Is it just me or does Civ V feel like a step backwards for the series?
- Thread starter LGWolf
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 25,115
I actually liked V better than 6. I gave up on 6 after a couple of games and really regret having bought it, even on the cheap. At least I got some playtime outta V, but it in no ways compares to the greatness that is Civilization IV.
But yeah, you find few that will disagree with you LG. The vanilla interface/UI is indeed problematic, although most civ versions had that issue. It can be fixed quite a bit with mods like EUI. But for most the real problem with V is the dumbed down gameplay/strategy. And yeah, the 1UPT. Where I got some enjoyment out of V over the years is treating it strictly as a wargame. The early parts can be fun using the canned strategies to expand out and conquer when there are fewer units on the map. But once you get a lot of units it really becomes mundane and burdensome.
But yeah, you find few that will disagree with you LG. The vanilla interface/UI is indeed problematic, although most civ versions had that issue. It can be fixed quite a bit with mods like EUI. But for most the real problem with V is the dumbed down gameplay/strategy. And yeah, the 1UPT. Where I got some enjoyment out of V over the years is treating it strictly as a wargame. The early parts can be fun using the canned strategies to expand out and conquer when there are fewer units on the map. But once you get a lot of units it really becomes mundane and burdensome.
drewisfat
King
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2011
- Messages
- 929
I don't expect many No votes in this subforum.
I hear 6 was a little better but the bar was set PRETTY low.
6 seemed much less popular than 5, although some of that was due to them originally shipping spyware with the game....
It's still a disaster of a game for many of the same reasons as 5. However, they finally made expansion worthwhile again, which all by itself means it's probably a better game than "tall meme" 5. Sadly that's about it. The UI in 6 is literally the worst UI in any strategy game. Maybe that comment will summon TMIT to correct me with some example. 1 UPT is still there, which means production values are extremely distorted. Multiplayer is super tedious with 1 UPT, and the AI can't pose a threat which kills single player. So already there's no game here, even if other things are designed well. Districts might be interesting, but the AI doesn't understand them. So not only can the AI not fight wars, it can't run an economy for long either. In my honest view, there was only one positive development in 5 that didn't have any bad side effects and that was strategic resources having a quantity (like owning horses = gives you 5 horse units). This was removed in VI
Victory conditions are also a joke. I consider victory conditions one of the weakest aspects of civ IV. I wish all victory conditions were deserving of equal respect, but they're just not in single player. Dom/conq > Space > Dom w/ nukes >> Diplo > Culture >>> Religious. Still this is lightyears better than civ 6's victory conditions.
They desperately need to ditch 1UPT to have a shot at releasing a decent game ever again. Sadly, Civ V sold so well that this problem will never pierce the top execs' bubble.
Jerrymander
Epistemologist
There is no way that Civilization V could have improved on Civilization IV unless Firaxis hired a lead developer with the same ability as Soren Johnson. I'm not criticizing Shafer at all, but Soren Johnson is on another level. I remember when V first came out and people were praising that one-unit-per-tile was going to finally free us from the shackles(?) of the Stack of Doom, and then someone snarky (rolo?) commented that instead we have the Blanket of Doom. Kind of hilarious.
Look at this: https://www.reddit.com/r/CivStrategy/comments/2facax/the_empty_civ_experiment_how_i_learned_a_few/
Look at this: https://www.reddit.com/r/CivStrategy/comments/2facax/the_empty_civ_experiment_how_i_learned_a_few/
Last edited:
May Day 10
Prince
I come here every now and then to check to see if the latest expansion on the latest version has been a step in the right direction.
For me, Civilization was the best franchise going. 2 to 3 to 4 was an unreal progression. 4 was near perfect.
I looked forward to 5 for months. Pre-ordered a special edition with figurines and such. It came out. I didnt even finish one game. It was silly. I was also rolling a medium difficulty on the first try, where medium difficulties on the previous releases gave me fits. The strange missions that happen, the city-states thing. Extremely dulled down on almost every aspect. IMO, it was a huge step backwards, but not only that.... It was a completely different strategy game than Civ 2-4 were progressing toward.
I do agree that 1PT is a major culprit in this. Im disappointed it still is a thing in 6.
