Is it really that bad?

[Markstar]

I have played the Civ series since the original game, which I played at school on a 386.

OMG! Me, too. Though we only had 2 386 and 8 286, so each break there was a rush to the computer room in order to grab the 386s, since the 286 were borderline for Civ (but at least then there were fast enough).

Is it really that bad?

Yes.

Is it worth the cash or should I just reinstall Civ4 and be better off?

Reinstall Civ4.

 

[MkLh]

I've actually been thinking it's the opposite...that those who played Civ IV at a high level and knew all of the exploits are happiest. From what I can tell, Civ V fans are the ones who are happy with all that was omitted from IV precisely because they share the opinion with high-level strategists that those features are exploits or useless "fluff." Think about fans' comments on religion (diplo exploit,) civics (too easy to switch,) espionage (useless fluff,) and stacking (too easy to roflstomp everyone with a big enough SoD...) If you read my earlier discussion with esemjay, his frustration with SoDs came down to the fact that he can play so well as to create a mega-stack that nullifies the rest of the game. No one but a high-level player would be able to do that.

Couldn't disagree more. I don't remember I've seen any Immortal+ player here who actually likes the game, but I've seen several of them bashing it. Besides no decent BtS single player would call powerful espionage "useless".

In contrary it seems that many Civ5 fans have little or no experience of Civ4 (nor previous Civs) - at least not on higher levels. One consequence/symptom of that is that they easily call tactics "exploits". For example, in the National College thread many friends of Civ5 wanted to nerf the think cause they saw the one city early NC as an exploit. Civ veterans usually don't call strategical options like that exploits. This may also explain a bit of that why some like the game and some don't - Civ4 fans think the game lacks options, while Civ5 fans see those missing options as needless exploits.

 

[Nares]

Couldn't disagree more. I don't remember I've seen any Immortal+ player here who actually likes the game, but I've seen several of them bashing it.

I've seen one high level CIV player still playing CiV. I've seen about a dozen high level CIV players who no longer (publicly) touch CiV.

 

[Misotu]

Think about fans' comments on religion (diplo exploit,) civics (too easy to switch,) espionage (useless fluff,) and stacking (too easy to roflstomp everyone with a big enough SoD...)

I enjoyed your post but just had to comment on the above. I consider myself a reasonably hard-core Civ IV player and I do play at fairly high levels (emperor for fun, immortal for a challenge, deity if I feel like getting mashed unless the start is reasonable ). I just want to say that there may indeed be "fans" commenting as you describe - but I'm not sure they represent the majority and they *definitely* don't speak for me.

I'm not an espionage fan, admittedly, and they could lose that aspect as far as I'm concerned but that's because I personally don't find it advantageous by comparison with other investments I can make. Having said that, if only the damn AI would stop assigning spy specialists, I can easily live with espionage and I do hear some people singing its praises from time to time. Horses for courses ... I say more options is good, even if I never use some of them, because the point is that someone out there will and the game is the richer for it.

I flatly disagree that civics are either a problem or too easy to switch - the period of anarchy is extremely inconvenient and I avoid switching more often than necessary. Even when I am spiritual, I rarely switch. I like the fact that there are disadvantages as well as advantages to civics. I like the fact that each civic has a price tag and that other civs have favourites and change their attitude towards you depending on the civics you run. The new Civ V mechanism is almost like another tech tree really, not a social system at all, and there is no cost, down-side or diplomatic consequence to the choices you make which means that there is little thinking to be done, other than which beeline to pick.

Finally, describing religion as a diplo exploit is ... well, astonishing to me frankly. At higher levels, I am extremely unlikely to found any of the three early, and therefore influential, religions. Which means that I am completely at the mercy of spread and I have to deal with whatever religious politics develop in the game. It is a tool that you can use, if you decide to make the trade-off, go for an early religion at all costs and then accept all the expense and difficulty of spreading it. But it is by no means a soft option, nor is it sure and for my money religion adds a lot of fun to the game and is one of the reasons why every game of Civ IV is different and entertaining. Religion also means that you end up with hard core allies and enemies which is something I enjoy, very immersing, and ... ahem ... spectacularly lacking in Civ V.

I have no opinion on SoDs. I never use them. I suspect I would find them boring. So I don't play that way

I do agree with a lot of your other comments though, and the overall thrust of your post. Just felt I had to stand up for civics and religion - they seem to be getting an awful lot of bad press but for me were two of the best things about the game. I don't dislike Civ V because those aspects aren't present, but I am struggling to see what, of interest, has replaced them.

 

[Teperi Blaze]

I bash it every day, to get those awarding achievements.

