Trying Civ4 for first time, what will Civ6 be?

[cryptc]

I remember when I first got Civ5, I saw all the rants from Civ4 players about how it didn't live up to expectations... and I don't want to write another such rant, but this is a reverse perspective that is more rare, so I'd like to share...

I have played the original Civilization for DOS, then none before Civ5, and have 615 hours in Civ5 now according to steam... I bought the complete Civ4 pack when they had that super sale of it a while back, and have 36 hours in Civ4 now... Thought I'd start comparing the two games and what I like about each... and ponder what Civ6 should be like...

First of, there is no doubt that Civ5 really was pretty unfinished at release, and all the patches made it alot better... so I'll only be comparing last patched version against BTS (I did try the original Civ4 without BTS too, but just barely)


The map:

Civ5 definately wins this, prettier and clearer map, and hexes is so much superior to squares it was really hard for me to go back to them. Was strange to see the route picked going zigzag since it would show the most map... if doing squares, should really count diagonal movement at 1.5 or so, but with Civ4 units having mostly movement 1, I understand why it's not like that.

I also found the graphics for various units and resources very hard to tell apart in Civ4, but I did get used to it eventually.


Immersion:

Civ4 definately has me more into the game, with alot more nuanced game, although I can't really define exactly why. Maybe it's food resources and health, and having more resources (like copper). Although not sure I agree with +100% bonus to wonder buildspeed for the resource the wonder uses, it would made more sense if they were just required to build them... but in any case, better than Civ5


Warfare:

I feel one unit per tile in Civ5 is actually interesting, and makes me play in different way than if I make huge stacks... But I was also intrigued seeing that Civ4 did atleast have some counters for stacks (catapults doing collateral damage to whole stack), and units and counters seems better balanced in Civ4... but I also miss bombarding units with ranged units like I do in Civ5 (but again understandable that stacks can't do this or it would be overpowered)... Also having to transport units with ships rather than embarking was nice...

I think maybe a limit like three units per tile might be better than infinite or one...


Peacetime:

Civ5 feels better to me when playing peacefully... tactical chokepoints, and feels like there is more interesting options, with policies, etc... although I really do like religions and civics in Civ4 (I haven't tried corporations yet, more on that in timescale below).

Being able to pick and match policies/civics is cool, and I think picking the best from civ4 and civ5 would be best for a new game...


Timescale:

One thing that surprised me was that one problem I always had with Civ5 (unmodded) was exactly same in Civ4... I really thought it was a new problem, but turns out it wasn't...

The problem I had was that I would never manage to get involved in any real wars since I tend to be a bit OCD about my armies, and whenever I finish a nice army, that next unit was always just "right around the corner", meaning I never really got anything done, just kept hitting end turn waiting for new stuff, rather than waging war... cultural city flipping does make "doing nothing" more interesting in civ4 though admittedly...

So I found a Civ4 mod called "real epic" that does basicly what I've modded myself for Civ5, so I've yet to play through a whole game into modern enough age to try corporations (am looking forward to trying that too though).

And for those who suggest marathon to get more time, it doesn't really help, since everything speeds up equally... so a bit more time to move around, but needing to build the new units and houses means that techs come faster than I manage to use all the stuff anyways...


AI:

Oh.. My.. God... I knew Civ5 AI was bad, but I was still impressed how good Civ4 AI is... and the game even have something I've never seen another strategy game do well... vassal states / protectorates... I hate how in strategy games an enemy would rather fight to the last unit rather than surrender and let me rule over him for the rest of the game... that they can get out of it again if I get too weak is even better... I just love that I can get actual friendship/allies in this game, and not Civ5's random "blargh, you die" AI


Performance:

Civ5 really can't handle big maps, especially late game...


What neither game has:

Get me a real globe! although Civ4 has some globe view, but I'd like for a maptype that wraps correctly on a globe (having a few of the hexes replaced by pentagons should do it iirc)


So while I still like Civ5, I can see why so many have ranted that Civ5 was inferior to Civ4... and really hope that Civ6 will bring the best of both games


Hope someone found it interesting to read this reverse viewpoint... I know I always look for people who have watched movies and their remakes in opposite order of myself just to see if one is better than the other or just blinded by enjoying the one I tried first best...

