic states, no oligarchies/dictators/monarchies allied against Rome or with eachother based on government.


Does it make a difference of the outcome is the same? Fact is that millions and millions of people lost their lives in wars fought in the name of religion.

People have lost their lives in wars fought over "weapons of mass destruction" wich in reality had nothing to do with it, so yes, it matters.

A certain level of abstraction is always needed in games. In Civ 4, real occurences from our history are taken and abstraced into game features. If we look what Civ 5's features are abstracted from, we arrive at fantasy concepts and false assumptions, and in all cases things without precedent in history, which more often than not don't even make any sense at all.

I guarantee that for every example of realism in Civ 4 i can find a way it is also an abstraction, and vice versa for Civ 5.
 
As a history teacher I have a rather high sense of awareness of these things and one of the reasons I like Civ 4 so much is that while it is still a game more than a simluation, it still models the world in a reasonable way and behaves the same way as our own world actually functioned. I hate to argue with the authority of my job rather than with arguments, but in this case I'll leave it at that.

Funky, u are a HISTORY TEACHER???? How cool !!!!!

If funky is a history teacher and he knows all mankind history , he knows what he talking about... In some ways he can see the difference.. I like history too but I am not very ' '' a historical student'' but i like too.... Do u know to recomand articles and books of all fundamental mankind history, something general to read? just to have a lot more culture.. ok? and if I read I will love much more the civ series... thanx so much...
 
Funky, u are a HISTORY TEACHER???? How cool !!!!!

If funky is a history teacher and he knows all mankind history , he knows what he talking about... In some ways he can see the difference.. I like history too but I am not very ' '' a historical student'' but i like too.... Do u know to recomand articles and books of all fundamental mankind history, something general to read? just to have a lot more culture.. ok? and if I read I will love much more the civ series... thanx so much...

Grand works of history will never do a good job....you have to piece the story together with more specific works (and that takes time). Tell me what period you're interested in and I can try to recommend a book or two.
 
As a history teacher I have a rather high sense of awareness of these things and one of the reasons I like Civ 4 so much is that while it is still a game more than a simluation, it still models the world in a reasonable way and behaves the same way as our own world actually functioned. I hate to argue with the authority of my job rather than with arguments, but in this case I'll leave it at that.

If you are a history teacher then please use plenty of historical examples to support your claims.
 
I think that critiquing Civ IV or V because of realistic effects or simulation is a very big stretch. I like Civ - have played it since its incarnation, but arguing the merit of the game by citing realism? C'mon.... Civ has about as much realism as Settlers of Catan - well maybe not as much, because in Catan you need to gather bricks in order to make buildings.

Arguing whether the combat is more realistic is a huge non-issue as well. It is literally true in Civ IV that if you had enough spearman you can take down a modern armor unit - in Civ V, it wont happen simply because even surrounding the armor with six spearman wont kill it.

Its funny how people argue that Civ IV's realism makes it a superior simulation, when the Civ franchise has always been extremely 'non-realistic.' For example, Activision's Call to Power had a much better and more realistic attempt at simulating building infrastructure with the concept of Public Works. Much more efficient and realistic then using 'worker' units that require hundreds of years to build a road.

Civ IV is good, but those who wish to argue that its a better game simply because the micromanagement makes it feel more realistic are incorrect. This micromanagement is done in order to MinMax the game. In this case the micromanagement does make Civ IV a 'deeper' game in general - i.e. city specialization is core to the game and is what truly differentiates Civ IV from Civ V.
 
Grand works of history will never do a good job....you have to piece the story together with more specific works (and that takes time). Tell me what period you're interested in and I can try to recommend a book or two.

oo thanx jjkrause84, I like very much the classical and medieval , are my favorite eras... I like to see movies and read stuff from that period... u know like the roman empire, greece or the war betwen england and france, the celts ,bizanthine, otoman empire, carthage... the persians, are a lot of favourite periods... and of course in civ , I like to play very much more that eras than the industrial or modern eras...
 
