Things I hoped would be gone from Civ5

[Lucius_]

Ah, that makes sense.

In comparison to Civ VI, I wouldn't call the social policy trees tech trees.

 

[anandus]

I can't see Civ6 surpassing Civ4.

To be honest, I don't think there will be a civilization game ever that will surpass Civ 4.

Some games are just so good that they'll stay the benchmark forever. Another example is Simcity 4. Cities Skylines is better looking, being 3D and all, but the city simulation of SC4 is undisputed the best.

Although it's good to have a benchmark to compare other games, it's not a good idea to expect some games to be bettered, ever. It'll only end in disappointment.

 

[Magil]

Conceptually I'm okay with the city-states. In game terms they are smaller powers who are not out to win the game--and therefore can be your steadfast allies because it's literally impossible for them to become rivals. It's always been a bit of a problem in game where there can only be one winner, as you will never have a true ally that you wouldn't backstab at the end if it meant emerging victorious. City-states are conceptually designed to represent smaller nations in a board game with one winner, and they are okay at that--conceptually.

How they play out is another matter. One major concern stems from crowding the map, which is exacerbated by 1UPT and the ridiculous rule set of V (seriously, my civilian units can't share a space with city-state military units?), and of course the huge penalties if you want to solve the space issue via conquest (massive diplomatic fallout on top of the normal penalties for having another city).

Civ VI doesn't appear to be doing much in this regard, but we'll see. Hopefully capturing a city-state that is in the way won't screw up your relations with everyone else on the map. And maybe you can raze them this time.

 

[apocalypse105]

To be honest, I don't think there will be a civilization game ever that will surpass Civ 4.

Some games are just so good that they'll stay the benchmark forever. Another example is Simcity 4. Cities Skylines is better looking, being 3D and all, but the city simulation of SC4 is undisputed the best.

Although it's good to have a benchmark to compare other games, it's not a good idea to expect some games to be bettered, ever. It'll only end in disappointment.

Civ 4 combat system was awefull it wasnt fun at all. It was olso totally random you could have total random outcomes i allways remember themeinteam ranting are you kidding me game ? on his lets plays and he is right game sometimes make you fail even if you have high odds.

The one unit per tile is a welcome change. And battles arent calculated by change but actually combat strenght if you do 8 damage you will do 8 damage.

 

[Magil]

Civ 4 combat system was awefull it wasnt fun at all. It was olso totally random you could have total random outcomes i allways remember themeinteam ranting are you kidding me game ? on his lets plays and he is right game sometimes make you fail even if you have high odds.

To each their own, I found the strategic depth of IV's system to be a better fit for the game than the tactical wargame that V utilizes. At least the AI can utilize the former in a manner that somewhat resembles competence.

Not to say V's system doesn't have its merits. I do prefer V's mostly-consistent damage-to-HP system over IV's winner-take-all %-based death match. With that said, Powell Doctrine: bring overwhelming force to compensate for unexpected problems. Expect the RNG to screw you, bring more than you need. At least with unit stacking it's not such a pain in the rear to move a huge army where you need it.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

To each their own, I found the strategic depth of IV's system to be a better fit for the game than the tactical wargame that V utilizes. At least the AI can utilize the former in a manner that somewhat resembles competence.

Not to say V's system doesn't have its merits. I do prefer V's mostly-consistent damage-to-HP system over IV's winner-take-all %-based death match. With that said, Powell Doctrine: bring overwhelming force to compensate for unexpected problems. Expect the RNG to screw you, bring more than you need. At least with unit stacking it's not such a pain in the rear to move a huge army where you need it.

I agree with that. Not to go down this hole again; my issue isn't so much as people talking about the issues with five, as it is people talking of IV as if it has no problems whatsoever and is the most perfect thing of any possible things. There shouldn't be picking apart of minute details of one release, while overlooking/accepting equally serious problems with another.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

The problem i have with city states in civ 5 THAT THEY TAKE SO MUCH ROOM. 16 city states on standard map thats whay to much..

its olso wonders me that city states minor countries have the same voting power then major powers

In most civ 5 standard maps you will be surounded by city states as result you can only settle 4 cities and conquer neigbour for more.. i allways reduce them to 8 in a standard map thats makes the game more balanced because you have more settling space.

However diplomatic victory isnt fun anymore you need less city states.. My change is that they change the city states amount to the same as civilizations on a map and give city state less voting power example ony one delegate. And a major civ 2 or more..

So you need other civs to vote you. Make it more like civ 4 where you need to have verry good relations with a civ so they vote for you. And make population, land count for voting. Huge nations have more voting power.


I agree on the seperate tech trees. They should make civis available to technologies as a result you have a bigger tech tree and more options they wanted to make sure that players didnt falllow the same tech path each game on higher difficulties well this is the solution because you have more options open for you in tech tee should i research this tech it allows me a new goverment or should i go for militaristic units.. and so on. Both can be good choises depending on situation.

