[Rant] Downvoted for having an opinion

[Fish Man]

Not sure if this is in the right place, or even if it belongs here at all, but the bottom line is this: I created a reddit post showing a stack of doom that I made, and me and everyone who dared to even suggest they like IV in the comments were downvoted to oblivion, with someone calling pretty much everyone on this forum "nostalgia-jerking diphorsehockys that can't appreciate meaningful changes and innovation to the game."

It irks me to no end that people can't be tolerant of others' opinions or even attempt to understand an opposing point of view before dismissing a particular claim or anyone who supports that claim as stupid.

IMHO, combat in IV is arguably more balanced, because you actually have to put thought into building and using your army. In V, despite all the possibilities for tactical maneuvering, at the end of the day, I've realized there's pretty much limited depth. The overwhelmingly dominant strategy is to spam cbows, xbows, and eventually artillery, with a melee unit to tank and cap cities - all other units are pretty much worthless, and I don't think I've ever seen a single anti-tank gun in use. The procedure for battles is pretty much this:

1. Is there something to shoot at? If so, shoot with your 5-10 ranged units.
2. Is there a unit about to die? Retreat it.
3. Slow advance.
4. Repeat for profit.

Not as complicated or as much an improvement as most people make it out to be.

In IV, on the other hand, units have counters. It's like TF2's rock-paper-scissors system. You have to create a stack of the correct composition and then use it properly, sometimes making hard choices about whether or not to sacrifice units (something which almost never comes up in V, tbh). And you have to take into account the composition of your enemy, promotions (which make a much bigger difference), your numbers vs their numbers, etc...

For example, let's say you want to take a hilltop city defended by archers. Blindly throwing axemen or swords won't work, because you need a 5:1 ratio of attackers to defenders, and that's an unacceptable loss ratio. So you build a couple of catapults to soften them up, and you sacrifice just the right amount so you don't lose too many but your axemen will win all their battles. But wait, they have chariots. So you have to build a couple spears to counter those. And throw in some archers as a local garrison force if you don't want your new cities to be instantly taken back.

Hold on, they're 10 turns from feudalism! You won't be able to challenge them for a LONG time once they get longbows! So do you split up your stack to win faster but risk losing your army in a failed attack, or do you conquer just 1-2 cities and let your opponent plot revenge once they're safe with most of their empire intact? Etc. etc...

The bottom line is, both V and IV are better than the opposing fanboys give a lot of credit for. I already see a lot of people downvoting me and others for even daring to like IV as a game, much less suggesting some (or many) aspects are superior to V. It honestly felt kind of the same here, where borderline elitists greeted me with something like "welcome to a REAL civ game" when I first asked for advice stating I came from V. If nothing, I'd just like for people to stop hating on others' preferences and take time to thoughtfully process each others' arguments instead of blindly bashing people for their opinion and not bothering to actually consider their point of view.

More likely though, nobody will read this, so I guess tl;dr: V is good, IV is good, can't we all just get along?

Sorry if this dragged on too long or is totally inappropriate, I just needed to vent. That is all.

 

[Pangaea]

Much the same as with the erroneously named "enhancements" of Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and now even the jewel itself: Planescape Torment.

Take an excellent product. Do practically no work on it, but somehow end up with a worse product, containing more bugs than there are stars in the sky. Charge twice the price for it, and remove the possibility for customers to buy the original game.

INNOVATION. IMPROVEMENTS!!!)!)!)!!11!

 

[Lain]

To be fair, if I ever set foot into the Civ V or VI sections of the forum here, it would take me about 5 minutes to get a permanent forum ban. And possibly a report IRL for the severity of the insults I would use.

So the "love" goes both ways for sure .

I know that kind of misses the whole point of the thread and the "respect each others' opinions thing". But you can't discuss Chopin or the beauty of music with a Justin Bieber fan. Agree to disagree and move along.

 

[elmurcis]

welcome to a REAL civ game

But this IS opinion, if it is based with enough hrs into both games to "feel" the difference

 

[Mozzington]

Great post undefeatable. You are right in what you say. This is the main reason I have recently attempted to return although when London gets taken by a barb you quickly realise you have a lot to relearn! I am struggling.

 

[Robo-Star]

Much the same as with the erroneously named "enhancements" of Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and now even the jewel itself: Planescape Torment.

Take an excellent product. Do practically no work on it, but somehow end up with a worse product, containing more bugs than there are stars in the sky.