The funny thing about this discussion is that Funky makes some good points about how Civ IV may be more realistic, which I don't necessarily disagree with. The problem is that the claims of Civ IV's utter superiority, given the examples provided, are quite pretentious. I do appreciate the effort Funky has put into these replies, and they aren't without their pearls, but when we're talking about Civ IV being based on reality and Civ V being a fantasy game using examples of clouds covering uncharted territory and static graphics in V, there's no real point in continuing a serious discussion. No opinions are changing here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't played IV since V came out, but aren't the lumbermills being worked in IV graphically represented by a saw moving back and forth at the hands of some invisible apparition? And this non-static graphics style is used as an example of why IV is based on reality and V is fantasy? That's called a user preference, nothing more. Same for the mine carts in IV that are directed by a spectral crew of miners.

I played countless hours of IV and loved it... probably enjoyed the core mechanics of IV more than V but IV ran its course for me and V had some new implementations that made Civ fresh again. Eternalblue, like others have said, just play the game and learn for yourself firsthand. If you already love V, I think you'll enjoy it more since it's what you're used to, especially with an expansion on the horizon. IV is fantastic, but any insinuation that it is a paragon of reality and V might as well have dragons and mages is simply untrue and borderline vitriolic.
 
The funny thing about this discussion is that Funky makes some good points about how Civ IV may be more realistic, which I don't necessarily disagree with. The problem is that the claims of Civ IV's utter superiority, given the examples provided, are quite pretentious. I do appreciate the effort Funky has put into these replies, and they aren't without their pearls, but when we're talking about Civ IV being based on reality and Civ V being a fantasy game using examples of clouds covering uncharted territory and static graphics in V, there's no real point in continuing a serious discussion. No opinions are changing here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't played IV since V came out, but aren't the lumbermills being worked in IV graphically represented by a saw moving back and forth at the hands of some invisible apparition? And this non-static graphics style is used as an example of why IV is based on reality and V is fantasy? That's called a user preference, nothing more. Same for the mine carts in IV that are directed by a spectral crew of miners.

I played countless hours of IV and loved it... probably enjoyed the core mechanics of IV more than V but IV ran its course for me and V had some new implementations that made Civ fresh again. Eternalblue, like others have said, just play the game and learn for yourself firsthand. If you already love V, I think you'll enjoy it more since it's what you're used to, especially with an expansion on the horizon. IV is fantastic, but any insinuation that it is a paragon of reality and V might as well have dragons and mages is simply untrue and borderline vitriolic.

You are 100% correct with an acurate answer.... CIV4 is fantastic with the expansion but I am just bored how a lot of people ''civ4 fans'' what they put in the very negative way civ5 , I can't see bad AI and ''fantasy'' things like that, this phenomenon ocurs just because they think civ4 is realistic... in civ5 it's the same way without much micromanagement... I don't understand and for this I was asking civ4 players or civ veterans if it is worth to play much more civ4 and to explain me how the micromanagement works because I'm new and the fighting in the same way to explain me how it is his core with his stacks to enjoy it... instead surprising me a lot of answers are CIV5 It's not realistic ( but civ4 it's the same in some aspects ) !!! Has bad A.I. !!! ( that it doesn't bad , and I was saying that because the A.I in prince level can kick the player ass depends in how u playing , I can't see dumb things, just somethimes like in all the games but is not big deal) , the clouds not realistic !!! ( instead of playing in a darker game with that claustrophobic fog of war I prefer a lot much more the clouds, and the world is more opened graphicaly kick ass, Is like u are in a real world)... so are a lot of good points improved... I don't know why that much ''civ4 mania'' and arguing that civ5 is bad... I just want an answer like: ''Yes u need to play civ4 because ................................ instead of civ5 because it's better because some implementations.'' But no! the answer is: civ5 is terribly .... and ... and .... , because civ4 is great... and I like very much because funky make the point with his answers , but I don't like the ideea that civ5 is not a civ game.. this answer is a bad answer especialy in respect for firaxis games, they made a lot of effort to put a game like this... and people stop saying that CIV5 is BAD !!! because I can tell to all the people: IT ISN'T, is a great game !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Well Phil, what can I say? I could list all the main features from Civ 4 and show how, despite their abstraction, they are based on real concepts in our history. But not only would that take this thread pretty far off-topic, I also don't really feel the need to do so, since it is so obvious.

