What do you miss about/from previous CIV games?
- Thread starter NASAROG
- Start date
danieladler
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 272
I always believed, based on the evolution of the civ games and game trends in general, that civ 5 would give you more options/features to personalize and customize your own civ. Different leaderheads to choose from for every civ, changing the name of the civ and your leader, units with voices of the language of the particular civ etc seemed to be a thing that would be kept and developed further. That unfortunately didnt happen.
Bulldog Bats
King
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2013
- Messages
- 701
To me it is a game, not an attempt at recreating history. I look at the civs only for how it will affect gamepay.
What do I miss? The freshness of Civ3. Coming off years of Civ2 /Test of Time, Civ3 was really something new.
A little OT: This was following 9/11, and on the same month my dad passed away unexpectedly, so it was a strange time, but I had Civ3 and it helped me through my grief. I had something to look forward to, and to play.
Back on topic - What struck me about the game was everything was new. There were now borders & culture and the AI understood it. The national treasury was where your income flowed through. Units were supported by your empire, not by your cities. There were even sort of interesting mechanics like AI governors who would sort-of remember what you were building and suggest things a long the same line, though Soren never got it to work properly, it was still an interesting thing to see.
The diplomacy was amazing coming from Civ2/TestofTime. The AI on large pangea games (16 AI all at once) was a thing, and it created some very interesting diplomatc/wold spanning results. The trade table was amazing and fresh. You could offer your own deals and almost everything had a price (later on, people found out how to make interest bearing loans and make arbitrage trades. ) I remember someone had found a bug in the unpatched vanilla game where if you beat down a Civ badly enough, you could get them to pay you increadible gpt (something like 500 gpt) even if they didn't have the income. The game was just printing money from thin air, but the strategy was called 'vassal strategy' and the word stuck, and it was discussed ad nauseum even after it was patched. People wanted something like vassals in Civ3.
I'd like to think that bug led directly to the Vassal system in Civ4, but that's really just conjecture on my part.
I miss that freshness. Civ5 had 1UPT, but the release version was so buggy, I spent most of my time angry *at the game* and defending it from the trolling it was getting. The game has certainly improved by leaps since, but I don't know if I'd ever experience the awe I did with Civ3 back in October of 2001.
A little OT: This was following 9/11, and on the same month my dad passed away unexpectedly, so it was a strange time, but I had Civ3 and it helped me through my grief. I had something to look forward to, and to play.
Back on topic - What struck me about the game was everything was new. There were now borders & culture and the AI understood it. The national treasury was where your income flowed through. Units were supported by your empire, not by your cities. There were even sort of interesting mechanics like AI governors who would sort-of remember what you were building and suggest things a long the same line, though Soren never got it to work properly, it was still an interesting thing to see.
The diplomacy was amazing coming from Civ2/TestofTime. The AI on large pangea games (16 AI all at once) was a thing, and it created some very interesting diplomatc/wold spanning results. The trade table was amazing and fresh. You could offer your own deals and almost everything had a price (later on, people found out how to make interest bearing loans and make arbitrage trades. ) I remember someone had found a bug in the unpatched vanilla game where if you beat down a Civ badly enough, you could get them to pay you increadible gpt (something like 500 gpt) even if they didn't have the income. The game was just printing money from thin air, but the strategy was called 'vassal strategy' and the word stuck, and it was discussed ad nauseum even after it was patched. People wanted something like vassals in Civ3.
I'd like to think that bug led directly to the Vassal system in Civ4, but that's really just conjecture on my part.
I miss that freshness. Civ5 had 1UPT, but the release version was so buggy, I spent most of my time angry *at the game* and defending it from the trolling it was getting. The game has certainly improved by leaps since, but I don't know if I'd ever experience the awe I did with Civ3 back in October of 2001.
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
A heartfelt +1. Kudos.
Memoryjar
Emperor
Resources connected by road too. Civ 3 system miss me. If ressource is just one tile above my borders and not in an AI's territory, it's really annoying to have to settle a city for it.
George Abitbol
Prince
I never played CIV games before 5, but as said above, canals, troop transports (in the same way as the carriers, but for land units) and circumnavigation bonus (one movement point?) seem nice elements.
Idea for the Circumnavigation bonus: you get one free policy in the Exploration tree.
Troop transports were in Civ4, and they sucked compared to the Civ5 implementation. Too much micromanagement. Also, they don't really work well with 1 UPT, how are you going to disembark 3-4 units from your transport?
I liked culture flipping tiles and cities in Civ4, but there's no real need for it in Civ5 considering that land goes unclaimed a lot longer.
Teproc
King
Tile flipping would also make buying tiles a very dicey proposition.
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
Supposed to be a wish list, not a comparison of what sucked in each itteration of Civ. There is supposed to be a least some amount of micro in the games.
Your second statement does bring up a valid concern, however not in the way you probably intended. Civ is supoosed to be a grand sparwaling empire management game (hence the 4x, right?), so why is there a lot of land that goes unclaimed? seems a bit contradictory, don't you think?