 

[PhilBowles]

I remember when I first got Civ5, I saw all the rants from Civ4 players about how it didn't live up to expectations... and I don't want to write another such rant, but this is a reverse perspective that is more rare, so I'd like to share...

I've played both 4 and 5 concurrently recently, and also put out a comparison in one thread recently, so let's see how this goes... Given how close on the horizon the Civ 5 expansion is, though, this might not be the best timing, as a lot may change. The expansion looks to have some interesting stuff (intelligence trading, some elements of the religion system, the Great War era units, privateers, city state overhaul), even if things like tulips, James Bond, hunt goddess worship providing extra food and so on seem a bit, well, stupid (and the Petra graphic is wrong, since you don't get that full a view of the Treasury when exiting the Siq, which is narrower than the picture suggests).

The map:

Civ5 definately wins this, prettier and clearer map, and hexes is so much superior to squares it was really hard for me to go back to them. Was strange to see the route picked going zigzag since it would show the most map... if doing squares, should really count diagonal movement at 1.5 or so, but with Civ4 units having mostly movement 1, I understand why it's not like that.

I also found the graphics for various units and resources very hard to tell apart in Civ4, but I did get used to it eventually.

Partially agreed here. Squares make movement awkward, but do give more sense of scale with the slower movement and larger numbers of squares vs. hexes. For someone who was always sold on Civ to a significant degree on the early game exploration aspect, this was a plus. I find Civ 5 a more 'balanced' game in the sense that I enjoy it at all stages of play, whereas late game Civ 4 and earlier were tedious for the very same reasons (units took too long to move anywhere there weren't roads, sea movement was particularly boring). I know a lot of people hate them, but I too prefer the Civ 5 unit icons - as well as having the practical advantage of allowing you to tell units apart, for those of us who played Civ from the start they bring back memories of the old Civ 1 & 2 unit graphics. Resources seem fine in either, though I found it hard in Civ 4 sometimes to identify spices/sugar in a jungle.

Immersion:

Civ4 definately has me more into the game, with alot more nuanced game, although I can't really define exactly why. Maybe it's food resources and health, and having more resources (like copper). Although not sure I agree with +100% bonus to wonder buildspeed for the resource the wonder uses, it would made more sense if they were just required to build them... but in any case, better than Civ5

Civ 4 has advantages and disadvantages in this regard. Around here, the advantages tend to be oversold. More resources, like copper? Well ... just copper actually. And a couple of health resources like pigs and rice that there's no point having in Civ 5 because there's no health mechanic and their production bonuses would be much the same as for cows or corn. All the same luxury resources are in both games, and copper's the only missing strategic resources. And Civ 5 will soon have, um, tulips and jewellery. Health was one of several elements of Civ 4 that added the illusion of depth without really adding any depth - it didn't take a lot of management beyond things you'd be doing anyway, and ill health to the small degree you'd usually have it wasn't hugely relevant. Of course, this is looking at it mechanically and strategically. In terms of more subjective immersion, it's this very illusion that creates immersion.

Personally, I haven't found either noticeably more immersive than the other - both can keep me addicted and in a 'Civ mood' for days at a time.

Warfare:

I feel one unit per tile in Civ5 is actually interesting, and makes me play in different way than if I make huge stacks... But I was also intrigued seeing that Civ4 did atleast have some counters for stacks (catapults doing collateral damage to whole stack), and units and counters seems better balanced in Civ4... but I also miss bombarding units with ranged units like I do in Civ5 (but again understandable that stacks can't do this or it would be overpowered)... Also having to transport units with ships rather than embarking was nice...

I agree with much of this. I think there are interesting elements of Civ 4 that could be brought back - including collateral damage (affects adjacent tiles, perhaps) and medic promotions (ditto). I also like the way Warlords worked with stacks, while Great Generals in Civ 5 work well, but give you no advantages for having more than one in play at a time (unless you're fighting on several fronts or a very spread out front). I can't agree with your preference for transport ships, though - that was just tedious management, needing to produce specific ships to move small numbers of units around the map.

I think maybe a limit like three units per tile might be better than infinite or one...

That would be more mechanically complex than either alternative, and the AI already struggles with 1 UPT. Strategically and tactically, I don't see that it would add anything. For practical purposes, I would prefer to see infinite stacking allowed for noncombat units (workers, settlers, GPs), mainly to avoid continual 'worker route blocked' warnings during road construction and otherwise moving workers round the map. These units are of no combat importance, after all.

