What civ 4 Difficulty did you play on, do you like civ 5 more?

[r_rolo1]

I'm with TMIT in everything except in the preference... but that is just because I do not value possibilities as much as that. BTW IMHO Civ IV still had a big space for improvement as well... even Better BtS AI was roughly half way on being done with what was conceivably doable without major recoding about the AI ( never forgave jdog for not fixing the AI sec general code before civ V came out ) and Better BtS AI makes the game atleast 2 levels harder. So IMHO the room for improvement argument does not hold water as well.

As they are now, and in spite of all the shortcomings and unfixed stuff, Civ IV as it is ( BtS 3.19 ) is better than civ V as it is ( .625 ). If/when a new patch changes a lot of stuff , i might reevaluate ...

 

[AlpsStranger]

I was a pretty casual Civ4 players, mostly Prince or Noble games. My feelings toward Civ 5 are too nuanced to be expressed in a simple "like or dislike" poll, but pre-patch I wasn't finding 5 engaging enough to play regularly. I haven't had time to try it after the 0.62 patch yet, but I'm hoping that will make it more fun for me.

This would describe me fairly well in most respects. I feel a twinge of shame for being so lazy, but not enough to stop

Anyhow, I'm really amazed that this thread has yet to degenerate into the name calling and headhunting so typical of general discussion. Could it be that we're over the hump on this and the savage mob has moved on?

 

[ShuShu62]

Wrong, I 'm an exception to this law, since I really dislike 5 and I prefer II.

new law... for every monkey there is a wrench.

In my poll there was one person representing your position. As I said there, I believe there is something other than a desire for a winnable challenge coloring your impression of civ 5

 

[DavidPBacon]

I actually voted for Monarch, prefer 4, as I understood as an option between 4 and 5. I like a chalenge where I don't loose in the first 100 turns. IMO Civ 5 is not my type of game. I have it, played on Monarch too and I didn't like it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Okay, You win... My nine option poll is childsplay campared to yours.

I would like to coin Zechnophobe's Law: Those who prefer to lose, prefer Civ 4 over civ 5. I make that claim inspite of the fact that you never find a higher difficulty player admitting to ever losing on these boards.

Combine that with ShuShu62's Law: Those who dislike civ 5 prefer civ 4 over all others.

And we can form Zechnophobe's postulate (implied): Those who prefer to lose are more likely to dislike civ 5

I've seen numerous top players lose. I have actually uploaded each of the youtube games I recorded where I actually lost (Boudica in IV and Washington in V). When recording, I always tended to be extra-cautious and play up (with the ironic exception of my most recent game, Japan, where I played it very loose and won big regardless because of how the map situated everyone).

Still, in immortal universities and deity games I've seen many of our forum's top talent (most of which does not frequent civ V subforums yet, though I've seen a couple of them) admit losses, sometimes posting details of it also with an evaluation of possible improved approaches.

You're probably just not looking in the right places.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I've seen numerous top players lose. I have actually uploaded each of the youtube games I recorded where I actually lost (Boudica in IV and Washington in V). When recording, I always tended to be extra-cautious and play up (with the ironic exception of my most recent game, Japan, where I played it very loose and won big regardless because of how the map situated everyone).

Still, in immortal universities and deity games I've seen many of our forum's top talent (most of which does not frequent civ V subforums yet, though I've seen a couple of them) admit losses, sometimes posting details of it also with an evaluation of possible improved approaches.

You're probably just not looking in the right places.

With the Deity and Immortal AI bonuses being what they are I'd think it would almost be mathematically necessary that even a perfect player would, at least occasionally, be put in a literally unwinnable scenario. Is this taking it too far or would you agree, TMIT?

This is just an honest question from a much 'weaker' player. I've always wanted to know if this was the case and a chance to ask just fell in my lap.

 

[ShuShu62]

You're probably just not looking in the right places.

Granted. Sulla admitted losing in his walkthrough as well.

In an effort to tweak the nose of some hyperbolic members by insinuating they were actually less than perfect, I unintentionally tweaked the nose of a more measured member who felt I was insinuating he(?) was ... less than perfect.

My apologies.

I find it interesting how few are laying claim to Deity in this poll considering how many laid claim to Deity in the 'Real Civ Fan' threads from a couple weeks ago. I think this is yet another sign that the 'haters(both sides)' are either moving on or calming down.

 

[Windsor]

People think V's AI is bad, but that's because this game has more war tactical control to it...IV's AI was worse but simply brute-forced you with overwhelming stacks...

What makes you claim the Civ5 AI is better than Civ4 AI?

