Romegypt
Your tank is now my tank!
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2012
- Messages
- 121
I'm wondering what polarizes people so much towards one or the other. On a base level, it seems like there are a few main differences between the games.
city maintenance vs global happiness-
I'm going to expose my bias here (Civ 4) but that's ok. I think city maintenance is a much better cap on expansion. What City maintenance does is turn every city into an investment. A city isn't profitable now, but if you put it in a decent spot, you can make it at least a little bit useful. You also cant spam cities in the minimum distance like in civ 3 or old versions of civ 5, because there aren't any perks that really alleviate this besides the very late game communism tech, and if you city spam before that, you will die before you even get to that point in the game (Your economy will be so trashed, you won't be able to tech or afford units).
until brave new world, it was always worth it to spam cities, and brave new world made it so tall empires could actually beat large ones with technologic parity (A very unrealistic design imo). This is a lot of opinion, so don't get offended please.
unit stacking vs OUpT-
In civ 4, yes, you can make infinite doomstacks. I should mention, no one does this in competetive civ 4. There are always multiple stacks wandering around. You know why? Because collateral damage from siege units makes balling all your units into one massive stack really stupid. Some people like the OUpT mechanic, and I won't say its garbage, because it's not. What it does is make the game a different kind of tactical. In civ4, the tactical side of things is based on what unit compositions are in your stacks, what promotions you give your units to maximize their benefits in the stack, whereas in civ 5 the tactics are based primarily on positioning. Of course commposition does matter in civ 5 as well.
Hexes vs squares- I do agree that hexes are probably a better system for tiles than squares, but squares are not bad. I'm not sure how many people consider this the game changing decision, but I hear it brought up a lot. The culture system of 4 definitely works better with squares, but I'm sure there are ways to adapt it to a hex grid, and I would love the idea of culture both expanding your borders, and being used for social policies. That was a very good change I feel civ 5 and 6 made.
So, how would you feel about a civ game that allowed unit stack, used hexes and city maintenance instead of global happiness, but had an attrition mechanic whereby huge stacks would slowly take damage over time?
city maintenance vs global happiness-
I'm going to expose my bias here (Civ 4) but that's ok. I think city maintenance is a much better cap on expansion. What City maintenance does is turn every city into an investment. A city isn't profitable now, but if you put it in a decent spot, you can make it at least a little bit useful. You also cant spam cities in the minimum distance like in civ 3 or old versions of civ 5, because there aren't any perks that really alleviate this besides the very late game communism tech, and if you city spam before that, you will die before you even get to that point in the game (Your economy will be so trashed, you won't be able to tech or afford units).
until brave new world, it was always worth it to spam cities, and brave new world made it so tall empires could actually beat large ones with technologic parity (A very unrealistic design imo). This is a lot of opinion, so don't get offended please.
unit stacking vs OUpT-
In civ 4, yes, you can make infinite doomstacks. I should mention, no one does this in competetive civ 4. There are always multiple stacks wandering around. You know why? Because collateral damage from siege units makes balling all your units into one massive stack really stupid. Some people like the OUpT mechanic, and I won't say its garbage, because it's not. What it does is make the game a different kind of tactical. In civ4, the tactical side of things is based on what unit compositions are in your stacks, what promotions you give your units to maximize their benefits in the stack, whereas in civ 5 the tactics are based primarily on positioning. Of course commposition does matter in civ 5 as well.
Hexes vs squares- I do agree that hexes are probably a better system for tiles than squares, but squares are not bad. I'm not sure how many people consider this the game changing decision, but I hear it brought up a lot. The culture system of 4 definitely works better with squares, but I'm sure there are ways to adapt it to a hex grid, and I would love the idea of culture both expanding your borders, and being used for social policies. That was a very good change I feel civ 5 and 6 made.
So, how would you feel about a civ game that allowed unit stack, used hexes and city maintenance instead of global happiness, but had an attrition mechanic whereby huge stacks would slowly take damage over time?