Peacetime:

Civ5 feels better to me when playing peacefully... tactical chokepoints, and feels like there is more interesting options, with policies, etc... although I really do like religions and civics in Civ4 (I haven't tried corporations yet, more on that in timescale below).

Being able to pick and match policies/civics is cool, and I think picking the best from civ4 and civ5 would be best for a new game...

The fact that civics were changeable in Civ 4 had one key advantage - it allowed the designers to give them negative effects that allowed trade-offs. In practice, the civic system wasn't terribly well-balanced between different civics, and changing civics was rarely useful strategically, mostly just required if you ran short of cash. Civ 5 of course has issues with some policy branches being more attractive than others in much the same way, but the greater number of viable options and their more specific game effects - thus favouring a larger number of minor differences in strategy rather than a few strategies founded on selective use of one or two key civics - is something I find more engaging than the civics system, which could turn into a bit of a chore. Agreed that a combination of both would be the ideal system, but given one or the other to choose from I think Civ 5 has the edge.

AI:

Oh.. My.. God... I knew Civ5 AI was bad, but I was still impressed how good Civ4 AI is... and the game even have something I've never seen another strategy game do well... vassal states / protectorates... I hate how in strategy games an enemy would rather fight to the last unit rather than surrender and let me rule over him for the rest of the game... that they can get out of it again if I get too weak is even better... I just love that I can get actual friendship/allies in this game, and not Civ5's random "blargh, you die" AI

This comes down as much to the diplomacy system as the AI. The more I play Civ 4, the less I like its diplomacy. I'm not a fan of the auto-select "you can only choose these deals" that reds out anything you might want to experiment with, making trading just so much automated button-clicking. Some AI behaviour is bizarre in terms of real-world diplomacy due to the lack of a diplomacy mechanism that factors in anything other than your bipartite relations with Civ X - the example I give is of attacking another civ in their best friend's city, without any diplomatic penalty incurred with their best friend. I dislike the passive nature of diplomacy, that it's pretty much optional and that everyone will be your friend if you open borders or trade once and then leave them alone for the rest of the game. The vaunted 'personality' routines are more important to diplomatic outcomes than actual diplomacy - Montezuma, say, will always declare war because that's what he's for, regardless of your past relations or his own interests.

Civ V fails partly by having a more ambitious diplomacy system that the AI can't really cope with (I care not just what your relationships with me are, but also your relationships with Civ Y, and how those compare with my relationships with Civ Y, plus if Civ Z has denounced/declared friendship with you, I'll also be influenced by Civ Z - that's an order of intentionality more than Civ 4 even tries to deal with), and also partly because the system itself isn't well-balanced, generally favouring negative outcomes over positive ones even when the player is actively managing their relations, but partly also because diplomacy is inherently a more fundamental part of the game. People are going to get into fights if not engaged in regular diplomacy; limitation periods on trade agreements/open borders are designed to forge regular interaction with other civs, resource trading is usually necessary to control happiness to some degree, city-states exist to be contested by rival civs. Clearly when the system is forced on you, you're going to experience its failings more often.

Also, I found during my last few sessions of Civ V, the fact that diplomacy is forced on you can make games start to seem repetitive, even when you've got a handle on how diplomacy works. Usually two power blocs emerge defined by declarations and denunciations, and while membership might shift over the course of the game as someone takes a random dislike to somebody else, the basic structure of the diplomacy plays out in basically the same way every time. In Civ 4 the extent to which diplomacy played a part in the game was under the player's control to a much greater degree.

 

[Simplicity4]

The only problem I have with such comparisons is that they are not apples to apples. You are not comparing Vanilla Civ 4 with Vanilla Civ 5, you're comparing Civ 4 plus expansions to Civ 5. When the developers got to put a few extra *years* of development time into something, they have the chance to add more game systems into the game.

There's nothing so flawed with Civ 5 that can't be fixed given more development time. I think Civ 5 vanilla is a great base to build off of.

 

[cryptc]

Hehe, seems I'm guilty of not really following what's going on, hadn't heard of the DLC that is coming, I will be awaiting that eagerly now though

Resources seem fine in either, though I found it hard in Civ 4 sometimes to identify spices/sugar in a jungle.

