So how's the state of Civ 5 these days?

[Willem]

Very little has been done to improve this since initial release. In fact the only thing which has improved is navel embarked / ship stacking.

Ah yes, that was another thing that bothered me in the early release. It made absolutely no sense to me that a unit could magically find a boat and sail off to the next continent from anywhere on your landmass. How have they changed the mechanism? IMO, the location of a naval assault should be more of a strategic decision, which it is when you require a Transport or similar ship. I've always chose particular locations for my staging areas, which generally are the closest point to where I want to attack.

 

[kamex]

I'd say mobility is a challenge(as in it is an improvement). Explain why you think its a problem?

It should not be a 'challenge' to move your army from one side of your empire to another, having to click every unit, every turn, giving each one new orders after they get 'stuck' when their paths cross with each other isn't my idea of fun...

 

[JanghanHong]

Ah yes, that was another thing that bothered me in the early release. It made absolutely no sense to me that a unit could magically find a boat and sail off to the next continent from anywhere on your landmass. How have they changed the mechanism? IMO, the location of a naval assault should be more of a strategic decision, which it is when you require a Transport or similar ship. I've always chose particular locations for my staging areas, which generally are the closest point to where I want to attack.

Units being able to find rudimentary ships to sail to water is a logical fix to the problem of everything needing micromanaged transport to dip into water.

Compared to that, the fact that a scout can sustain itself for 3000 years outside your border slugging half around the world is much less realistic.

 

[Willem]

Units being able to find rudimentary ships to sail to water is a logical fix to the problem of everything needing micromanaged transport to dip into water.

I don't find it logical at all. Rudimentary ships aren't capable to crossing a vast expanse of ocean. Plus it removes what I consider an important strategic decision. The Allies for instance did a great deal of planning and preparation for their Normandy invasion.

Compared to that, the fact that a scout can sustain itself for 3000 years outside your border slugging half around the world is much less realistic.

Well yes, but the alternative would be yet more of that micromanagement you obviously despise. Imagine how tedious it would get having to bring your Scout back within your borders every few turns to simulate a "changing of the guard", so to speak.

 

[Muhammed]

It should not be a 'challenge' to move your army from one side of your empire to another, having to click every unit, every turn, giving each one new orders after they get 'stuck' when their paths cross with each other isn't my idea of fun...

In that case agreed.. I usually play small maps, so this is an annoyance im lucky to mostly be without .

 

[Civking5]

In that case agreed.. I usually play small maps, so this is an annoyance im lucky to mostly be without .

I play large and huge maps, I don't see a problem with unit movement in the empire. In fact it adds some sort of logistic consideration which makes the game better in compare to moving stacks with out any thinking.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I'm one of those old Civ veterans who was initially disappointed with Civ 5. I thought vanilla Civ 4 was a great improvement over Civ 3 (Civ 3 I loved and was an important part of my childhood, though, so it has the nostalgia factor), and with BtS Civ 4 was even better. Civ 5 had great ideas such as the City-states and the simplified road system, and contrary to some veterans I thought the one unit per tile was an interesting and good idea (although wonky). Still, I felt Civ5 was really lacking, a step back, a game where all I could do was just build units and build buildings that would help me build units to conquer people. Frankly it's the first Civ game where I bothered to go with a full military victory. I do think that Civ 5 was too focused on warmongering.

However, now that I just got Gods and Kings again, I feel like Gods and Kings made the experience a bit more fulfilling - at the least, instead of thinking about only military matters, I also can focus on religion. I still think Civ4 BtS is better (though Civ 5's religion system is much more intricate than Civ 4's), but I do think that with BNW coming around the corner, there will be a lot more options for us peaceful players that will help round out the Civ 5 experience.

This doesn't appear to be too different from what civ veterans over the years have said, though - apparently Civ 4 was criticized at first and only became great with BtS, Civ 3 was criticized at first and only became great with Conquests, etc. Maybe I've just played Civ for too long and have gotten tired of it (though BNW is looking good).


Anyhow, just my opinion.

 

[Jeros]

I never played the original CivIV without BtS, what was so bad about it?


Personally OP I pefer many of the features in V over IV, some I do miss that were taken out. But then some features I am not sad to see go.

Its a different game, go into it thinking in that way.