I think you're pinpointing the wrong thing, I don't think that City States are the problem, I think it is their synergies in the game

- Same Voting Power - Not exactly true, first of all, they don't vote in BNW, and only vote pre-BNW for the people they are allied with, even so, you get less votes from City States than you get from Major Civs in World Congress

- Surrounded By Cities - I think in Civ 6, there's more landmass to inhabit so I think overall this will be less of an issue, in addition, I think the primary problem isn't that they exist, but that conquering them is never a viable strategy unless you want to piss everybody off on Turn 20 because a city state is in the way.

- Diplomatic Victory - I don't think City States are to blame rather than the mechanic of getting allied, which is replaced by a much better and more flexible system of Envoys, everybody nicknamed the Diplomatic Victory the "Economic" one because of the fact that gold = alliances

 

[Palantir30]

I agree. Civ4 had not contrivances whatsoever. Everything Civ4 did was the right way to do it, and we know it for a fact because that's the way Civ4 did it.

Sorry, no. Civ 4 had artillery as disposable shock troops- first to the fight, and almost always needing replaced after as they weren't ranged units.

Having to use actual cannons as cannon fodder was just so immersion breaking and bad for gameplay that I've never looked back to Civ 4

 

[Valmighty]

I really didn't like the concept of city states. I much prefer the idea that everyone starts off equally, and if given the chance, could develop into a great civilization. Civ4 had city states if you just fill the map with lots of civs, some would necessarily stay small and you could deal with them how you wanted to, albeit without the gamey bonuses.

I didn't like having two tech trees. A civilization knows what it knows, and everything you know is dependent on everything else. You can't have Rock n' Roll without electricity, you can't have organized religion without a writing system, etc. It makes sense to have a winding, diverse path, but splitting the tree in two pretends that culture can advance without science, and vice versa.

With both of these contrivances in place, I can't see Civ6 surpassing Civ4.

I agree. City states seem too arcadey.

While two tech trees make more sense, if only some of the features depend on something else. You're right, rock and roll has to require electricity tech, and so on.

For combat, IMO 1UPT of Civ is ugly because the map is so small, at least the hex is small compared to the whole map or cities. The city center should be at least 3-hex big, a unit should have 3-4 movement point. That way ranged unit operation is more tactical and it wouldn't feel so cluttered and hard to move around.

 

[Siptah]

While two tech trees make more sense, if only some of the features depend on something else. You're right, rock and roll has to require electricity tech, and so on.

The tech trees never made too much sense. You researched the Calendar and the Compass before Astronomy, and Animal Husbandry before Trapping in Civ 5 among other things. And couldn't you build a space ship without Computers?
But aren't the two trees linked by Eurekas? I know that is no hard limit. But you need to keep up with the civics to get the Eurekas for later techs and vice versa IIRC. And especially with later tech, 50% boosts seem a thing you don't want to miss if possible.

 

[TeraHammer]

I agree with that. Not to go down this hole again; my issue isn't so much as people talking about the issues with five, as it is people talking of IV as if it has no problems whatsoever and is the most perfect thing of any possible things. There shouldn't be picking apart of minute details of one release, while overlooking/accepting equally serious problems with another.

It was darn close to it!

No need for so much overhaul from civ4 to civ5

Ok ok ok, calm down TeraHammer, civ6 will enable some good multiplayer again. Or will it

 

[Nikae]

Everything Civ4 did was the right way to do it, and we know it for a fact because that's the way Civ4 did it.

This deep, complex and flawless argument runs every engine in the decadency cars of the people against progress club.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Sorry, no. Civ 4 had artillery as disposable shock troops- first to the fight, and almost always needing replaced after as they weren't ranged units.

Having to use actual cannons as cannon fodder was just so immersion breaking and bad for gameplay that I've never looked back to Civ 4

This deep, complex and flawless argument runs every engine in the decadency car of the people against progress club.

Forgot the sarcasm tag, heh, sorry about that.

 

[Nikae]

Be careful next time

It is interesting though that if you gut most pro-civ4 arguments, only this remains. I hated 5 at start, it was really barebone, but comparing to BtS and BNW, well...

The only thing I hated in both 4 and 5 is the impact of starting locations and first few huts and ruins. Both could easily make or break the game. Also, both games had issues with balance, for example see Slavery in 4 and Great library in 5. Railroad net was butt ugly in 4, random events were also quite annoying, combat was horrible, and the whole game was a tech race cookie cutter fest. That's the negative extreme. 5 had unimaginable map clutter during peace, it would have been better to have more resource capitalization buildings such as the mint or the circus, and AI motivation was very obscure most of the time. I only had issues with militaristic states, being useless, but they could be captured after all.

There is nothing I want to see gone from 5. I'd prefer a more steep exponential rise in upkeep cost for units to avoid said clutter fest. More and more unique features per civ is the best addition, to give each of games a unique feeling.

 

[ThisNameIsTooLo]

The unstacking of cities in Civ VI is another very bad decision - these things completely ruin the scale for me.

The use of the word "district" might be throwing you off. The term "district" is actually an incredibly vague designation which can refer to something as small as a neighborhood, or as large as a single state.

Unstacked cities aren't meant to represent a single city spanning the size of modern-day France. For me, a U.S. citizen, it helps to think of it this way:

• A city is actually the capital city of a state.
• All tiles worked by the city represent the boundaries of that state.
• Each individual tile / district represents a suburb, town, or village with a specialized function.