Yeah this is typical example, but I also found myself moving worker ahead thinking it was warrior or archer (I did see the two looked slightly different, but thought I was imagining things, thought there was two of same unit )

Civ 4 has advantages and disadvantages in this regard. Around here, the advantages tend to be oversold. More resources, like copper? Well ... just copper actually.

Isn't ivory also needed for elephants or something? was hoping for even more though... more gradiated tech tree would been awesome, but not useful in standard speed games...

I agree with much of this. I think there are interesting elements of Civ 4 that could be brought back - including collateral damage (affects adjacent tiles, perhaps) and medic promotions (ditto). I also like the way Warlords worked with stacks, while Great Generals in Civ 5 work well, but give you no advantages for having more than one in play at a time (unless you're fighting on several fronts or a very spread out front). I can't agree with your preference for transport ships, though - that was just tedious management, needing to produce specific ships to move small numbers of units around the map.

I like GG more in Civ5 generally, I like both chance to hold a couple fronts, and also for a tactical fort at important chokehold if I have enough GG's... that said, I love even more Civ4's system of settling GP to get bonuses, like the +xp from general, which I like since I tend to not build military units all over the place like most civ players (atleast from what I read)

That would be more mechanically complex than either alternative, and the AI already struggles with 1 UPT. Strategically and tactically, I don't see that it would add anything. For practical purposes, I would prefer to see infinite stacking allowed for noncombat units (workers, settlers, GPs), mainly to avoid continual 'worker route blocked' warnings during road construction and otherwise moving workers round the map. These units are of no combat importance, after all.

Good point, and I will happily have infinite stacks if AI deals with it better

This comes down as much to the diplomacy system as the AI. The more I play Civ 4, the less I like its diplomacy. I'm not a fan of the auto-select "you can only choose these deals" that reds out anything you might want to experiment with, making trading just so much automated button-clicking. Some AI behaviour is bizarre in terms of real-world diplomacy due to the lack of a diplomacy mechanism that factors in anything other than your bipartite relations with Civ X - the example I give is of attacking another civ in their best friend's city, without any diplomatic penalty incurred with their best friend. I dislike the passive nature of diplomacy, that it's pretty much optional and that everyone will be your friend if you open borders or trade once and then leave them alone for the rest of the game. The vaunted 'personality' routines are more important to diplomatic outcomes than actual diplomacy - Montezuma, say, will always declare war because that's what he's for, regardless of your past relations or his own interests.

My experience with Civ4 so far is limited, but I don't mind so much that things they won't trade is red, it makes sense that some things they won't part with no matter the price... although I think it's kind of odd that I automatically know every tech they have

 

[cryptc]

The only problem I have with such comparisons is that they are not apples to apples. You are not comparing Vanilla Civ 4 with Vanilla Civ 5, you're comparing Civ 4 plus expansions to Civ 5. When the developers got to put a few extra *years* of development time into something, they have the chance to add more game systems into the game.

There's nothing so flawed with Civ 5 that can't be fixed given more development time. I think Civ 5 vanilla is a great base to build off of.

Well, comparisons will never be completely fair... I do have all the dlc's of civ5 though, and I have had alot more hours in it to find every feature it has... But I didn't try to say "this game is better", but rather compare the good parts of each...

 

[PhilBowles]

The only problem I have with such comparisons is that they are not apples to apples. You are not comparing Vanilla Civ 4 with Vanilla Civ 5, you're comparing Civ 4 plus expansions to Civ 5. When the developers got to put a few extra *years* of development time into something, they have the chance to add more game systems into the game.

There's nothing so flawed with Civ 5 that can't be fixed given more development time. I think Civ 5 vanilla is a great base to build off of.

I agree, though I wonder if the decision to add exactly 9 new civs to Civ V (i.e. making 34 civs, the same number as in Civ IV) is an indication that the developers see this expansion as "finishing" Civ V?

Hehe, seems I'm guilty of not really following what's going on, hadn't heard of the DLC that is coming, I will be awaiting that eagerly now though

As far as I can tell, this is the most up to date information: http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_expansion.html.