Also from reddit, here is a list of what is known about the new expansion coming up:

Recap of what is learned/said:

Poland(red and black)-Caisimir
UU of Winged Hussar which replaces the Lancer that is stronger and has the ability to push back enemy troops
UB of Ducal Stable which provides 15% production boost and boost when building horse units and +1 gold per pasture (thanks /u/QuadrupleAgent).

UA of "Solidarity" which gives the civ a new policy whenever it enters a new era.
Assyria(goldenrod and yellow)- Ashurbanipal
Has a UB of some sort of clay tablet library (unnamed).
Has a UU of some sort of raid tower/assault tower (unnamed).

Brazil(lime green and black)- Pedro II
UA of Carnival which replaces Golden Age for Brazil, it's unique in that it provides DOUBLE tourism when occurring.
MISC.

New great artists/composers/writers create "Great Works" (Ex. Shakespeare would create Macbeth) which increases tourism which can influence over other civs. If your tourism is farther advanced over others and you have an "Influential" hold on all civs, then you win in the new cultural victory.

Trade caravans and ships allow for civs to send production and food to internal cities (Ex. Washington to New York) or to create gold and revenue from international trade routes by having them arrive at the city (Ex. Washington to Madrid OR Washington to Kathmandu).

New paratrooper unit which is upgraded after the "Paratrooper" that has a strength of 110 and can paradrop in a 40 tile radius. In the demo, it is called "XCOM UNIT" but that may be a joke referring/plugging a different, new game.

Scenarios include the American Civil War (self-explanitory) and "Scramble for Africa" which is playing as European powers/African powers while Europe competes for the "Dark Continent."

Open Borders and similar religion allow for a 25% tourism increase for civs.
World Congress can vote to ban strategic resources (Ex. Uranium/Nukes), economic sanctions, and more.

Revamped/possibly new policies
EDIT: Thanks /u/Tself for adding some additional info, it goes as follows:

New Policy Trees "Exploration" and "Aesthetics" have already been confirmed. Along with a completely new "Ideology" system in place for Freedom/Autocracy/Order.

Archaeology is now a thing. Historic sites of in-game battles you had in the past will need to be visited by new Archaeologist units.
If you have high influence over a neighboring Civ that has chosen a different Ideology, their people will become unhappy for not being in your Civilization with the superior Culture and Ideology. Same will happen to you, making Culture much more important than before.


So more complexity is coming!

See the BnW forum on here too for more info.

 

[whyidie]

When the game first was announced, I dragged my heels getting it because of the Steam activation. Then after reading all of the dissatisfaction by the hardcore players with the game, and about how much had been cut from Civ 4, I decided that it wasn't for me. It just seemed too dumbed down for my liking. I wanted something even more complex than Civ 4, not less. No health, no religion, no tech trading, empire wide happiness, even no ocean transports made me feel that too much had been removed from what I considered an excellent game. But it's been awhile now since the game has been out, and I see there's yet another expansion on the way, so how do people feel about the game these days? Especially those players that have been playing the game since the Civ 1 or 2 days. Is it worth considering now, or should I still stick with Civ 4?

Based on this post alone, I recommend you stay away! Its not for you. If you're overwhelming feeling after playing thousands of hours of 4 is "more stuff" you will not be happy with 5, even after the 1st expansion. Maybe the 2nd expansion will change things, but I highly doubt it.

Frankly, I hope it doesn't. For me, the series needed to to go in this direction. Re-examine whats necessary and what isn't, build a strong base and add carefully from there.

To re-iterate, stay away! This isn't the version for you! Check back in a couple of months after Brave New World, but don't be too optimistic. I doubt it'll ever have as much "stuff" as 4.

 

[thadiusdean]

Based on this post alone, I recommend you stay away! Its not for you. If you're overwhelming feeling after playing thousands of hours of 4 is "more stuff" you will not be happy with 5, even after the 1st expansion. Maybe the 2nd expansion will change things, but I highly doubt it.

Frankly, I hope it doesn't. For me, the series needed to to go in this direction. Re-examine whats necessary and what isn't, build a strong base and add carefully from there.

To re-iterate, stay away! This isn't the version for you! Check back in a couple of months after Brave New World, but don't be too optimistic. I doubt it'll ever have as much "stuff" as 4.

To continue this thought, look into the "Caveman2Cosmos" mod if it's more stuff you want.

 

[Civking5]

Based on this post alone, I recommend you stay away! Its not for you. If you're overwhelming feeling after playing thousands of hours of 4 is "more stuff" you will not be happy with 5, even after the 1st expansion. Maybe the 2nd expansion will change things, but I highly doubt it.