Except that it isn't obvious even what you consider the "main features" of Civ IV, let alone why you consider them realistic. Most of the list of features you critique in Civ V are similarly unrealistic in Civ IV, only for different reasons. Most Civ IV features have direct analogues in Civ V, only executed in a different way - the core mechanic missing from Civ V is any kind of taxation system (which is a definite realism failure). Take key aspects of the Civ series:

Cities: In Civ IV you can found and grow cities before the development of agriculture. This is not a necessary abstraction, it is purely a gameplay mechanic to make different civs more varied by varying their starting technologies. It is without any known historical precedent.

Technology: In all Civ games technology is not only the driving force of civilization, it is actively researched right from the get-go, with the player actively selecting specific techs to research long before anyone within the civ could plausibly know what wheels or bronze working actually are (and, when discovered, are instantly available to everyone throughout your empire). This is, again, not a necessary abstraction - there are game series in which technological achievements simply 'spawn' over time, and others in which you select a general research area but the specific techs you'll learn are not preset. Once again, this is purely a gameplay consideration (and one taken from the original board game): being able to select technologies allows you to plan strategies around them.

Taxation and maintenance: In Civ IV you couldn't spend money to buy things until you adopted Currency, but you still generated gold as part of your commerce (in fact it's the first thing, along with science, you can set the slider to generate), so you have the conceptually odd situation that you have maintenance costs and taxation in coin long before you have a monetary system. Compared with earlier instalments Civ IV exacerbates this peculiarity by using gold as its brake on expansion. Yet again, there's little real-world precedent for expanding an empire to cost the state more upkeep; on the contrary expansion has often been motivated by opportunities for profit. It was adopted, Civ IV designers have repeatedly stated, because the pre-existing corruption mechanic worked badly - a very direct case of reducing realism to promote better gameplay.

As for the tax slider itself, I'd be delighted (as would most others in my profession) if the state that actively controlled taxation devoted the maximum possible amount of tax income to scientific research. But it doesn't happen and never has; moreover you can somehow spend money on science (as the slider represents) not only prior to developing a currency system, but also prior to the development of writing and of specialist scientists and their historical analogues.

Government: It's already been pointed out how conceptually bizarre the Civ IV civics system is. Not only does the state decide when to hold revolutions (something common to all Civ games until Civ V, in which you can't change governments), but every change of any aspect of government results in anarchy. Notably this did not happen with, for instance, the abolition of slavery anywhere except the United States in modern history. It did not happen with the abolition of hereditary monarchs in most of Europe. The fact that Civ V goes to the opposite extreme in imagining a governmental system that accumulates social progress over time and never has revolutions doesn't make Civ IV's any less bizarre - both have historical precedent in some societies but are conceptually absurd when applied universally.

Happiness: Like it or not, city-level happiness is a bad fit conceptually with empire-building. In Civ IV and predecessors, widespread unrest in your empire was the product of multiple individual cities being massively unhappy, something which has very rarely been a characteristic of real-world political turmoil. Historical unrest is not, for the most part, characterised by peasants' revolts but by disputes among political elites within a society. Urban populations have not obviously become more unhappy as a direct result of population growth any more than they have by the establishment of additional cities. Happiness in Civ games has always been a mechanic to set a constraint on growth, not an effort at realism.

Religion: People laud the role religion played in diplomacy in Civ IV, though as noted by myself and others above this is a mechanical consideration rather than a realism one. However, in the development of civilisation religion has been all-pervasive, not a system tacked on to oil the wheels of diplomatic machinery. Civ V has some unfortunate religious choices that, as you criticise it for, appear magical (Faith Healing, food and production bonuses from associated gods), but as a system its handling is more plausible. Faith is a feature in its own right, serving mainly to fuel effects that increase the numbers of followers and temples, while religious effects (and dominance within a society) are determined by numbers of followers rather than the leader's religious persuasion (which in historical societies often caused a great deal of tension between the leadership and its rivals).