Maybe someday they will re-master IV with improved graphics.
For me, Civilization was the best franchise going. 2 to 3 to 4 was an unreal progression. 4 was near perfect.
I looked forward to 5 for months. Pre-ordered a special edition with figurines and such. It came out. I didnt even finish one game. It was silly. I was also rolling a medium difficulty on the first try, where medium difficulties on the previous releases gave me fits. The strange missions that happen, the city-states thing. Extremely dulled down on almost every aspect. IMO, it was a huge step backwards, but not only that.... It was a completely different strategy game than Civ 2-4 were progressing toward.
I do agree that 1PT is a major culprit in this. Im disappointed it still is a thing in 6.
Maybe someday they will re-master IV with improved graphics.
Hamilton321
Prince
ever heard of paradox interactive?
Been trying Civ V lately.
The start is somewhat interesting due to ruins, culture, faith points and natural wonders.
On Civ 4 at higher levels you tend to get barbs from huts unless you build scouts. The AI on Civ 4 is much quicker to grabbing huts. Especially as the AI start with scouts. Many turn off huts on Civ 4 anyway. On Civ V you tend to mostly get rewarded from ruins.
Faith points and culture add an element to the game Especially with resources. Religion can be somewhat interesting but not really grasped why it is so powerful yet. I don't like this system where Ai can constantly remove religion you spread to another city. Very frustrating.
Expansion is limited if you want to aim tall in terms of city size. Otherwise you play tradition tree and grab more land. Happiness is a bit of a pain too. I seem to be stuck on 4-5 cities most games.
Games seem to involve beelining universities or beelining military techs for war. I guess same could be said for cuirs on Civ 4?
I agree on warfare. I can surround a city with 9-10 units. Makes moving them very difficult. Especially when at war. Civ V forces you or a CS to raze/capture some of the cities. Too much unhappiness.
I can imagine late game the AI have 20-30+ units spammed across their empires. Blankets of units you will struggle to do anything useful with. Especially if an Ai city is hidden behind mountains.
I am determined to try and finsih a game of this. Just frustrated about warfare/1upt and this clicking sensation where cities are not doing much. I also miss the micro that Civ 4 added,
Each game adds something different I guess. Less strategy required for Civ 5. Hence why people come back to Civ 4.
The start is somewhat interesting due to ruins, culture, faith points and natural wonders.
On Civ 4 at higher levels you tend to get barbs from huts unless you build scouts. The AI on Civ 4 is much quicker to grabbing huts. Especially as the AI start with scouts. Many turn off huts on Civ 4 anyway. On Civ V you tend to mostly get rewarded from ruins.
Faith points and culture add an element to the game Especially with resources. Religion can be somewhat interesting but not really grasped why it is so powerful yet. I don't like this system where Ai can constantly remove religion you spread to another city. Very frustrating.
Expansion is limited if you want to aim tall in terms of city size. Otherwise you play tradition tree and grab more land. Happiness is a bit of a pain too. I seem to be stuck on 4-5 cities most games.
Games seem to involve beelining universities or beelining military techs for war. I guess same could be said for cuirs on Civ 4?
I agree on warfare. I can surround a city with 9-10 units. Makes moving them very difficult. Especially when at war. Civ V forces you or a CS to raze/capture some of the cities. Too much unhappiness.
I can imagine late game the AI have 20-30+ units spammed across their empires. Blankets of units you will struggle to do anything useful with. Especially if an Ai city is hidden behind mountains.
I am determined to try and finsih a game of this. Just frustrated about warfare/1upt and this clicking sensation where cities are not doing much. I also miss the micro that Civ 4 added,
Each game adds something different I guess. Less strategy required for Civ 5. Hence why people come back to Civ 4.
Hamilton321
Prince
Reduction of difficulty is the trend across most pop-strategy game franchises, Civilization is not unique in this regard, major game developers only care about getting the money of noobs and casuals who do not care about learning game mechanics or developing true and innovative strategy.. I spent the last week playing quite a bit of Stellaris and I am amazed at how easy the game is compared to Paradox's earlier releases such as Crusader Kings or Victoria. Stellaris in difficulty is, in my experience, somewhere in between Civilization V and Napoleon Total War, whereas Victoria is more difficult than CIvilization IV. That does not mean that easy games are not fun but difficult games encourage players to progress and develop their strategy and create good strategy players.
