Opinions?

[Magnus_wpg]

I've been away from Civ for awhile, but have been feeling the itch to play again. I've been looking around at Civ 5 and I'm not really seeing much good, but the players would know best I figure. Can anyone here make a case for this over it's predecessors?

Also, do they have hard copies of this game and the expansions? I've never been a fan of steam/d2d, cause I go to places where there is no web and I'd rather pack a disc than use up hdd space when I might not want to play. I just like having the option for extended stays.

 

[Catastrophe90]

Strong points of Civ V:
- 1 unit per tile: Some love it, some hate it. I personally like it a lot since it makes fighting more fun than the chore it was in Civ IV. Combat in general is better in Civ V
- Culture: Culture is more important than in Civ IV, mostly used to purchase Social Policies (which replace Governments or whatever it was in Civ IV)
- City States: Could make things a bit more interesting if the devs ever decide so. Right now they're pretty much ATM machines.
- Global Happiness
- Building Maintenance: You better have a good reason to build each building, unless you're neck-deep in money already (and even then)
- It looks pretty.
- Nuclear Gandhi

Civ IV strong points:
- Doesn't take a supercomputer to run decently
- Better tech tree
- Religion and Espionage (I dont really care about espionage, but I kinda miss religion)
- Stack combat (meh)
- AI actually makes somewhat sense
- A lot more buildings and structures in general
- A lot more polished than Civ V

tldr: Civ V is more like a turn-based RTS, while Civ IV is closer to Paradox games. Civ IV is a tried-and-tested game, while Civ V is a diamond in the rough.

 

[RebelCapitalist]

To me Civ V continues on the simplification of Civ that started with Civ: Rev on the consoles (albiet it's not quite that toned down). However, the graphical upgrades are newness make it a great play to me. Sure, Civ IV is better overall, but that doesn't mean Civ V is junk, especially since it can be purchased on the cheap.

I like 1 unit per tile. Adds more strategy to it. Think the best scenario is to have an option to turn it on or off though.

Time will tell how Civ V will evolve, but I don't regret buying it (although, I got it on a killer Steam sale for $17 in July). But I'm a Civ lover. Heck, I even bought Civ: Rev on the 360 and PS3 when it came out so I could play at two locations. Way I look at it is I was guaranteed to enjoy at least 100 hours of Civ V. Can't say that for many games over the decades.

 

[Aristos]

Magnus, I think one of the best things you could do is visit the Civ5 Rants thread and read it thoroughly. Many of the hardcore, long term fans are there stating their views and opinions. If you are looking for those opinions, many of them are there. Make sure you check them BEFORE your final decision.

 

[OrsonM]

I used to think the one unit per tile was awesome, now I think it gets in the way of fun battles. You can get to your enemies with a huge army, but you'll only be able to attack with just a few units, the rest will have to either rest, move one tile (and rest) or do the switcheroo with another unit (and then rest). It's like you have a tank, but you can only punch people through the window with it.

Still, have not gone back to Civ IV, there's a lot that Civ V pulls really well.

 

[Magnus_wpg]

Interesting, I didn't know about the one unit thing. Reminds me of the old board game Diplomacy. I could see how this could be nice or frustrating. On one side, if you're attacking you can really back someone into a corner, but if you're on the other side it could really suck and be damn near impossible to fight your way out or transport in reinforcements fast. I can't count how many times I'm fighting a war and suddenly an ally turns and I'm left trying to wage a fierce two or more front war.

 

[bcaiko]

Interesting, I didn't know about the one unit thing. Reminds me of the old board game Diplomacy. I could see how this could be nice or frustrating. On one side, if you're attacking you can really back someone into a corner, but if you're on the other side it could really suck and be damn near impossible to fight your way out or transport in reinforcements fast. I can't count how many times I'm fighting a war and suddenly an ally turns and I'm left trying to wage a fierce two or more front war.

Another nice thing about the 1UPT rule is that Cities can defend themselves now. It usually takes at least 4 units to take a city. And depending on the positioning of the city, like if there's a bottleneck, maneuvering to take a city can make for some squeemish decisions for the attacker. And a ranged unit can sit in a city and pick at the attackers all the while. Firaxis did a good job forcing some strategy into unit placement with 1UPT, and it ends up balancing pretty well between attackers and defenders.

***

Magnus, I think one of the best things you could do is visit the Civ5 Rants thread and read it thoroughly. Many of the hardcore, long term fans are there stating their views and opinions. If you are looking for those opinions, many of them are there. Make sure you check them BEFORE your final decision.

I think that's a particularly bad idea, actually, since the ranting thread, by its very nature, tends to be very negative. But I also personally enjoy the game. The details, like the music and the leaders actually speaking in their native tongues, really make the game that much more enjoyable.