As for the mystery building graphic, given that the car in the foreground is more prominent than the building (which to me looks somewhat like a gas station) behind it, I suspect it will be a transport system rather than a supermarket or police station.

Isn't ivory also needed for elephants or something? was hoping for even more though... more gradiated tech tree would been awesome, but not useful in standard speed games...

Don't the elephant units in Civ V require ivory instead of horses? I believe they didn't before the patch, and that this was ridiculed, but I have a feeling I can't build Siamese elephants without ivory (Indian ones, not sure about).

I like GG more in Civ5 generally, I like both chance to hold a couple fronts, and also for a tactical fort at important chokehold if I have enough GG's...

Yes, I do like the Citadel (although it's a bit exploitable as the AI struggles a lot to deal with it properly and will often stand units around outside it or 'capture' an empty one that will kill them next turn). Wish they'd import the Motte & Bailey graphic (1066 scenario) as a medieval-era version of the Citadel - love that graphic.

that said, I love even more Civ4's system of settling GP to get bonuses, like the +xp from general, which I like since I tend to not build military units all over the place like most civ players (atleast from what I read)

Yes, it's the exp bonus I like about the Warlord. I generally prefer the way GPs work in Civ V - by building improvements rather than becoming super-specialists (which, aside from liking it conceptually, adds a nice trade-off, both in terms of what else you could be doing with that land and in where to commit population, which is absent with the permanent auto-bonus of Civ IV. This is particularly interesting/important with cultural victory, when spamming landmarks is, in my experience, vital), and also the simpler Golden Age trigger (no longer do I need to accumulate extra numbers of GPs per Golden Age). However, I prefer the Civ IV GP research (they research a named tech decided when they spawn, and may not research the whole thing in later eras), and in Civ V the Great Scientist can be too abusable.

My experience with Civ4 so far is limited, but I don't mind so much that things they won't trade is red, it makes sense that some things they won't part with no matter the price...

They may not, but it makes less sense that you always know exactly what those are in advance, as though you've already discussed every possible diplomatic scenario before the player comes onto the scene. In older games, you could ask for anything and, if memory serves, could get a diplomatic penalty, occasionally even a declaration of war, if your demand was considered too outrageous (give me a city now, for instance or, particuilarly, "You want me to declare war on my friend? I'll declare war on YOU instead!"). I miss that about both Civ IV and Civ V - there's no risk to engaging in diplomacy. Although this is less true in Civ V, since there's a very definite risk if you engage in diplomacy with someone a neighbour doesn't like, you get info on who's friends with who/who's denounced who in the diplomacy view, so it's not really a risk with a particular diplomatic option once the diplomacy window is open.

One thing that bears particular mention, since it's been a real turn-off to me in recent Civ IV games, is barbarians. I was wondering why I found them so much more annoying in Civ IV than Civ V, and on reflection I think it's the bizarre spawning system Civ IV uses. Civ V has issues with barbarians spontaneously spawning to defend camps just as you thought they were vacant, or spawning next to camps to support an attack, but there's in-game logic to Civ V barbarian spawns. A camp can show up anywhere, but the barbarians will always spawn in or next to it and make their way to your cities from there. They can be scouted and managed. Barbarians just pop up the square next to your borders and instantly start ransacking improvements or killing workers in Civ IV, they don't have to spawn near a Barbarian city. As well as just being boring, it doesn't give the barbarians any character - I think Civ 2 handled Barbarians best, when they could take over cities and would build units and act like a normal civ, only bright red and usually smaller. But Civ V's internal consistency in the way they spawn from settlements does help them seem real rather than just a random event the game throws at you to piss you off.

 

[cryptc]

Don't the elephant units in Civ V require ivory instead of horses? I believe they didn't before the patch, and that this was ridiculed, but I have a feeling I can't build Siamese elephants without ivory (Indian ones, not sure about).

Hm, I don't think I've played Siam or India recently (as in, atleast a couple of patches ago), you may be right...

Yes, I do like the Citadel (although it's a bit exploitable as the AI struggles a lot to deal with it properly and will often stand units around outside it or 'capture' an empty one that will kill them next turn). Wish they'd import the Motte & Bailey graphic (1066 scenario) as a medieval-era version of the Citadel - love that graphic.

