What do you miss the most from the past games?

[candle86]

Being that I never really got into 3 or 4, I pretty much went from II to V, though I love V lol. But I was thinking, there are some buildings at least from Civ 2 I do miss in Civ V like the Coastal Battery, SDI Defense, and the Sams. I also really miss the random world events from pollution, and I really miss moving my units across an entire continent without spending a movement point thanks to railroads. What do yall miss from the past game?

 

[Ryika]

I still miss "real" spies. Not that the current system is bad, but I still have good memories of having fun messing around with them in Civilization II. :>

 

[Aldor]

I miss the performance. Seriously, completing a standard game in 2 hours (Civ 4) vs. 5+ hours (Civ 5) just makes me stop wanting to play 5 at all :/

 

[Acken]

Only played IV and V. I miss spies (IV version), Corporations and the challenge. Well I even miss G&K challenge, BNW just made the game easier but I love the new mechanics. Just feel trade routes could be better balanced.

 

[Gamewizard]

The cottage system from IV. Loved the look of my gold city late game surrounded by towns.

 

[seanflokstra7]

I have only played V, but the whole map trading sounded good

 

[Mustakrakish]

1. Map trading.
2. Reasonable "hard" diplo modifiers, which were easy to navigate. It was next to impossible to turn from friendly to hostile by accidentally not doing anything... At least for me.
3. Civs that "weren't there to win" (which had effect on 2nd point), yet managed to do so.
4. More simple leader screens, also civ3 changing leaders with era.
5. Different scale.
6. Stacking, to some extend. I really want a hybrid.
7. Local unhappiness and health.

That's what comes to mind off the top my head.

 

[Feurisson]

The city view from Civilization III and the live-action advisor clips from Civilization II. I'd also like to see some random events and maybe a pollution mechanic.

 

[Magean]

Map trading. Really. Why did they remove it ?

To some extent, I miss the flexibility of Civ IV's civics as compared to V's policies, but I was all but an expert in using them...

Vassalization was a nice thing, but now we get puppet, so there would be a redundancy...

Anyway, there's a mod called Civ Iv's diplomatic feature around, written by Putmalk.

 

[Janskey]

I liked building the palace in Civ I.

 

[zukkus]

i miss:
leonard nemoy from 4
multiple choices for leaders from each country
Ryes and Fall scenario from 4
a little more combat/unit depth other than just archers /cbs. range 3 is too important
building roads everywhere
terraforming
any decent ww2 scenario

 

[Syailendra]

I liked building the palace in Civ I.

this, and possibility to go to war without enraging the whole world (but with a grain of salt, like creating blocks of allies first, or cassus belli system)

 

[NKVD]

Absolutely map trading. Palace view, Throne view and city view.

The spy that could open up the walls...

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

 

[Asklepios]

I miss the performance. Seriously, completing a standard game in 2 hours (Civ 4) vs. 5+ hours (Civ 5) just makes me stop wanting to play 5 at all :/

This. I hate in Civ 5 how its necessary to switch to strategic view to take the lag out of AI movement and processing at the end of the turn. In Civ 4 you hit return, and the next turn begins pretty much straight away.

Maybe a higher performance computer would help, but I find that I can't even play Huge maps, as by the time I've hit turn 200+ the slowdown is longer than the time playing the game.

 

[budweiser]

Build city walls!

 

[vivalamexico]

Rhye's and Fall. Dont know how many hours I have put into that

 

[beetle]

Off the top of my head, here’s what I miss most from the past games, 15 years and counting!

• Terrain that had a height attribute which effected weather patterns, and a feature to modify terrain.
• Melee units with separate offensive/defensive strengths and the ability to craft my own units so that I could have garrison units and and fast (but weak on defense) striker units (both of these types were cheap / low hammer).
• Strong AI personalities with diplomacy largely influenced (from early in the game) by the players social policy choices.
• A terrific canonical map.

 

[shaglio]

As OP as it was, I really miss Leonardo's Workshop automatically upgrading all my units for the rest of the game.

 

[subtledoctor]

Being that I never really got into 3 or 4, I pretty much went from II to V

Skipping III and IV, you really can't have quite the sense of perspective that others do. Civ2 was a lot of fun; Civ3 added things like culture and borders and armies etc. It really modernized the game. Then Civ4 refined everything, and prettified everything, and fine-tuned every game mechanic. But as advanced as it was, it was still a fine-tuned, evolved version of Civ2. I was blown away by how good the game had become. I think it was really the pinnacle of the series.

Civ5, in contrast, is really a move sideways. A lot of things are not so much evolved, as just changed. And many changes ripple out and cause other changes. Eg 1upt means you can't manage as many units; so they make units more expensive; then, to prevent the quick loss of more expensive units, they give them hit pints and enable them to survive losing battles.

So that's what I miss: Civ4 was the best, most refined version of Civ1. Civ5 is, in important ways, just a different game. It's a shame, I dearly wish we could have seen Civ5's graphics, religion, and city-states added to Civ4's engine... THAT would have been the ultimate Civ game.

 

[danaphanous]

I miss:

- random events
- being able to form colonies
- being able to see the faces and nationalities of my citizens
- being able to get cities to secede and having more spy options
- being able to load troops onto a transport that can actually protect them
- AI's that actually seemed like friends rather than pacts of convenience
- Some Civ IV diplomacy features
- Tech and world map trading
- being able to settle more early game
- the ability to alter borders and "push back" enemy territory using culture
- AI's actually being reasonable in peace options, and actually being rewarded for fighting early wars (seems I just can't in most cases without it hurting me)

For whatever reason in Civ V I find AI often have this narrow window. They will hate your guts and give you nothing and won't even consider a peace deal for turn after turn if you don't do some major damage which is annoying if they are far away as you can't really do anything. Then when you finally go on the offensive to take a few cities they'll offer you something but not a lot. There's this narrow band when I'm on their capital's doorstep where I can get cities for the peace deal, but if I capture the capital instead of becoming complacent they go into this kamikaze mode and refuse to give me anything for peace even if they have several cities left. Instead throwing their pathetic last few units against the captured capital and dying. I've been in quite a few wars which ended with an enemy randomly deciding I deserved nothing for peace even when I was absolutely crushing them. I've also been on the opposite extreme where they were building so many replacement units they wouldn't even consider peace even though I'd killed like 50. So I HAD to take a city to make them see the error of their ways and just stop!!! Then, of course, I get a major warmonger penalty for it, lose friendships, etc...this happens more early game so I've just taken to never fighting early wars which sucks. All those fun early units that I never, ever use now, unless I get lucky enough that an AI DOWs me early.

- being able to....

all right, screw it, bye, I'm playing Civ IV...