Never played Civ V before, only II,III and IV. Should I buy Civ V?

[Nicol.Bolas]

I would like only people who played IV to post and only those, who managed to play IV at least on monarch (4th hardest setting of 9 and above).
also if you played galactic civilizations 2, comparison is also welcome

I am not much into mods, so compare full BtS and whatever is the fully upgraded civ V

I heard of these horrible problems:

- AI cannot do combat or capture cities, because it doesn't understand the combat and hexagon systems.
- pretty much all complexity ripped off, so the only thing to do is combat, which sucks (see above)
- brainless expansion is back again
- optimal strategy is to raze cities, not keep them, wtf?
- AI never go into war with each other, even if they do, they are unable to capture anything. - I also didn´t like this in civ III and civ IV civs would also just farm and tech, while you lost tech progress by warring to win.
- AI unable to do naval combat, at all. not that civ IV AI would be good at this, but Izzy or Justinian did manage to land 8-12 units at a time and capture a poorly guarded coastal city. and they bullied with naval superiority in terms of blockades, and destroying fishing boats. ... so I would expect further improvement in anothe game --- especially when navaly combat was "simplifies" - no transports or actual ships required
- very high system reqs
- you cannot manage anything
- you cannot manage your workers, cities, anything, everything is just linear to expansion and wonders
- luck based gameplay based on natural wonders
- childish and simplistic game-play and graphics
- DLC ended, and no real vets migrated from civ iv therefore no player made vets.
- no vets or good players to keep the community
- combat is very complex in CIV V, and AI simply cannot manage the complexities, movements, combinations, tactics (I am using the galcciv2 argument here - if AI cant use it, nop one should)
- you just spam- trading- post- in- every- single- hexagon (way worse that roads in previous games and in civ iv you eventually only build roads everywhere for the mobility and not having anything better to do at that moment, its not essential like trade posts)
- diplomacy is plain wrong


not trying to troll or anything, but I am simply very demanding and picky player and so far I am not impressed.

 

[Civking5]

I played all civ games since civ2, and I highly recommend civ5. All the problems you pointed are greatly exaggerated or simply wrong except the fact that you need a relatively good system to play this game. Get it.

 

[ork75]

Many of these complaints are directed at CiV vanilla, not G&K.
I will refute them as if directed at G&K.

1. AI is easily beaten by a human with some planning, tactics, and proper army composition. However, it can occasionally find success with sneak attacks, tech advances, and against poor planning and inexperienced players sometimes.
2. Not true. The game is still complex, but not quite as vast. Combat at a lower level is nice to see, though.
3. Brainless expansion? Depends. Some strategies with certain civs (*coughcoughmayacough*) are centered around this, but other times this is not the case. Depending on AI civ, map size, etc, some AI may do this. Others may not.
4. Quite situational. Many times, the AI will have a city for the sake of a city, and with global happiness it is more strategic to destroy said city. However, other times a city may be in a strategic location (a mountain pass, or a coastal location) or have access to resources, and may be worth the cost.
5. Again, depends. I have seen certain civs dominate entire continents all by themselves, and they go to war quite frequently. Some wars, mostly modern ones, will sometimes end in stalemate though.
6. No "actual ships"? Wtf does that mean? Not true in the least. The G&K AI will often field killer submarines and even mount successful, dangerous, or at least well planned amphibious operations. Yes, you could consider it simplified, but then consider the new hex system, zone of control, tactics and real ranged units, etc.
7. Yes, no real way around it. However, some people play in simplified strategic view, which seems to work pretty well.
8. lolwut? No, there is plenty to manage and optimize.
9. Hell no. Management is pretty key I think, and you have to manage workers or risk big consequences - the worker automation AI is pretty dumb.
10. Natural wonders are pretty luck based, but unless you are Spain or find a religious one near you have no major impact on the game.
11. A matter of opinion, to both parts of the point.
12. DLC is expected to continue, we just haven't seen any more yet. So far, Firaxis is keeping to their normal schedule.
13. There are plenty of vets. Check the war academy, and Madjinn.
14. AI has their moments, but usually fights at a sub-par level. Not completely incompetent, merely sub-par.
15. Not any more, as the strategies that utilized tp spam were heavily nerfed.
16. Diplomacy isn't completely transparent and integer defined, if that is what you mean by wrong.

My guess is that you mainly look at things said by Civ 4 players, not CiV players, and haven't really checked out G&K, only vanilla.

 

[DWilson]

I get the feeling you might ruin this game for yourself, merely wanting an updated Civ IV.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

Many of these complaints are directed at CiV vanilla, not G&K.
I will refute them as if directed at G&K.