Frankly, I hope it doesn't. For me, the series needed to to go in this direction. Re-examine whats necessary and what isn't, build a strong base and add carefully from there.

To re-iterate, stay away! This isn't the version for you! Check back in a couple of months after Brave New World, but don't be too optimistic. I doubt it'll ever have as much "stuff" as 4.

So you start a thread asking about the game, and then jumping to conclusion without even playing it once? Also giving above advice based on what? On the side not, civ5 may not be as complex as civ4 ( although a second expansion is coming with many new features), but it is really a fun game to play. Of course, you have no idea what I am talking about since you haven't played it.

 

[Lord Silverkey]

As far as Civilization games or near-to-civ games go I've played:

Civ 1
Colonization
Civ 2
Civ 2 Test of Time
Alpha Centauri
Civilization: Call to Power
Civ 3
Civ 4
Civilization: Revolutions DS
Civ 4 Colonization
Civ 5

I'm in the same boat as you as far as liking more complex rather then simpler. I don't really enjoy Civ 5 much at all, mostly because I can't stop thinking about the older games when I play it. If it didn't have the Civ 5 title I think I'd actually like it a lot, I just get a mind-block when I accociate it as being a sequel to Civ 4. (Personally I think it should have been called Civilization: Revolutions 2, or possibly Civilization: Tactics) G&K seems to help but I think I'll still wait around until Brave New World comes out before giving it another shot.

I know people who absolutely LOVE Civ 5, and am truly happy that they get such kicks out of it, but It's not for me. By what "tone" you take in your message I'd recommend staying with Civ 4, or maybe revisiting an older game. (Alpha Centauri and Test of Time are my other two favorites) BUT if you aren't worried about the money, definitely buy Civ 5 and it's expansion and give them a whirl, who knows you might like it and at the very least it'll give Firaxis more incentive to continue making more Civ games, and maybe Civ 6 will be the "Spiritual Sequel" to Civ 4.

 

[Optional]

...though possibly Civ 5's traits are more exclusive [than in Civ IV]...

The leader traits are 100% unique for each civ and the main reason why each civ plays differently.
Example; Austria has the ability to marry City States. This means that once a City State is allied, Austria can for a sum of money make this City State a city of their own. No other civ can gain this ability at any part of the game.
Another one; Incan units can move on hills like it was flat terrain, and roads on hills cost them no maintenance. Again, only the Incans have this, and it makes playing them different.

Most civ's bonuses are bold and big, and for me they enrich the game. Much more than giving a % advantage to this or that end like a lot of games do.

[Religion] I thought should have been done in the original game. I felt religion was one of the best features to be added in Civ4, it just needs some improvement. I was also hoping on seeing Corporations expanded on to make trading more robust and dynamic, but those were cut too.

Again I need to apologise for not being familiar with Civ IV, but from what I've read I believe religion is very differently done between the games, perhaps to the extent that only the name 'religion' is the same. There are no political consequences at all to choosing a religion in Civ 5, it's just a neutral bonus system, mainly using terrain features, that happens to use terms like 'faith', 'belief' and 'missionaries'.

My disappointment in Civ 5 was with diplomacy and trade, and that still is a weak aspect of the game after Gods & Kings. Both religion and the espionage system haven't added much real intrigue. The developers of the game seem very wary of doing anything that enters the field of diplomacy. Possibly they're afraid the human player becomes too powerful with diplomatic tools, and they want to protect the AI from getting wrapped around the human player's finger.

It's not a matter of the game being objectively less complex and some people just preferring it simpler, but rather of people having different opinions as to what amounts to complexity.

Some things were objectively more complex in previous games. Just look at Civ III's system of trade routes and reputation, like for example how a broken trade route would affect your reputation with a civ, depending on the diplomatic situation. There were a lot more dependencies in that game.
My guess is that the developers thought things were getting too complex, and I know a lot of concepts in Civ III went over the head of casual players. It wasn't easy to understand how reputation worked, or war weariness, or why the value of techs and luxes could so fluctuate.
Although Civ 5 has complexity in other areas. The way how border expansion works is undeniably more complex in Civ 5 than it ever has been. How much that has added to strategic depth you could argue about, it's possibly mostly an aesthetic thing; making the border growth of cities look more organic. It will have been more complex to make it this way than to play with it.