But that's what really made IV great. If you wanted it easier there was a setting called noble. And Deity still can kick my butt.
For V, the first time I played on Deity, I won. And on the 2nd, 3rd, etc. There was no harder.
For V, the first time I played on Deity, I won. And on the 2nd, 3rd, etc. There was no harder.
drewisfat
King
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2011
- Messages
- 929
It is hard to rate PDX games difficulty, as they usually don't have defined victory conditions and the main difficulty is in starting with a weaker ruler/nation. I'll grant you that Vic2 was a harder game than their current new releases, but I would not say it was harder than civ4. Civ4 has one of the highest skill caps of any game, that's why some of us are still playing it 
PDX games in general are known for appearing complex but the complexity results in fewer interesting decisions not more. For an example, in EU4 combat works with a series of dice rolls, 3 phases of combat, defensive terrain, river crossings, unit perks, the stats of the general, the traits of a general, unit buffs, unit movement speed, reinforcements, global modifiers, combat width, flanking damage, attrition, morale, etc., etc. The result? Well there are only 3 types of land units: infantry, cavalry and artillery. Cavalry is not worth it. Artillery becomes OP late game. If that sounds bad, well naval combat is even worse. This is super pathetic. The complexity of PDX games is a flaw that drains developer time and unintuitively results in their games being much simpler as far as decision making goes.
PDX games have certainly gotten dumbed down, but I think a lot of this has to do with title spam and DLC spam, forcing them to spend all their resources on creating new screenshots for the latest steam page. The Civ series has no such excuse. They've been handicapped immensely by 1UPT, and now they've got a fanbase that would revolt if they're not able to feel like geniuses for tactically destroying a braindead AI.
PDX games in general are known for appearing complex but the complexity results in fewer interesting decisions not more. For an example, in EU4 combat works with a series of dice rolls, 3 phases of combat, defensive terrain, river crossings, unit perks, the stats of the general, the traits of a general, unit buffs, unit movement speed, reinforcements, global modifiers, combat width, flanking damage, attrition, morale, etc., etc. The result? Well there are only 3 types of land units: infantry, cavalry and artillery. Cavalry is not worth it. Artillery becomes OP late game. If that sounds bad, well naval combat is even worse. This is super pathetic. The complexity of PDX games is a flaw that drains developer time and unintuitively results in their games being much simpler as far as decision making goes.
PDX games have certainly gotten dumbed down, but I think a lot of this has to do with title spam and DLC spam, forcing them to spend all their resources on creating new screenshots for the latest steam page. The Civ series has no such excuse. They've been handicapped immensely by 1UPT, and now they've got a fanbase that would revolt if they're not able to feel like geniuses for tactically destroying a braindead AI.
Hamilton321
Prince
I agree that it is difficult to compare the difficulties of games across franchises. with PDX games the difficulty level depends on what you wish to do. My comments were trying to make the point that strategy games across franchises were dumbed down from where they once were. I actually played Vic2 again for the first time in a long while and it was an unusual playthrough to say the least. I still play Civ4 even though I do not post on the forums very much. Currently I am working on a Churchill, Emperor, Terra, Epic game.
balanceofpower
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 2
Is it me or a Civ players since Civ IV a step backwards from previous Civ players? /s
No seriously. I started playing Civ since the original in 1990-91 on floppy discs. I played CivNet when that launched for Win3.1. I played II and III. I don't ever recall this level of elitism, gate keeping and self-aggrandizing puffery in the early forums and discussions in those days. Most players discussed the strategies if memory serves.
Nowadays it's all this self-patting on the back over how big your brains are and how the newer games made changes you don't like because you see yourselves as game developers in your own minds and the developers didn't fall over themselves copy/pasting your sage advice.
Civ V was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and it suffered from some fundamental flaws that even its expansions could not fix but Civ V and Civ VI were definitely steps in the right direction specifically because they needed to address the fundamental flaws that Civ IV brought to the fore.
