Review of CIV5 for fanatics

[r_rolo1]

That would be true if the game was graphically appealing

 

[mva5580]

And that's the thing. CIV5 is a computer game. CIV4 was more than that. To beat CIV4 on anything but the lowest levels (and especially at Deity) you had to hack the game. You had to look into the code, for Christ's sakes. People ran statistics, made diagrams, curves, mathematical explanations speading over hundreds of posts. Learning how to beat CIV4 on Deity was like learning for a hard exam.

It's hard for me to figure out why anyone would think that's a GOOD thing. I've seen it talked about and described on here many times; that Civ IV on the harder difficulty levels was essentially just finding ways around how the computer cheated considering how many advantages they were given.

I'm sorry but that, to me, is not fun. It was almost people would come on here and say things like "Ok, if you want to beat Deity, here's EXACTLY what you must do and if you do anything else, you'll lose." Uhhhhhhhhhh, ok? So basically I have to play a game which is supposed to be about finding different ways to win one way or I have no chance? How is that fun? I'd see a lot of posts on here of people saying the EXACT Civ's you needed to be if you wanted to have a chance of winning on the higher difficulty levels. I don't find that to be "fun." If I had to choose between a game being slightly easier and/or "dumbed down" as people seem to enjoy calling it around here, or playing a game that's damn near impossible to win unless you cheat as much as the CPU is, then I choose the former. Every time.

 

[Buccaneer]

Could they have purposely changed the pace of the game (i.e., playing on Normal instead of Epic) just games can be completed faster, given the general lack of interest to micromanage and the attention needed to play long games?

 

[r_rolo1]

It's hard for me to figure out why anyone would think that's a GOOD thing. I've seen it talked about and described on here many times; that Civ IV on the harder difficulty levels was essentially just finding ways around how the computer cheated considering how many advantages they were given.

I'm sorry but that, to me, is not fun. It was almost people would come on here and say things like "Ok, if you want to beat Deity, here's EXACTLY what you must do and if you do anything else, you'll lose." Uhhhhhhhhhh, ok? So basically I have to play a game which is supposed to be about finding different ways to win one way or I have no chance? How is that fun? I'd see a lot of posts on here of people saying the EXACT Civ's you needed to be if you wanted to have a chance of winning on the higher difficulty levels. I don't find that to be "fun." If I had to choose between a game being slightly easier and/or "dumbed down" as people seem to enjoy calling it around here, or playing a game that's damn near impossible to win unless you cheat as much as the CPU is, then I choose the former. Every time.

You will find soon that things in civ V are exactly the same than in civ IV regarding that....

AI bonuses on Deity according to the handicap file ( there might others hidden in the dll ):

            <AIBarbarianBonus>60</AIBarbarianBonus>
[...]
            <AIStartingUnitMultiplier>1</AIStartingUnitMultiplier>
            <AIStartingDefenseUnits>2</AIStartingDefenseUnits>
            <AIStartingWorkerUnits>2</AIStartingWorkerUnits>
            <AIStartingExploreUnits>1</AIStartingExploreUnits>
            <AIDeclareWarProb>100</AIDeclareWarProb>
            <AIWorkRateModifier>100</AIWorkRateModifier>
            <AIUnhappinessPercent>60</AIUnhappinessPercent>
            <AIGrowthPercent>60</AIGrowthPercent>
            <AITrainPercent>50</AITrainPercent>
            <AIWorldTrainPercent>100</AIWorldTrainPercent>
            <AIConstructPercent>50</AIConstructPercent>
            <AIWorldConstructPercent>100</AIWorldConstructPercent>
            <AICreatePercent>50</AICreatePercent>
            <AIWorldCreatePercent>100</AIWorldCreatePercent>
            <AIBuildingCostPercent>50</AIBuildingCostPercent>
            <AIUnitCostPercent>50</AIUnitCostPercent>
            <AIUnitSupplyPercent>50</AIUnitSupplyPercent>
            <AIUnitUpgradePercent>50</AIUnitUpgradePercent>
            <AIInflationPercent>80</AIInflationPercent>
            <AIPerEraModifier>-5</AIPerEraModifier>
            <AIAdvancedStartPercent>170</AIAdvancedStartPercent>

        <Row>
            <HandicapType>HANDICAP_DEITY</HandicapType>
            <TechType>TECH_MINING</TechType>
        </Row>
        <Row>
            <HandicapType>HANDICAP_DEITY</HandicapType>
            <TechType>TECH_ANIMAL_HUSBANDRY</TechType>
        </Row>
        <Row>
            <HandicapType>HANDICAP_DEITY</HandicapType>
            <TechType>TECH_THE_WHEEL</TechType>
        </Row>
        <Row>
            <HandicapType>HANDICAP_DEITY</HandicapType>
            <TechType>TECH_POTTERY</TechType>
        </Row>

This seems to me roughly equal to atleast a Immortal + in BtS

BTW, anyone that said to you that you needed to do exactly X to win on Deity in Civ IV lied ...

 

[zomg]

Sorry but the more I read this thread the more its sounding like "I dont like Civ 5 because its not Civ 4". The game has bugs and needs tweaks for sure but its time to move on.

 

[moscaverde]

I believe Civ V will split the community. Not because is a bad game (certainly is not), but because it's very different in how it's played. In Civ IV you planned carefully where to build your next cities (angrily looking at barbarian settler passing by the "perfect next spot"), in Civ V all the tiles are almost the same, resources and improvements does't change much this (but instead, to speacilize your cities, your building are the key factor).
Buildings giving a certain number of resources still can make the game be very strategical (although for me it looks more like boring work, as I'm not much into micromanagement).

 

[sohvan]

I kind of like the new gold system, as it can be used for many different things depending on what you need at the time. What the game is missing is having more options to focus on science, as right now science is just something that kind of happens with not enough input from the player. Nearly all tiles only generate gold and never science. There's not a whole lot you can do to focus on science besides building libraries and having a bigger population. I think an early era tile improvement like a research station could be a nice addition, with increased science costs to compensate of course. The rationalism policy branch only comes much later in the game.

All in all it seems like managing your city placement and improving tiles matters a lot less than before. You should have to plan ahead in building and developing cities. You should be able to completely ruin your empire if you play poorly, and next time you'll play better.