Warlord is hard, settler is for NOOBS.

My goodness, why?

Give us a playable game instead!!

 

[sketch162000]

I enjoyed your post but just had to comment on the above. I consider myself a reasonably hard-core Civ IV player and I do play at fairly high levels (emperor for fun, immortal for a challenge, deity if I feel like getting mashed unless the start is reasonable ). I just want to say that there may indeed be "fans" commenting as you describe - but I'm not sure they represent the majority and they *definitely* don't speak for me.

I'm not an espionage fan, admittedly, and they could lose that aspect as far as I'm concerned but that's because I personally don't find it advantageous by comparison with other investments I can make. Having said that, if only the damn AI would stop assigning spy specialists, I can easily live with espionage and I do hear some people singing its praises from time to time. Horses for courses ... I say more options is good, even if I never use some of them, because the point is that someone out there will and the game is the richer for it.

I flatly disagree that civics are either a problem or too easy to switch - the period of anarchy is extremely inconvenient and I avoid switching more often than necessary. Even when I am spiritual, I rarely switch. I like the fact that there are disadvantages as well as advantages to civics. I like the fact that each civic has a price tag and that other civs have favourites and change their attitude towards you depending on the civics you run. The new Civ V mechanism is almost like another tech tree really, not a social system at all, and there is no cost, down-side or diplomatic consequence to the choices you make which means that there is little thinking to be done, other than which beeline to pick.

Finally, describing religion as a diplo exploit is ... well, astonishing to me frankly. At higher levels, I am extremely unlikely to found any of the three early, and therefore influential, religions. Which means that I am completely at the mercy of spread and I have to deal with whatever religious politics develop in the game. It is a tool that you can use, if you decide to make the trade-off, go for an early religion at all costs and then accept all the expense and difficulty of spreading it. But it is by no means a soft option, nor is it sure and for my money religion adds a lot of fun to the game and is one of the reasons why every game of Civ IV is different and entertaining. Religion also means that you end up with hard core allies and enemies which is something I enjoy, very immersing, and ... ahem ... spectacularly lacking in Civ V.

I have no opinion on SoDs. I never use them. I suspect I would find them boring. So I don't play that way

I do agree with a lot of your other comments though, and the overall thrust of your post. Just felt I had to stand up for civics and religion - they seem to be getting an awful lot of bad press but for me were two of the best things about the game. I don't dislike Civ V because those aspects aren't present, but I am struggling to see what, of interest, has replaced them.

No, no you misunderstand. By "fans," I meant Civ V fans, in particular. I agree with you on religion and civics. I was only giving examples of arguments I've seen around the boards that support the omission of those systems in Civ V. These arguments usually are given in defense of Civ V by its fans. You seem to be less enthusiastic about Civ V, so I am not talking about you. Sorry if that was unclear.

 

[rschissler]

I enjoyed your post but just had to comment on the above. I consider myself a reasonably hard-core Civ IV player and I do play at fairly high levels (emperor for fun, immortal for a challenge, deity if I feel like getting mashed unless the start is reasonable ). I just want to say that there may indeed be "fans" commenting as you describe - but I'm not sure they represent the majority and they *definitely* don't speak for me.

I'm not an espionage fan, admittedly, and they could lose that aspect as far as I'm concerned but that's because I personally don't find it advantageous by comparison with other investments I can make. Having said that, if only the damn AI would stop assigning spy specialists, I can easily live with espionage and I do hear some people singing its praises from time to time. Horses for courses ... I say more options is good, even if I never use some of them, because the point is that someone out there will and the game is the richer for it.

I flatly disagree that civics are either a problem or too easy to switch - the period of anarchy is extremely inconvenient and I avoid switching more often than necessary. Even when I am spiritual, I rarely switch. I like the fact that there are disadvantages as well as advantages to civics. I like the fact that each civic has a price tag and that other civs have favourites and change their attitude towards you depending on the civics you run. The new Civ V mechanism is almost like another tech tree really, not a social system at all, and there is no cost, down-side or diplomatic consequence to the choices you make which means that there is little thinking to be done, other than which beeline to pick.

Finally, describing religion as a diplo exploit is ... well, astonishing to me frankly. At higher levels, I am extremely unlikely to found any of the three early, and therefore influential, religions. Which means that I am completely at the mercy of spread and I have to deal with whatever religious politics develop in the game. It is a tool that you can use, if you decide to make the trade-off, go for an early religion at all costs and then accept all the expense and difficulty of spreading it. But it is by no means a soft option, nor is it sure and for my money religion adds a lot of fun to the game and is one of the reasons why every game of Civ IV is different and entertaining. Religion also means that you end up with hard core allies and enemies which is something I enjoy, very immersing, and ... ahem ... spectacularly lacking in Civ V.