Well Civ5 in general strongly favors defensive wars where AI uselessly throws it's armies against somewhere well protected... so far trying same in Civ4 I got my ass handed to me on noble hehe... I do like low military defensive playing at times, but having AI destroy itself on my walls and surrender is a bit silly...

and in Civ V the Great Scientist can be too abusable.

Yeah, in my mod I disabled great scientist bulbing (and with research drasticly lowered, an academy is still very nice anyways)... that reminds me though, I'm not a huge fan of tech trading which Civ4 has... another thing that tends to speed up the game too much for my liking... but that is matter of preference really...

They may not, but it makes less sense that you always know exactly what those are in advance, as though you've already discussed every possible diplomatic scenario before the player comes onto the scene. In older games, you could ask for anything and, if memory serves, could get a diplomatic penalty, occasionally even a declaration of war, if your demand was considered too outrageous (give me a city now, for instance or, particuilarly, "You want me to declare war on my friend? I'll declare war on YOU instead!"). I miss that about both Civ IV and Civ V - there's no risk to engaging in diplomacy. Although this is less true in Civ V, since there's a very definite risk if you engage in diplomacy with someone a neighbour doesn't like, you get info on who's friends with who/who's denounced who in the diplomacy view, so it's not really a risk with a particular diplomatic option once the diplomacy window is open.

True, but seems a bit harsh if I should make a civilization hostile to me just because I really really want to trade sailing from them and they don't want to share it... although, if it was revealed at first attempt, making it red then, that would be nice... "No, your deal is tempting but we do not wish to share <technology> with you at this time"

One thing that bears particular mention, since it's been a real turn-off to me in recent Civ IV games, is barbarians. I was wondering why I found them so much more annoying in Civ IV than Civ V, and on reflection I think it's the bizarre spawning system Civ IV uses. Civ V has issues with barbarians spontaneously spawning to defend camps just as you thought they were vacant, or spawning next to camps to support an attack, but there's in-game logic to Civ V barbarian spawns. A camp can show up anywhere, but the barbarians will always spawn in or next to it and make their way to your cities from there. They can be scouted and managed. Barbarians just pop up the square next to your borders and instantly start ransacking improvements or killing workers in Civ IV, they don't have to spawn near a Barbarian city. As well as just being boring, it doesn't give the barbarians any character - I think Civ 2 handled Barbarians best, when they could take over cities and would build units and act like a normal civ, only bright red and usually smaller. But Civ V's internal consistency in the way they spawn from settlements does help them seem real rather than just a random event the game throws at you to piss you off.

I really like that barbarians can get their own cities in Civ4, and I remember first time in Civ1 I had a city captured by barbarians and they kept it, was real jawdropping moment for me back then hehe... and I suspect Civ2 was similar (I never played it)

I really like city states from Civ5 too though... so maybe some middle road between barbarians and city states might be the best? Or with new religious and mercantile city states coming, why not barbarian city states?

 

[Rex_Mundi]

I really liked your writeup, it's always fun to read a well written post from someone with a completely different perspective.

Like you I hope civ 6 will take good things from both games.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Civ6 will be a facebook micro-transaction game

Sad, but entirely believable based on current trends.

 

[tetley]

Well Civ5 in general strongly favors defensive wars where AI uselessly throws it's armies against somewhere well protected... so far trying same in Civ4 I got my ass handed to me on noble hehe... I do like low military defensive playing at times, but having AI destroy itself on my walls and surrender is a bit silly...

Civ4 most definitely favors defensive wars. But you have to execute it differently: you need lots of catapults, to counter his mega stacks of doom. And you can't wait for him to make the attack--you have to attack him first, by attacking (and sacrificing) your first few catapults. That weakens the rest of his stack, and then you pick off the rest. That may not sound "defensive," but it is, in the sense that you wait for him to declare war on you and come charging down with stacks of doom first.


All-in-all, though, I much prefer Civ V over IV by far, though. Civ IV was one big micro fest.

 

[PhilBowles]

Civ6 will be a facebook micro-transaction game

Sad, but entirely believable based on current trends.

Is CivWorld still going? Got a lot of ads for it when it first came out but it seems to have vanished now. Since Civ V is popular and, as far as I can tell from admittedly anecdotal evidence, CivWorld was essentially a failed experiment, I'd be surprised if they go in that direction again.