And yes, sorry to break up the mutual admiration society here,but I am one of few Civ players who will tell you to your faces that Civ IV is not the end all be all of Civ and in fact I'd argue that it is as flawed as Civ V strategically and mechanically but I digress.
Civ IV was the maturation of the classic Civ formula which meant that Civ had nowhere new to go. This formula was already showing its age and its major weaknesses and with the advent of multiplayer becoming a more integral part of modern gaming any Civ after IV absolutely NEEDED to be designed with the intent of reducing the power creep, easily abused mechanics, and de-incentivize the need for spam to win games.
Civ IV suffers from all of these three defects. It wasn't a big deal in the past games because Civs I though IV, despite having some multiplayer support, were primarily singleplayer games. But V was an attempt to address these issues because it was designed with both multiplayer and singleplayer in mind and the reason for that is simple: easily abused mechanics, power creep and spam tactics make for bad gameplay and short multiplayer games when people inevitably quit the game when another player beats them to the Great Library or some other major wonder, or, when you're invaded by a stack of doom.
Speaking of stacks, Civ 4's over-reliance on unit spam was almost certainly directly involved in the decision to implement 1UPT. And Civ 4's spam mechanics aren't caused by one thing but a systemic flaw created by a number of factors that encourage this kind of play: it's wonky unpredictable combat RNG where a ~90 percent chance to win can still end in a loss, its overbearing rock-paper-scissors-axe-banana-spitball mechanics that needlessly convoluted unit composition (meaning you needed 10x of every unit to account for every contingency), the absolutely inane decision to have units in stacks face off against their counter, and last but certainly not least, the absolutely pants-on-head STUPID decision to divide artillery into two different uses between removing defensive bonuses and forcing artillery to suicide themselves into other stacks in the hopes of sufficiently damaging the units through collateral damage, forcing you to lose units, which forces you to make replacement units.
Not to mention that stack combat in Civ IV is not exactly genius level stuff (no matter how much you shine your self-awarded medals), basically spam melee units, cavalry and artillery into a stack; soften with artillery, mop up with cavalry and/or melee units until you've won the war. Rinse repeat. Yawn.
Long story short: Civ V was not a step backwards, it was an attempt to right the problems that have been inherent in Civ since its earliest inception a necessary step in order to make multiplayer as viable as single player. Civ V was not perfect but neither was Civ IV which suffers from key weaknesses, it's just that this community has normalized these weaknesses you fail to recognize them for what they are.
No Civ is perfect and no Civ is a complete failure Anyone who says otherwise is either an arrogant liar or a fool. Each Civ since the earliest beginnings has attempted to improve on or address the desires of the community. Perhaps Civ IV is your sweet spot when it comes to what attracts you to Civ, but that doesn't make it perfect.
I for one enjoy all Civs. I play VI regularly but I still go back to V and IV and III and enjoy them despite their shortcomings while also appreciating their strengths.
No seriously. I started playing Civ since the original in 1990-91 on floppy discs. I played CivNet when that launched for Win3.1. I played II and III. I don't ever recall this level of elitism, gate keeping and self-aggrandizing puffery in the early forums and discussions in those days. Most players discussed the strategies if memory serves.
Nowadays it's all this self-patting on the back over how big your brains are and how the newer games made changes you don't like because you see yourselves as game developers in your own minds and the developers didn't fall over themselves copy/pasting your sage advice.
Civ V was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and it suffered from some fundamental flaws that even its expansions could not fix but Civ V and Civ VI were definitely steps in the right direction specifically because they needed to address the fundamental flaws that Civ IV brought to the fore.
And yes, sorry to break up the mutual admiration society here,but I am one of few Civ players who will tell you to your faces that Civ IV is not the end all be all of Civ and in fact I'd argue that it is as flawed as Civ V strategically and mechanically but I digress.
Civ IV was the maturation of the classic Civ formula which meant that Civ had nowhere new to go. This formula was already showing its age and its major weaknesses and with the advent of multiplayer becoming a more integral part of modern gaming any Civ after IV absolutely NEEDED to be designed with the intent of reducing the power creep, easily abused mechanics, and de-incentivize the need for spam to win games.