 

[Zechnophobe]

So, numbering the difficulties 1 to 9, Averages:

Those who prefer 5, played 4 with an average difficulty of 5.66

Those who prefer 4, played 4 with an average difficulty of 6.07

These are results as of 145 votes.

 

[AlpsStranger]

So, numbering the difficulties 1 to 9, Averages:

Those who prefer 5, played 4 with an average difficulty of 5.66

Those who prefer 4, played 4 with an average difficulty of 6.07

These are results as of 145 votes.

Taken that way it seems narrow enough to discount. I don't mean that to be harsh, but it really does seem that way.

Of course, I think you're making a crucial mistake. I don't think that all of the steps have the same value. I doubt, for instance, that going from Prince to Monarch is the same as going from Emperor to Immortal.

I have to ask, frankly, what was your hypothesis? I'd guess you were expecting a huge Civ4 skill gap between those that prefer Civ5 and those who don't. I'm not sure you're barking up the right tree there if I'm honest. Either game can be hard and either game can be easy. Civ4 on Settler would certainly overlap quite extensively with Civ5 on Deity.

I suppose I may allow that those who played comfortably on Deity or something might feel a bit squeezed out, but I'd guess that 99% of players difficulty of preference falls well within the bounds of either game.

I never claimed any standout skill in either game, though, so I cede those sort of arguments to those that do.

I will admit that, to me, King on Civ5 still feels a little bit easier than Noble on Civ4. Just my two very tiny cents.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I purposefully am not trying to interpret the results yet, since I'm not honestly sure the best way, and I think it is more important to just get the data, as it is, out there. The 6.0 and 5.6 numbers are a fairly logical grouping mechanism so I thought it would be a good start.

You are completely correct that the 'weights' are not equal. But also realize we aren't trying to compare difficulty levels in civ 4 to civ 5.

Lastly, I think ShuShu was getting somewhere when he, sorta, noted that people who play on higher difficulties aren't necessarily better, they are just more tolerant of losing.

 

[ShuShu62]

Zechnophobe,

I told you you had too many chi square cells in your poll. Rather than relying on numerical values, Your results have two narmal curves, with the normal curve for prefer 5 shifted two levels to 'easier' than the prefer 4.

You can then come up with a different explanation for the Emperor prefer 5's that are skewing the upper normal curve and throwing off your averages.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Lastly, I think ShuShu was getting somewhere when he, sorta, noted that people who play on higher difficulties aren't necessarily better, they are just more tolerant of losing.

This is true, but I think that certain things are exceptions. I'd say that anyone who's ever won a game on Deity is more skilled at the game than I am without qualification. Without a herculean effort at improving my skills I don't doubt for a second that my Deity win rate would be 0% regardless of the number of trials.

That said, with me it isn't even tolerance for losing so much, it's just that I lack the work ethic to play better than I do. I'm not willing to sacrifice the ability to listen to a book on tape or talk to friends to move above Noble. That's not to take anything away from those that do... more power to you if you're whipping the world's ass on Immortal.

I'd like to know, just as a broader experiment in Civilization-play psychology, what win ratio people expect on their "default" skill setting? In my experience most people claim to 'play' at a level where they win 95+% of the time, as with me calling myself 'Noble.' Firaxis, if I recall correctly, claims that your target difficulty is the one where you win 1/N, where N is the total number of nations. I'd dare say most players who were winning like 14% of the time would, psychologically, feel as if they were playing over their head. Yet Firaxis feels the correct skill level is the one where you are most at parity with your rivals, which is a reasonable standard.

I'm definitely slumming on Noble, but I really don't have enough experience with higher difficulties to know where I'd 'truly' belong if I shut down my Skype and Winamp and took slower turns. I simply and humbly call myself a Noble player as I don't deserve credit for any difficulty I don't consistently play.

EDIT: All of this applies to Civ4 of course. Prince is a little too easy in Civ5 at the moment.

 

[cwcaesar]

I played on Setteler/Marathon on the biggest earth map and only get the win that you need 51% of the land. Not exactly a cultural victory, but it took a lot of culture to achieve it. I always loved getting other cities to be swallowed up by my cultural boundaries.

That being said...I love Civ 5. It just feels better to me and i play on harder difficulties. I am up to warlord right now and it still feels easy. I will keep moving up till i feel a good balance.

 

[ShuShu62]

That said, with me it isn't even tolerance for losing so much, it's just that I lack the work ethic to play better than I do.

That is at the heart of the whole streamlined argument. Civ 5 is more streamlined and easier to beat. Is the streamlining (i.e. don't have to work as hard) the issue, or is the easier to beat (insert AI here) the issue.

I don't think we'll know until a few more A.I. upgrades come out.