 

[PhilBowles]

Hm, I don't think I've played Siam or India recently (as in, atleast a couple of patches ago), you may be right...

Checked this while playing Siam yesterday and, no, it's horses all the way. My first instinct was to hope they'd patch it in the expansion, but then I realised that wouldn't work with the current resource system. Since ivory isn't a strategic resource, it would give you unlimited elephants, which is clearly a huge boost compared with the knight, not balanced by the fact that ivory's rarer. They'd have to fix it by removing ivory as a luxury resource. I'm not sure that would be the end of the world - there are plenty of other luxuries they could add as replacements, and it could still give a gold bonus when worked to reflect its trade value - but since elephants are only available to two civs, it would seem bad design to make a strategic resource which is useless to everyone else except as a trade good.

 

[Kaosprophet]

Checked this while playing Siam yesterday and, no, it's horses all the way. My first instinct was to hope they'd patch it in the expansion, but then I realised that wouldn't work with the current resource system. Since ivory isn't a strategic resource, it would give you unlimited elephants, which is clearly a huge boost compared with the knight, not balanced by the fact that ivory's rarer. They'd have to fix it by removing ivory as a luxury resource.

Or nerf the 'phants somewhat, to put them in (relative) line with other UUs that require no strategic resource while replacing a unit that normally would.

 

[Freesmog]

Civ6 will be a facebook micro-transaction game

Sad, but entirely believable based on current trends.

What is that?

Even though you may very well be correct, and the death of Civ as I know it, I will never use Facebook or feed into the ridiculus micro-transaction crap.

 

[PhilBowles]

What is that?

Even though you may very well be correct, and the death of Civ as I know it, I will never use Facebook or feed into the ridiculus micro-transaction crap.

It's what happened to the Age of Empires franchise. The new version was a Facebook game with overpriced versions of what computer games would now call DLC. Except that these games are all designed so that you get to a certain point, and then can't proceed further without purchasing - so essentially they're extended demos. FB games are getting more varied in their actual content (and AoE plays like AoE in the actual scenarios), but i haven't tried the FB Civ World. These games also require you to have lots of 'friends' signed into the games, which means sending lots of requests to your FB friends calculated to annoy them.

As I say, it's very doubtful this is in Civ's future - why ditch the computer game when you can make money with both it and an FB spinoff, rather than one or the other? Plus Civ is among the most played games on Steam - I doubt Civ World can claim the same accolade on Facebook.

 

[rschissler]

That was interesting to read and I agree with most of what you said, except for the unit graphics. This is one of my biggest complaints of Civ V, as I find it very hard to tell the unit graphics apart without the silhouette icons. I feel the game designers slapped the icons on at the 11th hour, because they were having the same trouble trying to figure out what was what.

 

[Bergerperson]

The one thing that Civilization IV has that, that would make Civilization V better is some kind of transport ship. There&#8217;s a mod for Civilization V that adds Amphibious assault ship, but in an um-modded game, embarked units are completely defenceless (When not playing as Songhai) unless protected by destroyers and carriers. It&#8217;s very dangerous later on transporting units across the sea to war in the middle of a war because all the civilizations have caravels crawling around the ocean. At least transport ships in Civilization IV could (But terribly) defend themselves... And could stack. I&#8217;m not, however, missing the unit stacks from Civilization IV.

 

[PhilBowles]

The one thing that Civilization IV has that, that would make Civilization V better is some kind of transport ship. There’s a mod for Civilization V that adds Amphibious assault ship, but in an um-modded game, embarked units are completely defenceless (When not playing as Songhai) unless protected by destroyers and carriers. It’s very dangerous later on transporting units across the sea to war in the middle of a war because all the civilizations have caravels crawling around the ocean. At least transport ships in Civilization IV could (But terribly) defend themselves... And could stack. I’m not, however, missing the unit stacks from Civilization IV.

Naval/embarked units are getting the ability to both stack and defend themselves in the expansion.

 

[Bergerperson]

Hmm, I knew about the defendable feature, but I didn&#8217;t know about the stacked feature. Do all units get the ability to stack like in Civilization 4?

 

[smallfish]

Hmm, I knew about the defendable feature, but I didn&#8217;t know about the stacked feature. Do all units get the ability to stack like in Civilization 4?

Not at all, and I'm glad they got rid of unlimited stacking