Civ IV suffers from all of these three defects. It wasn't a big deal in the past games because Civs I though IV, despite having some multiplayer support, were primarily singleplayer games. But V was an attempt to address these issues because it was designed with both multiplayer and singleplayer in mind and the reason for that is simple: easily abused mechanics, power creep and spam tactics make for bad gameplay and short multiplayer games when people inevitably quit the game when another player beats them to the Great Library or some other major wonder, or, when you're invaded by a stack of doom.
Speaking of stacks, Civ 4's over-reliance on unit spam was almost certainly directly involved in the decision to implement 1UPT. And Civ 4's spam mechanics aren't caused by one thing but a systemic flaw created by a number of factors that encourage this kind of play: it's wonky unpredictable combat RNG where a ~90 percent chance to win can still end in a loss, its overbearing rock-paper-scissors-axe-banana-spitball mechanics that needlessly convoluted unit composition (meaning you needed 10x of every unit to account for every contingency), the absolutely inane decision to have units in stacks face off against their counter, and last but certainly not least, the absolutely pants-on-head STUPID decision to divide artillery into two different uses between removing defensive bonuses and forcing artillery to suicide themselves into other stacks in the hopes of sufficiently damaging the units through collateral damage, forcing you to lose units, which forces you to make replacement units.
Not to mention that stack combat in Civ IV is not exactly genius level stuff (no matter how much you shine your self-awarded medals), basically spam melee units, cavalry and artillery into a stack; soften with artillery, mop up with cavalry and/or melee units until you've won the war. Rinse repeat. Yawn.
Long story short: Civ V was not a step backwards, it was an attempt to right the problems that have been inherent in Civ since its earliest inception a necessary step in order to make multiplayer as viable as single player. Civ V was not perfect but neither was Civ IV which suffers from key weaknesses, it's just that this community has normalized these weaknesses you fail to recognize them for what they are.
No Civ is perfect and no Civ is a complete failure Anyone who says otherwise is either an arrogant liar or a fool. Each Civ since the earliest beginnings has attempted to improve on or address the desires of the community. Perhaps Civ IV is your sweet spot when it comes to what attracts you to Civ, but that doesn't make it perfect.
I for one enjoy all Civs. I play VI regularly but I still go back to V and IV and III and enjoy them despite their shortcomings while also appreciating their strengths.
6K Man
Bureaucrat
While some of what you have posted may be true, it doesn’t address two major issues, already noted in this thread:
1. Civ4 remains challenging on the highest levels, even for very good players. Civ5 was beatable by good players on its highest levels, almost immediately.
2. Civ4 has meaningful decisions through much of the duration of a typical game. Civ5 does not.
Mechanics aside, a game is a failure if there’s no challenge in it and it lacks replayability.
1. Civ4 remains challenging on the highest levels, even for very good players. Civ5 was beatable by good players on its highest levels, almost immediately.
2. Civ4 has meaningful decisions through much of the duration of a typical game. Civ5 does not.
Mechanics aside, a game is a failure if there’s no challenge in it and it lacks replayability.
Having played V and IV, and preferring IV, my qualms are the same with every 'big-blockbuster/famous sequel' from Syndicate/Satellite Reign, TES, X-Com, and the like: why did you turn down the scale? We've done all of this before. They should expand on it, on features and the like, and never contract. That's the only real problem I have nowadays. Of course, again, if I had to chose between IV and V, I'd pick IV every time, but I don't see V as a terrible product. It made bank. It allowed a lot more people to enjoy the series. It's okay.
It feels like Bs when it happens, but a 90% percent chance means losing once of every ten battles. And the kill/death ratios are still probably going to be in your favour, althougth due to perception issues we feel like the game is laughing at all whne you lose those comabats
And althougth what you said is in part true, I don't think that Civ IV was the end of the line or that Civ V was a step fowards. Combat could have been change to a model similar to call to power where armies clash as a whole (and other more recents games like Endless legends). Instead we get panzer general model that while works great on a tactic games, fail miserable on the scale civilization games are play
vorlon_mi
Emperor
Disclaimer: I have not yet played Civ VI, nor its expansions.