 

[Aristos]

I think that's a particularly bad idea, actually, since the ranting thread, by its very nature, tends to be very negative. But I also personally enjoy the game. The details, like the music and the leaders actually speaking in their native tongues, really make the game that much more enjoyable.

well, if he really wants to have a feeling of the game BEFORE buying, then he cannot, and should not, just pretend the negativity does not exist. Now THAT would be a bad idea. The negativity is there, and won't vanish magically regardless of whatever measure is taken. The amount of negative comments, and the qualified sources of some of them (and reasonable argumenting also) should be a warning sign in themselves. He should check them.

 

[civvver]

Personally I hate civ5. Not because it's an awful game, but because it was such a let down in the series. I doubt we'll ever get back to the flavor of civ3 and civ4 because that just doesn't seem to be the evolution of gaming.

Like I said, civ5 isn't awful, I'd give it 3/5 stars. I think you'll enjoy playing it, the first few games will be new and exciting discovering ranged attacks, new buildings and techs, social policies and really specific civ bonuses. But by about the third playthrough you'll start to notice that for all the shiny new-ness of the game, it really lacks a lot of depth and is very simplified, which ruins the re-playability for me.

Some people like it better, but like the first guy says, it feels more like a turn based rts than a civ game.

 

[TPQ]

I've been away from Civ for awhile, but have been feeling the itch to play again. I've been looking around at Civ 5 and I'm not really seeing much good, but the players would know best I figure. Can anyone here make a case for this over it's predecessors?

Also, do they have hard copies of this game and the expansions? I've never been a fan of steam/d2d, cause I go to places where there is no web and I'd rather pack a disc than use up hdd space when I might not want to play. I just like having the option for extended stays.

DVD of Civ5 still requires Steam as Steam is the method of DRM used. You can use "offline mode" I believe so that you don't need the web to play. Personally, I used to hate the idea of Steam, but since I've got used to it I actually quite like it. Steam isn't actually as intrusive as I thought it would be and it's nice to grab a bargain from time to time and have it ready to play in the time it takes download.

Basically, the only real success story for Civ5 is the 1upt combat system. It's a lot more enjoyable than Civ4's etc stacks. To really enjoy the combat system you need to play at high levels. I usually play at Emperor, but I've recently been trying Immortal and finding the combat much more fun as the AI has loads of units to make up for it's tactical blunders, which puts more pressure on the player to play a tighter tactical game.

Otherwise, I'd say Civ4 is currently the better game. I haven't played Civ4 since I got Civ5, but I know, technically, Civ4 is the better game overall. If only Civ4 and Civ5 could have a baby with all the looks and 1upt of Civ5, but with the mind and relative complexity of Civ4; then you'd have a great Civ game to progress the series properly.

 

[Hormagaunt]

Someone did a list of differences a while back. I took the list and did this with it just to see what my own preferences were:

Civ5 Preference Civ4

Building Maintenance Meh City maintenance
1UPT Meh Infinite Stack

Transport Spaceship Parts to Capital 5 Spacship parts automatically ready
Individual Great Person Points 5 Group Great Person points
Road Upkeep 5 No road upkeep
Natural Wonders 5 No natural wonders
Limited Units of Strategic Resources 5 Unlimited units from strategic resources

Very Unique Civ Abilities 5 Standardized “Balanced” Civ Abilities
Purchasing Tiles 5 No Purchasing Tiles
1 Tile Cultural Expansion 5 Ring Cultural Expansion
Cities Can Defend Themselves 5 Cities can't defend themselves
City Bombardment 5 City Defence based on Units

Ranged Units 5 “Suicide Catapults”
Hex tiles 5 Square Tiles

No corporations 4 Corporations
No pay to rush construction 4 Pay to rush construction
Workers & Settlers Can't Join City 4 Workers and settlers can join city
No Slave Rush 4 Slave Rush
Civ 5 Icon Art 4 Civ4 Icon Art

No Vassals 4 Vassals
Wonder Artwork 4 Wonder videos
Internal Trade Only 4 International trade
No Science/Culture sliders 4 Science/Culture sliders
Social Policies 4 Civics

Research Agreements 4 Tech trading
Trading Posts 4 Cottages
No Random Events 4 Random events
No Espionage 4 Espionage
Embarking 4 Troop transport units

1 Leader per Civ 4 Multiple Leaders per Civ
No city health 4 Local city health
Global Happiness 4 Local Happiness
AI Competes Against You 4 AI Plays a Role
No Religion 4 Religion

Score is Civ4 20, Civ5 12, don't care 2.


One thing that isn't in the above list is this:

Civ5 - City States.
Civ4 - Growing Barbarian cities.

I infinitely prefer Civ4 for this over Civ5. The barbarian cities in Civ4 grow, they link up, they work together. They're another entire civ. And a pretty dangerous one, too. They've wiped out other civs in many of my games and have come pretty close to wiping me out, too.

 

[SuperJay]

I have a fairly nuanced opinion of the game. I've just come back to Civ5 to give it another try after giving up on it back in December of last year. I was extremely disappointed in the state of the game when it released last September - it was a buggy, bland, boring mess of a game that didn't (at the time) merit the "Civilization" title.