Losing is really a metaphor for many aspects of gameplay beyond wining and losing. Work is definitely one example.

My poll stemming from this thread pretty clearly indicates that 'we' all generally classify fun as not too much work, and not to little (i.e win some and lose some).

 

[AlpsStranger]

That is at the heart of the whole streamlined argument. Civ 5 is more streamlined and easier to beat. Is the streamlining (i.e. don't have to work as hard) the issue, or is the easier to beat (insert AI here) the issue.

I don't think we'll know until a few more A.I. upgrades come out.

Losing is really a metaphor for many aspects of gameplay beyond wining and losing. Work is definitely one example.

My poll stemming from this thread pretty clearly indicates that 'we' all generally classify fun as not too much work, and not to little (i.e win some and lose some).

This is a thorny issue, and rightly so. What level of fiddling is legitimate depth and what level is fiddling?

Think back to the farms in pre-expansion Age of Empires 2. You planted them, they grew, and were harvested. Once this was done you had to plant them again. The expansion and all later similar games, including the IMHO underrated Rise of Nations, simply allowed farms to work forever without needing further input from the player.

Was this dumbing down? Was it a legitimate skill to sedulously replant your farms, or was it busywork unworthy of even a burger flipper?

I think that having to manually replant your farms was one of the worst examples of 'work' over 'skill,' yet I have met serious gamers that disagree and feel that any task that one player can do quicker or more constantly than another improves a game. I, on the other hand, prefer the game to focus on larger decisions whenever reasonable, but to leave enough fine detail in to keep the game interesting.

Civ5, in my book, streamlined just slightly too much. It could stand to, for instance, temper its global happiness system with a local health system. It could stand to have more nuance between different kinds of buildings. I even saw a spectacularly good suggestion where one of our fellow forum goers discussed elevating electricity to a quantified strategic resource used to power factories and broadcast towers and such. The spare frame of Civ5 can be salvaged by judiciously and thoughtfully filling it out with more 'meat,' for lack of a better term.

 

[Becephalus]

I did beat diety easily on 4 maxminning, but I generally played on emperor because I liked to play with house rules and flexability and not mandatory axemen zergrush.

5 is definitely ridiculously easy, but I think the core framework is better, and it will end up better than bts if they put the work in to flesh it out.

 

[Lanstro]

I do miss some of the randomness in Civ IV that TMIT points to as a minus though. Sure it made some immortal+ games almost unwinnable but in my experience that was rare. It was up to you to adapt to the cards that the game dealt you and change your desired win condition if that's what it took to win.

In Civ V it seems to me that the maps and AIs are less 'distinctive'. You're more or less guaranteed to have horses nearby, and while important, terrain isn't as important as it was in IV. Further, the spectrum of AI personalities isn't as wide. This smaller variance of 'luck' will in the long run count against it I think since games will be more predictable.

So yes, Civ IV sometimes throws you into a tiny corner of tundra with no metal or horses next to Monty and Alex, and then tosses you the barbarian spearmen event. I think that is a good thing for a single player, non-competitive game.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I picked Noble prefer 4.

I've picked up a win or two above it but I play Noble probably 99% of the time in Civ4 for the simple reason that I find it more fun. Call me a girly man if you like but playing a lazy game of Noble Civ4 is one of the nicest forms of pure entertainment yet invented by man . I may get any number of forum wedgies and wet willies for saying so, but there you have it.

I almost always played Noble too. To coin a phrase, playing on higher levels felt too much like work. And often, I abandoned the game before the end because it was playing that mattered, not winning and hugging the score. I've never been the mountain-climbing kind.

There are probably quite a few gamers like you and I.

 

[vincentz]

Deity player. Like to loose, but love to win after hardfought struggle. Not playing for winning though but for having fun and using the small grey cells.
If I play on emperor its too easy, but can still be fun.

I never played civ (since Civ I) for the goal of winning, but for the enjoyment of empire building, evolution and micro management (the fun MM not the boring MM).
Basically the 4X (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate).

I ... dislike civ 5.

I think there would have been peace and quiet in the forums if the devs had been honest from the beginning. It actually required such a small change and we wouldnt have seen this kind of uprising.

The change, IMHO, that was needed was changing the misleading title of Civilization 5 to Civilization Revolution 2.

I mean, if the producer at Firaxis admits that Civ V wasnt made for Civ IV fans, but for people who likes Civ Rev, then I don't understand why they chose the title Civ V, as this clearly leads one to think there is talk about a sequel of Civ IV and not Civ Rev.

Ofcourse you can con some people of their money that way, but its like pissing in your pants on a cold day.

Peace out.