The rule in Civ 5 is still that things have a fixed value; things like luxes and and research agreements come at fixed prices, with just a basic adjustment here and there. Although with some things it looks like the developers are starting to refine things more again, like with the time it takes a spy to gather intelligence. Also the promised trade routes seem to bring in more dependencies again.

What is good to note in a discussion like this is that the developers are listening to the fans of the game. There are plenty examples of them responding to what we are saying. If there's a strong message coming from us that we find the game too simple, they'll go thinking about how they can bring back some complexity.

 

[BrotherInJah]

First of all i didn't knew there is so many hostility between civ fans around 4 vs 5. Why..? You prefer 4 for some reasons then play it. If 5 gives you the most fun, then 5 is fine for you.

I played civ 1 man, many, many years ago. Didn't know what it is, or how to play (it was in german and i don't speak it) but i enjoyed it more and more every next play. Amiga got obsolete and i lost contact for many year with the series.

Much later my roomate give me civ 4 cause she didn't enjoyed it. First play and I was stunned be complexity of that game. Upgraded it to BtS and spent a lot of time playing, then i got here, and i wanted to play better. Civ 4 was great in this, that you could imrpove yourself so much. So many options to win a game. SE, CE etc.

Then civ 5 got released. So many chages were made that i didn't hooked up from the begining. No fatcross? So many tiles to work by city? Strange city placment (2 tiles between cities that time)? Unprotected city? Meh.. I was still playing civ 4 with pleasure.

But I returned to civ 5 just before G&K.. I learned how to play it, and one thing i certain: this is a totally diffrent game. I won't go back to civ 4 any more cause i prefer UA than leader traits (looking back trait make leader to similar to each other but simplar to compere than UA), 1upt is more resonable than stack of doom. OK, movement can be pain, i don't understand that jamming cause some unit just crossed path of other units in a tile witch will be clear after those 10 turns when the jammed unit will get to that tile.

For me civ 4 was a big step and civ 5 is just another step. If there will be civ 6 i'll make this step too, but not rushing..

@OP try it first regardless all opinions in this thread.

 

[TheHanzou]

The thing is, CiV is only the successor of CIV in name, not spirit. The new game is much closer to an actual Boardgame. Many people were expecting that they went on and would improve on the things Civ 4 did well.

While the Stack of Doom was far from perfect, it was a fitting way to employ combat because to me, a Unit always represented an Army, a combat group of thousands of men. With Civ 5 they downscaled this, now we have individual units, more like XCOM, or Panzer Corps etc. This is not neccessarily bad, its just not the direction many players expected.

It went a lot towards actual boardgame mechanics (even religion and espionage arent so much new elements, but tactical variations to get more ressources). The 'Depth' of Civ5 is hex combat, and ressource management (especially in multiplayer). Trading, Diplomacy are all non factors in multiplayer. It IS a Boardgame now.

Many people were expecting Civ5 to take a different approach, to go deeper in the macro cosmos of managing your empire. For example, i was hoping that it would be possible to play something like a swiss, or luxembourg, small empires that still matter. Going more into 'real' Empire dynamics. Civ4 was showing signs of going into that direction with the 'cultural combat' and peaceful attack so to speak. You could even overtake other cities with that.

Of course Cic was never meant to be another Heart of Iron or Crusader Kings, and it shouldnt be. But, they did simplify the game a little too much with 5 in that aspect.

As a Boardgame, CiV makes perfect sense, and its good. Its just not a good Civilisation4 successor. But that may very well have been their intention, to reinvent the Civ series.

 

[Smokeybear]

While the Stack of Doom was far from perfect, it was a fitting way to employ combat because to me, a Unit always represented an Army, a combat group of thousands of men. With Civ 5 they downscaled this, now we have individual units, more like XCOM, or Panzer Corps etc. This is not neccessarily bad, its just not the direction many players expected.

The individual Unit in CiV is the equivalent of a division or brigade, so you have multiple divisions of the different arms (infantry, armored, artillery, etc.) on different tiles being positioned and using actual tactics depending on the terrain, opposition and player intent. To me, that is light years ahead of one army on one tile. That's much too small of a territorial space to fit an actual full-fledged army on. That would be like fitting all of soviet Russia and Germany's eastern front campaign units into one park outside of Smolensk somewhere. So what you have with CiV is the more realistically sized sub-components of an army fitting together more realistically over actual terrain, as opposed to a civ's entire massive army squeezed into one single phone-booth tile. Much better in my opinion.