1. AI is easily beaten by a human with some planning, tactics, and proper army composition. However, it can occasionally find success with sneak attacks, tech advances, and against poor planning and inexperienced players sometimes.
2. Not true. The game is still complex, but not quite as vast. Combat at a lower level is nice to see, though.
3. Brainless expansion? Depends. Some strategies with certain civs (*coughcoughmayacough*) are centered around this, but other times this is not the case. Depending on AI civ, map size, etc, some AI may do this. Others may not.
4. Quite situational. Many times, the AI will have a city for the sake of a city, and with global happiness it is more strategic to destroy said city. However, other times a city may be in a strategic location (a mountain pass, or a coastal location) or have access to resources, and may be worth the cost.
5. Again, depends. I have seen certain civs dominate entire continents all by themselves, and they go to war quite frequently. Some wars, mostly modern ones, will sometimes end in stalemate though.
6. No "actual ships"? Wtf does that mean? Not true in the least. The G&K AI will often field killer submarines and even mount successful, dangerous, or at least well planned amphibious operations. Yes, you could consider it simplified, but then consider the new hex system, zone of control, tactics and real ranged units, etc.
7. Yes, no real way around it. However, some people play in simplified strategic view, which seems to work pretty well.
8. lolwut? No, there is plenty to manage and optimize.
9. Hell no. Management is pretty key I think, and you have to manage workers or risk big consequences - the worker automation AI is pretty dumb.
10. Natural wonders are pretty luck based, but unless you are Spain or find a religious one near you have no major impact on the game.
11. A matter of opinion, to both parts of the point.
12. DLC is expected to continue, we just haven't seen any more yet. So far, Firaxis is keeping to their normal schedule.
13. There are plenty of vets. Check the war academy, and Madjinn.
14. AI has their moments, but usually fights at a sub-par level. Not completely incompetent, merely sub-par.
15. Not any more, as the strategies that utilized tp spam were heavily nerfed.
16. Diplomacy isn't completely transparent and integer defined, if that is what you mean by wrong.

My guess is that you mainly look at things said by Civ 4 players, not CiV players, and haven't really checked out G&K, only vanilla.

ok thanks, this is the best summary I got so far...
and i didnt yet ask on civ iv forum, i will do that and use your post
when i get a better pc and see the GK full game for a good price, i will give it a go.


what i am really afraid off is the weak combat AI thats get easily owned in combat...

 

[Gucumatz]

The AI is weak sure and that fact gets many people scared of the game. I won't deny that one bit. But most of your fears are terribly unfounded. But as far as complexity goes and level of strategy it really isn't less so than Civ 4 - Diplomacy still feels weak (but really Civ 4 only gave an illusion of realistic diplomacy, Civ 5's diplomacy is nothing to be admired though).

I never played Civ 1-3 (I have played 4 and 5) - And I have to say, I can't imagine going back to Civ 4. You can still manage everything to the slightest detail (although it may not actually be as layered as it was with sliders in Civ 4 - many have argued, and I think successfully that its more complex than Civ 4.)
====

I am sure that many will point out - but people say Civ 5 is a continuation of Civ 3, rather than civ 4 (never played Civ 3 so can't say that).

=======

Also if you enjoy multiplayer - Civ 5 is a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar superior game to Civ 4 (ignoring what bugs/issues Steam has). The multiplayer community is alive and well in Civ 5 and most people have long since migrated from Civ 4 multi to Civ 5 multi. This was a game with a ton of potential [just play multi and see] for Singleplayer. The problem is the AI can't think and plan out as far ahead as humans.
=====================================================

It is still a fun game - I never won Deity on Civ 4. I played the 7th level consistently though on Civ 4 [I forget its name, was it Monarch or Emperor?]. If you ask this on the Civ 4 Forum you probably will meet people who haven't tried out civ 5 since its launch and haven't experienced a single patch, the expansion, or ai tweak

 

[joncnunn]

- AI cannot do combat or capture cities, because it doesn't understand the combat and hexagon systems.
- pretty much all complexity ripped off, so the only thing to do is combat, which sucks (see above)

G&K much better; but not as good as a human; AI's main problem is forgetting to keep artillery type units in the back

- brainless expansion is back again

Not for the human player(s) on Prince and higher. (Happiness)
AI though plays on Chieftain happiness level where you can do that.

- optimal strategy is to raze cities, not keep them, wtf?

AI builds cities to close together for the human hapiness levels at Prince and higher.
AI also has a tendency to build cities in bad locations (founding a city where you need to raze the city to be allowed to found a city that takes in a key tile)
And if the city is really small, your better off razing and refounding even if properly placed.
It amounts to me razing 50% of the AI cities I capture; not all of them.

- AI never go into war with each other, even if they do, they are unable to capture anything. - I also didn´t like this in civ III and civ IV civs would also just farm and tech, while you lost tech progress by warring to win.

AI often declares war on another AI.
Early on there's so many defensive advantages (especially if you use gold reserve to cash buy walls in threatened cities) that it is difficult to capture cities, but when there's enough troops the AI can capture cities from another AI.

- AI unable to do naval combat, at all. not that civ IV AI would be good at this, but Izzy or Justinian did manage to land 8-12 units at a time and capture a poorly guarded coastal city. and they bullied with naval superiority in terms of blockades, and destroying fishing boats. ... so I would expect further improvement in anothe game --- especially when navaly combat was "simplifies" - no transports or actual ships required

AI's main problem in the sea is actually retreating land units into the sea; where in vanilla, they were run down for free.

G&K does give some defense to embarked units; but still without naval superority it would amount to having the unit in a transport in previous civ games

- very high system reqs

Actually, that was Civ IV the day it was released; particularly for those with notebooks.
Just run the DirectX 9 version if your computer is a few years old.

- you cannot manage anything
- you cannot manage your workers, cities, anything, everything is just linear to expansion and wonders

It's there, but for some reason you have to click the options to show city managemet every time you load the game.

- luck based gameplay based on natural wonders

There's very few games in which the natural wonders resulted in a game-changing advantage (like playing two difficulty levels higher than normal)

- you just spam- trading- post- in- every- single- hexagon (way worse that roads in previous games and in civ iv you eventually only build roads everywhere for the mobility and not having anything better to do at that moment, its not essential like trade posts)

That sounds like the released game before any patches.
An early patch largely addressed this by reducing trade post income to 1 commerce until Economics
In G&K, your not even allowed to build trading posts until Guilds.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

thanks for the replies, but i still hate civ v and players who betrayed civ iv

Moderator Action: Thread closed for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889