It's gotten a lot of patches and updates since then and recently I'm actually enjoying it for the first time, but I don't know how long it'll last. Most of my games still feel very similar and the game is just simpler (intentionally) compared to Civ4, so it may not hold my interest for years like previous Civ titles have.

That said, I've had some good - if predictable - games recently and have been doing some online co-op with a couple friends - fortunately multiplayer seems much more stable now than it was at release, when it was nearly unplayable.

Verdict: If I were you, I'd get it when it goes on sale again. Don't pay the $40-50 full price if you can avoid it. You will need Steam, unfortunately. In the meantime, fire up Civ4 again and enjoy the rich depth and variety of the classic Civ.

 

[Magnus_wpg]

Some things do sound interesting about 5, but there's several things that sound kind of off putting too. No random events, espionage, transport units, vassals, etc is surprising to hear. Some are new ideas, but a lot are old ideas and a firm part of the game and to just toss them in the garbage? That alone is worrying about quality.

One thing I'm wondering about, is with past civ games I never see a LOT of AI vs AI interaction. Most, albeit not all, the time they're cordial if not friendly. Is there more AI aggression towards other AI? I have times where I like to sit in the background and watch events unfold and wait for that precise moment to strike. Perfect example was the Romance of the Three Kingdom games when they finally allowed you to pick a vassal instead of a liege to play as, allowing you a supporting role where you can focus more on your own immediate self, instead of taking constant part in the whole world dynamic.

 

[Hormagaunt]

One thing I'm wondering about, is with past civ games I never see a LOT of AI vs AI interaction. Most, albeit not all, the time they're cordial if not friendly. Is there more AI aggression towards other AI?

The last game I played, Askia (Songhai) attacked Germany, then Rome, then Siam, then this, then that, then the other. He would attack one, then another, then get peace with the first, attack a third, get peace with both, then attack someone else.

I helped out every so often. He'd ask me to also go to war and I would, but only against one opponent at a time. And, of course, I'd stop warring as soon as the opponent offered peace. I stopped, though, after the 4th war; I had an idea what was coming.

(I also helped Gandhi with 3 of his wars, until he declared me a warmonger. Can you say "hypocrite"? I knew you could.)

Eventually the rest got so thoroughly annoyed that 7 civs simultaneously declared war on him.

I should go back and finish that game some time.

 

[civvver]

As far as steam goes, yes you have to have it. The dvd version just saves you a bit of time with the downloads, but you'll still be patching through steam. I have no problems with steam except that occasionally the game gets messed up, like a patch hangs or something, or if you haven't updated in a while, and you have to run a fix which can take quite a while. I don't have the fastest internet so it is annoying.

 

[Smokeybear]

well, if he really wants to have a feeling of the game BEFORE buying, then he cannot, and should not, just pretend the negativity does not exist. Now THAT would be a bad idea. The negativity is there, and won't vanish magically regardless of whatever measure is taken. The amount of negative comments, and the qualified sources of some of them (and reasonable argumenting also) should be a warning sign in themselves. He should check them.

Yeah, that thread is full of negativity, alright. I get depressed just reading a half-page of it at any given time. Lotta haters, many who've so convinced themselves it's horrible, they wouldn't give it the time of day no matter how improved it ever gets. There's enough bile in there to have made Lewis and Clark stay home and become accountants. I wouldn't recommend any newbie go in there first- just play the game and then make up their own mind. But that's just me.

 

[MantaRevan]

Pros-
Leaders:
The leaders are way cooler in Civ V. They actually talk in this game, rather than being mute heads, and the quality is very engrossing.
Civilizations:
Each Civilization feels better and more unique.
Policies & Culture:
The skill trees are awesome. 'Nuff said.
Graphics:
No doubt that these improved. Terrain feels lush and real.
Conquest: No longer have to slave away hunting down a civ's every last city. You can just aim for the Capitol.

Cons-
Weird Diplomacy:
The computer can be kinda annoying with the diplomacy.
No Vassals:
I liked having a little slave puppet(although admittedly the system needed tweaking).
No Worldbuilder:
I can't just pop out and see who the other civilizations in my game were, or mess around as much.
Less Content:
Playing Civ V, even with DLC all the way to Korea, feels a little bare compared to Beyond the Sword.

Decide for yourself, but I would go for it.

 

[Derpy Hooves]

If you like war games, this can be alot of fun.
If your looking for a civilization simulator it's pretty useless, mods might make or break it but I havn't enough experience in the matter to make a definitive statement.

If they don't have a demo or trial available you can always find one via internet resources.

 

[Glassfan]

Steam is certainly annoying - especially when my wife wants to use the laptop.

The main difference in gameplay for me is that the combat is now tactical rather than strategic as in III and IV (no SOD's). And I have'nt run into global warming (thank God) or spys.

 

[gozpel]

CIV5 = amusing for a short while.
CIV4 = amusing for a longer while.

CIV3 = amusing in too many longer whiles, I'm admittining I played this game out of the foot.

I crushed it, I owned it, I killed it!
But mostly with my friends in the Succession Games.

CIV4 killed succession gaming and 5 didn't make an effort to keep it going.

Those were the days.