Culture: Whether or not social policies are a good representation of culture (frankly I agree that they're not), culture in Civ III and Civ IV was among the least realistic mechanics the series has ever produced. Culture had no effect except to extend your borders (and protect them from being flipped by opposing cities' cultures). Aside from the fact that - like religion - this resulted in culture being a semi-independent minigame with little relationship to the rest of the game, what historical precedent is there for cultural influence securing access to resources or capturing foreign territory, let alone converting cities wholesale to another civilisation's governance? Amazingly, however many Wonders are built in China or Great Britain, you don't find the Mongolians or Irish clamouring to become part of the neighbouring civilisation...

That's not to say there are unrealistic things in Civ 4 too, but the core features are all abstacted from reality. Civ 5's concepts are abstracted from nothing that ever occured, but from fantasy concepts and false assumptions of our history.

I'd be interested in hearing the real events any of the above is abstracted from. It seems a bizarre double standard to consider that the above are derived from reality while the concept that a maritime city-state generates food is a complete fantasy.

, it still models the world in a reasonable way and behaves the same way as our own world actually functioned.

I'd point to people fighting Aztec enemies inside Lisbon while the Portuguese are allied with both parties, again. As for "behaving the same way our own world actually functioned", this is a property that goes beyond cherry-picking mechanics - if you look at the way Civ V games develop, the results are very similar to the way Civ IV games develop, and such things as city-states that you consider mechanically absurd (and in many cases are) do take on a feel of 'realistic' functioning when looked at as elements of the geopolitical landscape - ignore the fact that "discover a natural wonder inside our own borders and we'll be happy with you" quests are nonsensical and look instead at a system in which city-states are valuable allies and commodities to be contested with rival civilisations, and a pattern broadly familiar from reality emerges.

I hate to argue with the authority of my job rather than with arguments, but in this case I'll leave it at that.

I'd hate you to as well. A history teacher is not a historian, any more than a science teacher is a scientist, and the skills involved emphasise communication as much as or more than extensive knowledge of the subject material. I wouldn't be at all surprised if historians as a community share the opinions of people in my field about science teaching and science journalism (which are rarely flattering). Curricula in both subjects are necessarily constrained to certain areas of interest, are not indepth treatments of any of them, and may often aid communication by analogy to concepts familiar to students. For example, describing the Peloponnesian War as a conflict between oligarchs and democrats (as someone did earlier in this thread) is an analogy to recent Cold War politics familiar to most people today, but does not accurately reflect the reality of the time or the way the societies involved defined themselves.
 
ok , let's reformulate ..... about an hour I was finished a civ5g&k game with the boudicca, the celts on prince difficulty on earth map , all on standard, and 22 civ with 41 city states, random leader... the finish time of my game was on turn 444 , in 2022 ad... so it was a good game in the classical, medieval era and I was conquering some nations... first I was thinking to go for a militaristic dominating victory with a great influence of the religion, but my civilization was on a very good scientific position so I go for a scientific launch in space victory... when I had more than 20 cities on my empire growing and conquering I was just feeling boring don't know... more because I was with happiness 77, and a lot of gold and I just feel like I can dominate everything and I just need to chose the prodictions of all cities every turn a lot of production chose without making some entertaining or just I don't know.. all the continent was mine, and the other civilization denounced me but without starting war without sending some naval ships or planes... I was just feeling like Tom Chick says with the ''tom chick parabola'' like all is just fantastic when u start and then when u can feel the game very good in classical and medieval looks chalanging very good a little arcade but something to chose and u feel like u are making someting, but afrer it goes boring when the industrial age start,because u have a lot of rich terrain and ... just build units and chose production and is like u want to finish the game from time to time...
I just want to ask... In civ4 it's more entertaining and chalenging from the industrial to the finish with more choses to do? or is the same?
something who can give me an detailed answer and advices?
 
Top Bottom