Icewind Dale's Enhanced Edition at least adds the Baldur's Gate 2 classes/kits.

 

[escream]

Sensible post! But it takes a lot of energy to take this hate seriously and there are two sentences that summarise pretty well how I handle the "negative passion" on the internet:
- "Haters gonna hate"
- "Don't feed the troll"

 

[FlyinJohnnyL]

I loved Civ 1, 2, 3, and 4. I can't get into 5 or 6. Maybe I'm old. But I've been around a long time, and I always find myself coming back to this game. It's pretty damn incredible.

 

[vktj]

I created a reddit post

That’s the problem right there.

Friends do not let friends use Reddit.

Reddit allows anyone to create multiple sock puppet accounts to downvote a post they do not like multiple times. Reddit — just like Digg of the mid-2000s — encourages “-1 disagree, too dumb to make a rational argument” activity. Reddit is a nuthouse of pointless reddit.drama, fake news, and flat out conspiracy theories — multiple conspiracy theories (Pizzagate, *cough* *cough*) were started on Reddit. Reddit brings out the absolute worst in people, and is best avoided.

I haven’t logged in to Reddit for over four months, and, quite frankly, I don’t miss a thing. Stay here — this is where the Civ4 discussion is still happening (I just fixed a bug in one of my map scripts this week, so, yes, there is still new developments with Civ4).

 

[Jomackson]

I actually strongly dislike the newer combat as of 5 and 6. Among other things that made 4 the greatest such as civics and palace distance causing corruption, ect. They made 5 too simple, but at least 6 has made some strides to be unique. However 5 was the worst in the series because you need BNW just to make it playable. Nah, civ 4 combat is not broken or bad, people just need to play better and build catapults to punish ai for deathstacks rather than panic. Don't even get me started on the new 1 unit type per tile.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Ultimately, after trying out 5 and 6, I have to say that the combat system, beyond range being hillariously OP is actaully kinda fun and RNG isn't a big factor. But, hold on....

I have no idea whose bright idea is it to make a novel combat system and then discourage or even punish you for partaking in it. Longer unit buildtimes, lol unhappiness (AI is immune from it), absurd maintenance where great people cost you (wtf?) and of course the warmongering penalties. I just can't imagine anyone liking such a thing.

And the pathfinding. In 6, when I tell a unit that to go to a place 10 squares a way, it doesn't do it. WHY?

And unit cycling in both games. Why do I have to tell it to do something. Stop annoying me. It's already bad enough with the AI leaders coming in every two turns to talk about some stupid crap.

At least 5 had the decency for you to bypass it from getting cities from treaties.... this is gone from 6. It's like they could not admit they made a garbage AI that can't play its own game and so not only do they pile bonuses onto them like before, but also put in mechanics that actively cripple your ability to wage war.

"We've introduced brand new features! Screw you for trying to use them!"

And ironically, despite all these artificial limitations, diplomacy is but a far cry from 4. In 4, sure, you could conquer everyone, but you could also ally with others to the very end and sometimes not even fight at all if you treated anyone well enough. Actual friends. 5 just has a bunch of sociopaths that are just the same AI with minor variations. They will just stop you from winning because they're *******s.

The Anti-Sod comments are of course, silly, and most likely written by bads that are stuck with longbows at noble difficulty in the 1800s (though I suppose you could say the same about me and 5) but it's redundant to put them here, because siege is the great equalizer. And siege itself is the safer route, but mounted leads to quicker wars and more versatility. It's actually kind of interesting. And then there's air power and nukes. Your SOD doesn't mean a thing.

I don't "hate" any of the 3 games, but I am definitely troubled that VI seems to not have learned any lessons from V.

 

[Fish Man]

Ultimately, after trying out 5 and 6, I have to say that the combat system, beyond range being hillariously OP is actaully kinda fun and RNG isn't a big factor. But, hold on....

I have no idea whose bright idea is it to make a novel combat system and then discourage or even punish you for partaking in it. Longer unit buildtimes, lol unhappiness (AI is immune from it), absurd maintenance where great people cost you (wtf?) and of course the warmongering penalties. I just can't imagine anyone liking such a thing.

At least 5 had the decency for you to bypass it from getting cities from treaties.... this is gone from 6. It's like they could not admit they made a garbage AI that can't play its own game and so not only do they pile bonuses onto them like before, but also put in mechanics that actively cripple your ability to wage war.