I have no opinion on SoDs. I never use them. I suspect I would find them boring. So I don't play that way

I do agree with a lot of your other comments though, and the overall thrust of your post. Just felt I had to stand up for civics and religion - they seem to be getting an awful lot of bad press but for me were two of the best things about the game. I don't dislike Civ V because those aspects aren't present, but I am struggling to see what, of interest, has replaced them.

Really good post. I hadn't thought about your perception that Civ V social policies are like another tech tree, but you're right, that's exactly what it feels like.

I've never understood the pro Civ V posts that say that getting rid of religion and civics is a good thing. Your analysis really shows the substance that these brought to the game.

 

[Misotu]

No, no you misunderstand. By "fans," I meant Civ V fans, in particular. I agree with you on religion and civics. I was only giving examples of arguments I've seen around the boards that support the omission of those systems in Civ V. These arguments usually are given in defense of Civ V by its fans. You seem to be less enthusiastic about Civ V, so I am not talking about you. Sorry if that was unclear.

Oh no worries - I couldn't tell that you meant Civ V fans from your post. No harm done - and I agree with a lot of what you said anyway.

@rschissler: Thank you

 

[zonk]

I think it comes down to -- do you play to play or play to win?

Meaning - do you always finish games?

Personally, beyond an initial "beat the level" -- I never really played to win... Liked the journey much more. Was well aware of the exploits, timing your chops, whatever - but played IV and previous iterations more for the game itself. My IV save game directory was absolutely bloated beyond belief. I liked the journey.

I strongly dislike V because I think it's much more geared towards the type of player who wants to "win" -- to see the victory screen, etc...

I can appreciate the opinion that religion, espionage, and the like were exploitable fluff to the player who wants to "win"/end the game. I can appreciate how lots of people prefer embarkation. I can appreciate people that like 'pink tech' because it adds true purpose to culture, as in -- it's not just something to be amassed, but something to be spent with an eye towards an end goal (i.e., the next pink tech).

That's just not what I played Civilization for. I always played the largest size maps and played at the slowest speed to extend the journey. Total play time on individual games would easily approach dozens upon dozens of hours -- but I'd quite often set games aside, sometimes coming back to them, sometimes not -- because I'd be keen to fire up a brand new map and have another go at it.

It sort of hit me last night playing EU3 -- 'winning' in most of the paradox titles is sort of anticlimactic. There's a basic points system no one really pays much mind to, and Vicky, HOI, and EU just aren't really geared towards "take over the world". It's more about the journey --- can you restore Byzantium as a legitimate Mediterranean power rather than have it collapse, as happened historically? Can you pummel the red bear into surrender or actually reach the Suez as Italy? Can you fulfill American economic potential and become unquestioned master of the western hemisphere?

I guess maybe I never realized it - but that's really how I played Civilization... it wasn't about getting the spaceship or ascending or winning a UN vote -- it was about doing the things on that path, rather than really caring about reaching the end of it.

I think in V - those things you do on that path to victory are more means to end, whereas in IV, they seemed more like an end unto themselves... I got ample satisfaction from doing those things -- expanding my culture, conducting research, engaging in diplomacy, spreading religions and corporations, building my infrastructure, conducting warfare not with an eye towards wiping someone out, but perhaps just keeping them at bay or just cutting them down to size.

Perhaps I'm off my rocker, but I'd be willing to bet that there's a high correlation between % of completed games to satisfaction with V.... My % of completed games was very, very low -- probably less than 10% -- and my satisfaction with V mirrors that.

 

[sketch162000]

I think it comes down to -- do you play to play or play to win?

Meaning - do you always finish games?

Personally, beyond an initial "beat the level" -- I never really played to win... Liked the journey much more. Was well aware of the exploits, timing your chops, whatever - but played IV and previous iterations more for the game itself. My IV save game directory was absolutely bloated beyond belief. I liked the journey.

I strongly dislike V because I think it's much more geared towards the type of player who wants to "win" -- to see the victory screen, etc...

I can appreciate the opinion that religion, espionage, and the like were exploitable fluff to the player who wants to "win"/end the game. I can appreciate how lots of people prefer embarkation. I can appreciate people that like 'pink tech' because it adds true purpose to culture, as in -- it's not just something to be amassed, but something to be spent with an eye towards an end goal (i.e., the next pink tech).