 

[Securion]

"Vanilla" Civ 5 was so bad i couldnt stand to play it for very long before it got very boring. There just wasnt anything to do except press End Turn or move troops around.

With the expansion diplomacy got better (not good, but better..) and we got religion to fiddle around with. The game all of a sudden felt much more fun to play and before i knew it i had spent 1500 hours on it and had even got my wife to play it.

With the second expansion closing in, i think Civ 5 will finally be as good as, or even better, than Civ 4.

Lets hope Civ 6 is not as dumbed down from the start.

 

[Willem]

As far as Civilization games or near-to-civ games go I've played:

Civ 1
Colonization
Civ 2
Civ 2 Test of Time
Alpha Centauri
Civilization: Call to Power
Civ 3
Civ 4
Civilization: Revolutions DS
Civ 4 Colonization
Civ 5

Aah, finally someone with a solid perspective on the series. I've played pretty much all of those titles as well, with the exception of Revolutions, and I played Test of Time rather than just Civ 2. Oh, and I haven't tried the the latest Colonization either, just the original. I read too many bad comments about the game, especially the AI, and I didn't care for the graphics. It looked too much like a cheap oil painting. And of course no Civ 5.

And it sounds like we're coming the same place as far as what we were hoping for from Civ5. I've already decided that I'm going to wait until Civ 5 Complete is available, and hopefully Civ 6 has been announced, since it seems to me that Civ 5 will be more of a temporary diversion for me rather than a serious game I'd like to play over and over again, like Civ 4. I felt that way about Alpha Centauri too, and only got rid of it because the graphics had become too dated for me. Now that I'm getting over my aversion of using Steam, and because they allow the use of PayPal rather than just a credit card, I should be able to pick up Civ 5 Complete for next to nothing at some point, so it won't matter too much if it turns out to be not quite the game I was hoping for.

 

[Willem]

The leader traits are 100% unique for each civ and the main reason why each civ plays differently.
Example; Austria has the ability to marry City States. This means that once a City State is allied, Austria can for a sum of money make this City State a city of their own. No other civ can gain this ability at any part of the game.
Another one; Incan units can move on hills like it was flat terrain, and roads on hills cost them no maintenance. Again, only the Incans have this, and it makes playing them different.

Well that sounds good, I like that idea. Though it sounds more like some of those things would have been better off wrapped up as qualities of a unique unit, or building, rather than a civilization trait.

Again I need to apologise for not being familiar with Civ IV, but from what I've read I believe religion is very differently done between the games, perhaps to the extent that only the name 'religion' is the same. There are no political consequences at all to choosing a religion in Civ 5, it's just a neutral bonus system, mainly using terrain features, that happens to use terms like 'faith', 'belief' and 'missionaries'.

Well I don't agree with that at all. Historically religion played a major role in politics throughout the world. The Crusades are a perfect example. To make it meaningless diplomatic is a major nerf as far as I'm concerned. I agree that it played to powerful of a role in relationships with other civs, it shouldn't be completely meaningless either.

The way how border expansion works is undeniably more complex in Civ 5 than it ever has been.

That was one of the things that I didn't agree with in the original game. The fact that borders expand one tile at a time means that you don't really have to make any decisions regarding how your are going to develop your "big fat hex'. You simply need to respond to whatever terrain happens to appear at the time. It was yet another decision making process that I felt was lacking in the overall game. Too much had been removed in that regard for my liking, which is why I've never gotten the game. No tech trading was another one of those.

What is good to note in a discussion like this is that the developers are listening to the fans of the game. There are plenty examples of them responding to what we are saying.

Firaxis has always been good in that regard, that's one reason why I've liked their games so much. They've even been known to hang out on the forums, communicating directly with the fans, which is rare for gaming companies.

 

[Camikaze]

Religion isn't meaningless diplomatically in Civ5, it's just that you're not automatically hated for following a different religion. If another civ follows a different religion and you spread your to them, they won't be happy. But if they don't have any religion, you'll get a positive modifier for spreading, because they'll get to share in the Follower Beliefs. Whereas in Civ4 every religion was identical, in Civ5 they are always different, with different bonuses. If another civ's religion allows you to have Cathedrals, you might want that in your cities. But if the Follower Belief isn't so great, you'll want that religion to stay out.

Civ5's religion system is far more complex than that in Civ4, basically. It may have drawbacks, and if you could of course still prefer Civ4's religion, but if you're looking for complexity, this is a front on which Civ5 clearly wins out.