"We've introduced brand new features! Screw you for trying to use them!"

And ironically, despite all these artificial limitations, diplomacy is but a far cry from 4. In 4, sure, you could conquer everyone, but you could also ally with others to the very end and sometimes not even fight at all if you treated anyone well enough. Actual friends. 5 just has a bunch of sociopaths that are just the same AI with minor variations. They will just stop you from winning because they're *******s.

The Anti-Sod comments are of course, silly, and most likely written by bads that are stuck with longbows at noble difficulty in the 1800s (though I suppose you could say the same about me and 5) but it's redundant to put them here, because siege is the great equalizer. And siege itself is the safer route, but mounted leads to quicker wars and more versatility. It's actually kind of interesting. And then there's air power and nukes. Your SOD doesn't mean a thing.

I don't "hate" any of the 3 games, but I am definitely troubled that VI seems to not have learned any lessons from V.

I would like to add that, in addition to this, the 4-city tradition metagame was too strong. And you know what's even more sad? You're actually PUNISHED for conquest in BNW, with the tech penalty in addition to mass unhappiness and everyone screaming WARMONGER in your face.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Yep, so even if somehow people could objectively prove 1 upt is better, it wouldn't matter anyways, as a result, thanks to the game hating you for using combat.

gg

Also, balance. While having variety in abilities is nice, no god of design could ever balance so many choices. Sure, everyone praises FIN and laughs at AGG, but there's no crap like someone getting a free academy when they get writing. In IV, you may decide that you rolled the Dutch and are going to make a lot of cottages and not bother with mysticism. It doesn't carry the game for you as you probably aren't going to do nothing but build cottages regardless.... usually.

 

[Lexicus]

It's interesting that y'all are complaining about the penalties for warring in Civ V, because my gripe with that game (haven't played it in almost four years) was that despite all the ridiculous happiness and diplo penalties for expanding through war, it was still incredibly easy to conquer the map because the AI was incapable of fighting a war.

 

[Archon_Wing]

We did.

The warmongering penalties were put in because the AI sucked so bad at going to war that they had to find a way to cripple your own ability to go to war. Of course, it didn't stop people from doing it anyways and ended up as an annoyance mechanic. That's pretty much the epitome of bad design.

It was a bandaid on a nuclear explosion.

To me, it seemed like there were bad players that preferred builder games which is fine but they didn't want to balance it between military and culture, so they wanted something to penalize those l33t warmongers getting those high score victories. In reality, they just encouraged a system where warring becomes even more important and the strategies are limited.

In reality, there is the meta in Civ IV too (lib--> Renaissance conquests) , but it is merely the backbone for you going to your victory of choice. And there are certainly other ways to do it. People that thought that SoDs were unbeatable (in reality it was only 8 Jaguars and 2 catas) never looked beyond it.

 

[Randy Random]

Definitely prefer 4, but certain combat aspects of 5 are better, especially the losing with 99% win prob and city strength to resist barbs.

 

[Archon_Wing]

That is true. I mean, RNG early game can be quite the disaster. Attacking cities is sorta intresting in V.

My favorite kind of warfare overall though, is industrial pre-nuke warfare in IV, when Infantry, Marines, Tanks, Fighters, Air Power, and Carriers all come into play.

 

[Karmah]

We did.
To me, it seemed like there were bad players that preferred builder games which is fine but they didn't want to balance it between military and culture, so they wanted something to penalize those l33t warmongers getting those high score victories. In reality, they just encouraged a system where warring becomes even more important and the strategies are limited.

I like civ5 = I'm a bad player, you like civ4 = you are elite.
Well instead of proving your point , you at least managed to prove that they are jerks on the civ4 side too, the likes of those OP was complaining about. Good job!

 

[Archon_Wing]

Calm down, lol. FYI, I am bad at both games. But you should honestly read more clearly before getting angry. That post specifically refers to bad players that couldn't hack it in 4, making ignorant criticism of Civ 4, in particular the combat system. It's a common talking point in the Reddit discussions OP refers to. I have no idea how you managed to extrapolate that into all Civ 5 players.

I have also taken the time to also dispel ignorance about V when people talk about VI too.....

If you think by saying that I'm a jerk to Civ V players, then I'd be quite a atrocity committer to Civ IV players.

Unlike a lot of folks around here, I actually don't mind it. But I don't hold back regardless of game.