That's just not what I played Civilization for. I always played the largest size maps and played at the slowest speed to extend the journey. Total play time on individual games would easily approach dozens upon dozens of hours -- but I'd quite often set games aside, sometimes coming back to them, sometimes not -- because I'd be keen to fire up a brand new map and have another go at it.

It sort of hit me last night playing EU3 -- 'winning' in most of the paradox titles is sort of anticlimactic. There's a basic points system no one really pays much mind to, and Vicky, HOI, and EU just aren't really geared towards "take over the world". It's more about the journey --- can you restore Byzantium as a legitimate Mediterranean power rather than have it collapse, as happened historically? Can you pummel the red bear into surrender or actually reach the Suez as Italy? Can you fulfill American economic potential and become unquestioned master of the western hemisphere?

I guess maybe I never realized it - but that's really how I played Civilization... it wasn't about getting the spaceship or ascending or winning a UN vote -- it was about doing the things on that path, rather than really caring about reaching the end of it.

I think in V - those things you do on that path to victory are more means to end, whereas in IV, they seemed more like an end unto themselves... I got ample satisfaction from doing those things -- expanding my culture, conducting research, engaging in diplomacy, spreading religions and corporations, building my infrastructure, conducting warfare not with an eye towards wiping someone out, but perhaps just keeping them at bay or just cutting them down to size.

Perhaps I'm off my rocker, but I'd be willing to bet that there's a high correlation between % of completed games to satisfaction with V.... My % of completed games was very, very low -- probably less than 10% -- and my satisfaction with V mirrors that.

Exactamundo, my friend.

 

[Nares]

Finally, describing religion as a diplo exploit is ... well, astonishing to me frankly. At higher levels, I am extremely unlikely to found any of the three early, and therefore influential, religions.

Higher difficulty levels in CIV were considered too inaccessible; figure they used Monarch or maybe Emperor as their target for the new Deity.

 

[Deussu]

I've never understood the pro Civ V posts that say that getting rid of religion and civics is a good thing. Your analysis really shows the substance that these brought to the game.

I think it was Antoine de Saint-Exupéry who said "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." I personally felt religions and corporations (especially the latter) to be needless additions to the game.

<click the link to see quote>

I agree with this, and I'm one of those who support and like Civilization 5 over 4.

Personally I wish to have my games have a conclusion. I never finished maybe more than 2 games of Civilization 4 mainly because I found the end-game so slow opposed to around 20 in Civ5. I've always been a fan of board game like tactical play, and Civilization 5 delivers that a bit better.

If only the multiplayer features were fixed Civ5 would live up to its name. To me it seems singleplayers prefer Civ4, multiplayers prefer Civ5. Go figure.

 

[JohnnyW]

I think it was Antoine de Saint-Exupéry who said "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." I personally felt religions and corporations (especially the latter) to be needless additions to the game.

Unfortunately this is one of the most misunderstood quotes of all time.

Why not remove research agreements from the game? Why not remove great people from the game? There's always more to be removed until you're left with literally nothing. The key is to have all the key elements of your game work as simply as possible without the needless additions, as you put it.

Our opinions differ in that I found religion to be a core element of the game whereas you see it as needless. I don't mind corporation being gone, but the removal of religion was just plaing stupid. A rework would have been much better.

 

[lschnarch]

I think it was Antoine de Saint-Exupéry who said "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." I personally felt religions and corporations (especially the latter) to be needless additions to the game.

As JohnnyW already explained, the quoted sentence is either completely out of context or just a stupid remark (of Mr. de Saint-Exupéry).
Following that line of thought, Civ5 would be a disaster because there isn't just a win-button. Too much left. Crappy game.

And how one can assume religions and corporations to be needless additions in a game about creating a civilization is completely beyond me.
Granted, you don't have to be a religious person by yourself. You don't have to like the way it was implemented.
But religion a needless addition? One of the most influencing factors of human history a needless addition?
Similar it is with corporations, which were a most influencing factor in the past two centuries at least.

 

[Deussu]

I might have misinterpret the quote and you might have misinterpreted me. I concentrated more on the part of "adding" than "taking away". Adding more features into a game doesn't immediately mean it's better.

As far as religions and corporations go, they are implemented in the game in a different way. Choosing Piety social policies in a way represents religions.

Alternatively I just greatly dislike the way religions and corporations were introduced and used in practice. I cannot deny their effects on mankind's history.

 

[lschnarch]

Alternatively I just greatly dislike the way religions and corporations were introduced and used in practice. I cannot deny their effects on mankind's history.

Many people have stated to dislike the way combat was implemented in Civ4.
Following your line of thougths, we wouldn't have combat in Civ5.