JeffreyLXV
Chieftain
I miss the fact I didn't have to buy a new computer to play Civ IV.
Even with new hardware Civ V is an unnecessary graphic hog with immersion breaking grey tiles and no global view! And as Fabio1701 said: disappointing anti-climatic endings. Cutting off the spaceship launch and other wins with the most blase' victory screens gets an F- grade from me.
Multiple leaders with different characteristics was also a apparently a victim of their heavy influence on graphics which aren't even very good. The leaders don't look right or any more real even with the extra effort and resources.
I also don't recall the AI being so awful in Civ IV.
Pollution is a real thing. So is a nuclear Plant accident unfortunately. (I bet the nuclear and coal industry heavily lobbied Faraxis or even bribed them.)
Better information without adding an overly gamey mod.
Animated wonder movies.
Also a civilopedia that's more comprehensive especially about game mechanics.
Units crossing water especially ocean tiles without transports is still something difficult to digest.
And Baba yetu of course...
I'm sure I'm in a minority but I don't like the fanciful XCOMs and GDRs. It's not really a simulation game at that point.
Even with new hardware Civ V is an unnecessary graphic hog with immersion breaking grey tiles and no global view! And as Fabio1701 said: disappointing anti-climatic endings. Cutting off the spaceship launch and other wins with the most blase' victory screens gets an F- grade from me.
Multiple leaders with different characteristics was also a apparently a victim of their heavy influence on graphics which aren't even very good. The leaders don't look right or any more real even with the extra effort and resources.
I also don't recall the AI being so awful in Civ IV.
Pollution is a real thing. So is a nuclear Plant accident unfortunately. (I bet the nuclear and coal industry heavily lobbied Faraxis or even bribed them.)
Better information without adding an overly gamey mod.
Animated wonder movies.
Also a civilopedia that's more comprehensive especially about game mechanics.
Units crossing water especially ocean tiles without transports is still something difficult to digest.
And Baba yetu of course...
I'm sure I'm in a minority but I don't like the fanciful XCOMs and GDRs. It's not really a simulation game at that point.
Bulldog Bats
King
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2013
- Messages
- 701
You can name units, but only when you promote,
How about tech trading? I think that was in III.
How about tech trading? I think that was in III.
You actually can do it. Just in a really stupid way - you have to wait until your unit receives a promotion for some reason, and then there's a tiny edit button at the top right of the menu.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Het7q8IXLGs
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
Also in IV, along with several other fun options in relation to TT.
lindsay40k
Emperor
Waypoints. A third of my games go unfinished because moving the armies becomes a chore.
TractorBoy
Prince
Yes, I loved listening to the advice from the military leader and so did my grandson. "Give me more ships noble leader and I will turn the seas red with blood"
Permanent alliances.
Throne room.
George Abitbol
Prince
I understand it well, I'm very happy with the transport system in CiV, it may be a bit irrealistic but in gameplay term (and for the AI) it works very well.
I don't want the CIV transports back, but maybe the two systems can be used.
For example, a amphibious carrier, that can carry two or three units. Obviously, you could still move the units by themselves on the oceans, but the carrier would take them at the same speed as a normal ship.
If the ship carries three units, you could disembark one by one, or find a strategic beachhead that allow you to deploy the three units at the same time.
Yeah, the Civ3 AI programmer described how the AI handled transports and it was a logistical problem and added an extra layer of complexity.
When a transport is built, the war AI is notified, then there's a convoluted process where either the AI governors or the movement AI is notified of the transport and it begins moving troops to that spot.
But at the same time, something else could be happening that may delay troops getting there, or troops might be moved off by the war AI into another direction.
Meanwhile the transports will be waiting with a timer. Once it counts down to 0, it sails. This explains the often weird scenario where a half empty transport arrives or a half hearted invasion is staged.
The issue with Civ5 is 1UPT eating up the benefits of embarkment. I'm a huge fan of 1UP and want it to stay, but I'm fine with relaxing the rules a bit if it enhances AI performance. Maybe allow up to 3 like units to stack for example. With hexes having 'capacity' where stronger units take up more space than smaller, weaker units.
When a transport is built, the war AI is notified, then there's a convoluted process where either the AI governors or the movement AI is notified of the transport and it begins moving troops to that spot.
But at the same time, something else could be happening that may delay troops getting there, or troops might be moved off by the war AI into another direction.
Meanwhile the transports will be waiting with a timer. Once it counts down to 0, it sails. This explains the often weird scenario where a half empty transport arrives or a half hearted invasion is staged.
The issue with Civ5 is 1UPT eating up the benefits of embarkment. I'm a huge fan of 1UP and want it to stay, but I'm fine with relaxing the rules a bit if it enhances AI performance. Maybe allow up to 3 like units to stack for example. With hexes having 'capacity' where stronger units take up more space than smaller, weaker units.