For example, if you play as the American civ, and you found the city of Sacramento, then any tiles worked by Sacramento are part of the state of California. If you build a Theater district to be worked by Sacramento, that Theater district (Hollywood) would be the equivalent of all of Los Angeles and Burbank combined.

Likewise, Campuses can be seen as college towns, Encampments as out-of-the-way military bases (Area 51), farms as long stretches of flyover country, etc.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Be careful next time

Haha. For the record I do like both games, though there are aspects of both that I think could have been better. People seem to accept/overlook four's flaws more readily than five's, for some reason. I think (final version) five got more right than four; and judging by the early returns, I think six will be better still.

City States as they worked in five did have some shortcomings. I like the concept though and hope they build on the idea as previous civs have built on new mechanics from earlier games.

 

[LDiCesare]

You can disable city states, not that I have proof, but I'm sure it will be possible. So set them to 0 and increase the amount of civs on the map.

The game just does not work wtihout city states. It is not designed nor balanced around their absence.

City States are great, gameplay-wise. They make smaller empires into something that you actually want to interact with, that can help you move forward instead of just being the loser Civs that really have no influence on the world. But I do agree that the downside of that is a relatively stale map. But then again, the focus is clearly on the big players,

I think you miss the point. Cephalo, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, prefers "the idea that everyone starts off equally, and if given the chance, could develop into a great civilization". City states convey the idea that some people are inherently inferior and can't ever rech greatness. A bit like barbarians, but worse, as in Civ IV, barbs could have destroyed eveyr other civ and "won". The philosophy behind city states is something I just can't stand personally. In addition, they are gamey, but that's rather secondary.

Your argument against two tech trees seems to be "I don't like this!" when we cut away the nonsense. Most people here seem to disagree.

The policy tree in V is also something I hated too. It was static, you were forced into a path where revolutions would never happen. I like the cards system in VI. I am neutral with it being tied to culture rather than tech. I think it complexifies things for the sake of change only but am not set for or against.

Overall it's clear that the "I want only one thing from this game: To be able to build huge sprawling empires and to have tons of Civs doing the same!"-faction will not be pleased with Civ VI.

That's off topic. cephalo is sad you can't have many small civs. He didn't mention huge sprawling empires.

 

[Jimdigriz]

The problem i have with city states in civ 5 THAT THEY TAKE SO MUCH ROOM. 16 city states on standard map thats whay to much..

its olso wonders me that city states minor countries have the same voting power then major powers

In most civ 5 standard maps you will be surounded by city states as result you can only settle 4 cities and conquer neigbour for more.. i allways reduce them to 8 in a standard map thats makes the game more balanced because you have more settling space.

However diplomatic victory isnt fun anymore you need less city states.. My change is that they change the city states amount to the same as civilizations on a map and give city state less voting power example ony one delegate. And a major civ 2 or more..

So you need other civs to vote you. Make it more like civ 4 where you need to have verry good relations with a civ so they vote for you. And make population, land count for voting. Huge nations have more voting power.


I agree on the seperate tech trees. They should make civis available to technologies as a result you have a bigger tech tree and more options they wanted to make sure that players didnt falllow the same tech path each game on higher difficulties well this is the solution because you have more options open for you in tech tee should i research this tech it allows me a new goverment or should i go for militaristic units.. and so on. Both can be good choises depending on situation.

Um you know you can change the amount of city states for whatever map you are playing on right - just customise the game. Standard size is way too small for me, huge maps are the only way to go.

 

[cazaderonus]

Civ V had two tech trees?

Nope. Just yet another player stuck on civ iv.

I cannot believe people can like stack of dooms over 1upt personnaly. Imo civ VI doesnt make it perfect as i believe the map should have grown bigger or change of scale to give more room for both units and cities especially with the unstacking.

But stacks of dooms was 0 strategy and made imo 0 sense. Which is weird considering thatblistening to some people everything in civ v is just easier and dumber than precious civ iv. But hey, to each his own i guess

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Be careful next time

It is interesting though that if you gut most pro-civ4 arguments, only this remains. I hated 5 at start, it was really barebone, but comparing to BtS and BNW, well...

The only thing I hated in both 4 and 5 is the impact of starting locations and first few huts and ruins. Both could easily make or break the game. Railroad net was butt ugly in 4, random events were also quite annoying, combat was horrible, and the whole game was a tech race cookie cutter fest. That's the negative extreme. 5 had unimaginable map clutter during peace, it would have been better to have more resource capitalization buildings such as the mint or the circus, and AI motivation was very obscure most of the time. I only had issues with militaristic states, being useless, but they could be captured after all.

There is nothing I want to see gone from 5. I'd prefer a more steep exponential rise in upkeep cost for units to avoid said clutter fest. More and more unique features per civ is the best addition, to give each of games a unique feeling.

I think the main issue for me with five is the "limit" on number of cities in your empire. I AM more of a small/tall player, but four/five cities shouldn't be the best option almost every time. That's basically a numbers balancing issue, though, not something I would remove.