 

[MkLh]

I think it comes down to -- do you play to play or play to win?

Meaning - do you always finish games?

Personally, beyond an initial "beat the level" -- I never really played to win... Liked the journey much more. Was well aware of the exploits, timing your chops, whatever - but played IV and previous iterations more for the game itself. My IV save game directory was absolutely bloated beyond belief. I liked the journey.

I strongly dislike V because I think it's much more geared towards the type of player who wants to "win" -- to see the victory screen, etc...

I can appreciate the opinion that religion, espionage, and the like were exploitable fluff to the player who wants to "win"/end the game. I can appreciate how lots of people prefer embarkation. I can appreciate people that like 'pink tech' because it adds true purpose to culture, as in -- it's not just something to be amassed, but something to be spent with an eye towards an end goal (i.e., the next pink tech).

That's just not what I played Civilization for. I always played the largest size maps and played at the slowest speed to extend the journey. Total play time on individual games would easily approach dozens upon dozens of hours -- but I'd quite often set games aside, sometimes coming back to them, sometimes not -- because I'd be keen to fire up a brand new map and have another go at it.

It sort of hit me last night playing EU3 -- 'winning' in most of the paradox titles is sort of anticlimactic. There's a basic points system no one really pays much mind to, and Vicky, HOI, and EU just aren't really geared towards "take over the world". It's more about the journey --- can you restore Byzantium as a legitimate Mediterranean power rather than have it collapse, as happened historically? Can you pummel the red bear into surrender or actually reach the Suez as Italy? Can you fulfill American economic potential and become unquestioned master of the western hemisphere?

I guess maybe I never realized it - but that's really how I played Civilization... it wasn't about getting the spaceship or ascending or winning a UN vote -- it was about doing the things on that path, rather than really caring about reaching the end of it.

I think in V - those things you do on that path to victory are more means to end, whereas in IV, they seemed more like an end unto themselves... I got ample satisfaction from doing those things -- expanding my culture, conducting research, engaging in diplomacy, spreading religions and corporations, building my infrastructure, conducting warfare not with an eye towards wiping someone out, but perhaps just keeping them at bay or just cutting them down to size.

Perhaps I'm off my rocker, but I'd be willing to bet that there's a high correlation between % of completed games to satisfaction with V.... My % of completed games was very, very low -- probably less than 10% -- and my satisfaction with V mirrors that.

It's certainly true that Civ5 doesn't offer much to a sandbox player who doesn't play for win. But a player who want challenge won't find it interesting either, at least not for long. As mentioned before, there are very few Civ4 higher level players playing Civ5 anymore.

Civ5 suits best for players who want to win but who want to do it easily, without much challenge. This also explains why many of those who like Civ5 call espionage and religions needless exploits. Espionage and religions don't offer anything to Civ4 lower levels "play for win"-game as those levels can easily be won without "abusing" them. Higher level players often need them for win, and sandbox players may find them interesting, but for Civ5-style of players they are useless.

 

[esemjay]

Unfortunately this is one of the most misunderstood quotes of all time.

Why not remove research agreements from the game? Why not remove great people from the game? There's always more to be removed until you're left with literally nothing. The key is to have all the key elements of your game work as simply as possible without the needless additions, as you put it.

Our opinions differ in that I found religion to be a core element of the game whereas you see it as needless. I don't mind corporation being gone, but the removal of religion was just plaing stupid. A rework would have been much better.

While I am part of the group that likes Civ5, this fits it pretty well. I spent most of my time playing Legends of Revolutions (Awesome mod, btw. Highly recommend it if you've never tried it.) that it became my baseline.

Compared to LOR, BTS seemed crappy. So, I was disappointed when I went to Civ5, but I soon realized that it was because I missed elements that LOR introduced more than the ones that Civ5 eliminated.

However, for relevance: Civ4 and Civ5 are like cars. Civ5 is easier to drive- but it also doesn't have a radio.

 

[Deussu]

Many people have stated to dislike the way combat was implemented in Civ4.
Following your line of thougths, we wouldn't have combat in Civ5.

I don't understand this statement at all. Furthermore you cannot follow my line of thought as you are not me. Combat has been in Civilzation games since the first installation, but I can't find any reference to corporations before Civilization 4. Religions have been there, but not like in Civ4.

 

[Jhael]

There is one thing that, that made CiV ruin Civ4 for me. The possibility of making a single city so great, that the civilization didn't NEED more. That one city alone could be better then civilizations with 20 cities. Yes, I'm a city-greatness-junkie...

However, having said that, I'm not exactly satisfied with CiV either. So many details and design decisions that greatly bug me.