Civ V certainly did address a fundamental aspect of Civ III and Civ IV, which is massive production of units. While I do like my empire to have a certain heft to it, covering a large landmass and incorporating 30-40 cities, the domination and conquest victory conditions in III and IV require a massive land grab. Units are disposable, and the "suicide catapult" tactic is the poster child for disposable units. Many Civ IV cities get only one or two buildings, and then produce either disposable units or the infinitely fungible "Research" or "Wealth." Witness Kaitzilla's massive (11 million points) victory in the HOF; hundreds of units built and disbanded to use a particular game mechanic. An empire in Civ V may only have 6 cities, but they each are active participants in the empire. Granted, after having a dozen cities to manage (knobs to turn/adjust) in Civ IV, having only 4 or 5 knobs to twiddle to respond to a threat in Civ V feels like handcuffs.
Civ III had only two sliders to control, Civ IV BTS has three, and Civ V has zero. That's a dramatic change! I never choose multi-player, so I can't comment on whether having more or fewer sliders makes the game more aligned with MP goals. Cycling through all of one's cities every turn -- or every other turn -- is not uncommon in Civ IV, and that would make MP really, really tough to coordinate as the empires grow in size. Designing V (and presumably VI) with multi-player in mind is a legitimate goal, that would require some programming compromises. Reducing micromanagement is a goal; the empire-wide happiness mechanic may not have been the best way to achieve that goal.
I also disagree with the principle of social policies / affinities in Civ V being "adopt once, keep forever." Civ IV asks me not only whether I want to adopt a civic, but whether I want to keep it and for how long. Changing civics is an aspect where the game mechanics in IV do marginally reflect actual development of civilizations. Choosing the scheduling of golden ages, choosing how to use great people, and choosing when to change civics are examples of the meaningful decisions that are present late-game in Civ IV that are mostly absent in Civ V.
I think that both IV and V made a mistake in making mountains impassable *for the whole game*. In Civ III, we could put roads over the mountains, just as real civilizations have been doing for millennia. Impassable mountains wreak havoc on the AI's path-finding algorithms when coupled with 1UPT.
Civ V certainly did address a fundamental aspect of Civ III and Civ IV, which is massive production of units. While I do like my empire to have a certain heft to it, covering a large landmass and incorporating 30-40 cities, the domination and conquest victory conditions in III and IV require a massive land grab. Units are disposable, and the "suicide catapult" tactic is the poster child for disposable units. Many Civ IV cities get only one or two buildings, and then produce either disposable units or the infinitely fungible "Research" or "Wealth." Witness Kaitzilla's massive (11 million points) victory in the HOF; hundreds of units built and disbanded to use a particular game mechanic. An empire in Civ V may only have 6 cities, but they each are active participants in the empire. Granted, after having a dozen cities to manage (knobs to turn/adjust) in Civ IV, having only 4 or 5 knobs to twiddle to respond to a threat in Civ V feels like handcuffs.
Civ III had only two sliders to control, Civ IV BTS has three, and Civ V has zero. That's a dramatic change! I never choose multi-player, so I can't comment on whether having more or fewer sliders makes the game more aligned with MP goals. Cycling through all of one's cities every turn -- or every other turn -- is not uncommon in Civ IV, and that would make MP really, really tough to coordinate as the empires grow in size. Designing V (and presumably VI) with multi-player in mind is a legitimate goal, that would require some programming compromises. Reducing micromanagement is a goal; the empire-wide happiness mechanic may not have been the best way to achieve that goal.
I also disagree with the principle of social policies / affinities in Civ V being "adopt once, keep forever." Civ IV asks me not only whether I want to adopt a civic, but whether I want to keep it and for how long. Changing civics is an aspect where the game mechanics in IV do marginally reflect actual development of civilizations. Choosing the scheduling of golden ages, choosing how to use great people, and choosing when to change civics are examples of the meaningful decisions that are present late-game in Civ IV that are mostly absent in Civ V.
I think that both IV and V made a mistake in making mountains impassable *for the whole game*. In Civ III, we could put roads over the mountains, just as real civilizations have been doing for millennia. Impassable mountains wreak havoc on the AI's path-finding algorithms when coupled with 1UPT.
Similar threads
