Which aspects do you prefer?
- Thread starter civnoob13
- Start date
RD-BH
Human
A Beginner's Guide to the Specialist Economy (SE)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=197818
gingerbill
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 335
filling in this poll i was surprised how many systems i actually prefer in Civ5 , if anyone asked which game was better i would say Civ4 without hesitation. I think i have to admit Civ5 is a great game now 
. After these big patches (not tried the newest enough to say) the game is vastly improved for me.
. After these big patches (not tried the newest enough to say) the game is vastly improved for me.- Civ V - One Unit Per Tile
- Civ V - Cities can defend but store one unit
- Civ V - earned by population (by a hair, maybe I'd like both present for the sake of options? [ie a low population empire leveraging wealth to overcome a research gap])
- Civ V - Social Policies
- Civ V - Global Happiness - no health (again by a hair, maybe I'd like both present)
- No preference regarding religion
- No preference regarding used tiles
- Civ IV - Only local culture, Civ IV tile expansion method (I miss cultural conversion and the like)
Though it isn't on the poll, I definitely prefer having Spying to not.
civnoob13
King
Thanks, that should be really useful.
civnoob13
King
By far the worst aspect (rather than a lack of aspects) for me in civ 5 is how SP costs increase with every new city. This has been improved in the latest patch, but I hate the entire concept anyway, because it is simply very, very, very dull and punishes the player for trying to build a civilization. If I had another 2 aspects to play with, I would include espionage and happiness and SP cost as a limit vs commerce as a limit.
Just looking at the polls, I'd say that Science and Policies/Civics are definitely keyed up for a revision.
first: consider that every answer will be skewed towards V just due to # of users who haven't played IV
second: when considering this skew, anything even close to 50/50 is actually more in favor of Civ IV than you might think
Therefore, Science by Commerce and Civics are certainly to be considered ...
while Religion and Health/Happiness are practically unanimous
first: consider that every answer will be skewed towards V just due to # of users who haven't played IV
second: when considering this skew, anything even close to 50/50 is actually more in favor of Civ IV than you might think
Therefore, Science by Commerce and Civics are certainly to be considered ...
while Religion and Health/Happiness are practically unanimous
Tacgnol
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2008
- Messages
- 216
I really don't think you can compare 1upt/city defense, that's one of the defining factors between games and each works in its own setting. 1upt is more fun to fight with but at the same time I do prefer having very large armies of 20+ where each unit only takes a handful of turns to build and isn't so important on its own. City defense is great, though.
Science is decent in V but I have to say I prefer the way it was in IV, where managing your economy is more of a balancing act than just maximizing everything. Also, tile improvements were way better IMO in IV both by being interesting and the awesome feeling of seeing 8
river towns. Also I absolutely HATE maintenance on roads, it slows your units down unnecessarily and adds a gold drain in a really unpleasant way. Those things I feel are all symptoms of having science separate from the economy, I really think the way it works in V is fine it's just everything that goes along with it isn't as good, IMO.
I do really enjoy Social Policies but I honestly don't feel at all like they fill the role of civics. I prefer having the government be a feature in the game and I loved the way civics did that. Social Policies are really fun and go extremely well with the nationalized culture, I just don't see them as being a worthy replacement.
Hands down have to say I prefer local happiness and health to collective happiness. It is a perfectly fine mechanic in V for controlling expansion but just cutting health and the realism aspect are kinda lame.
Religion was fun and just cutting a feature like that is never great but it had its issues and I can't say I miss it that much, it was as much of a hassle as it was useful and I don't think it'd add too much to V, plus the most essential bonus of giving some culture to each city is covered by SPs.
I do prefer hexes to squares, very minor feature IMO hexes are just a bit better both combat and realism wise.
The culture thing's my main issue. First of all, I absolutely love the concept of national and local culture, I think it just makes so much more sense than having each city of the same civ completely culturally independent. Having national culture add up to give benefits to the whole civ is great and really fun, I just really like how it works both ways. I feel similarly about happiness, ideally I'd like to see happiness locally managed but having the entire nation's happiness still add up in the GA meter, that's a great feature much like national culture and I just really like how it works. However I still voted for Civ IV on the culture one, for the simple reason that I HATE HATE HATE ABSOLUTELY CANNOT STAND that cities get one tile at a time, slowly slooooooowly pick up the area around them that their citizens work and then NEVER EXPAND AT ALL beyond that. Seriously, my #1 beef with Civ V, well close to how restricted expansion is but now that SP costs are more reasonable even worse than that, is the huge areas of wilderness covering so much of the map even into modern times. I absolutely hate it, it just kills the immersion for me. Having one square here and there in the desert or on an isolated peninsula is fine but every single game of CiV inevitably results in tons of empty spaces that are unclaimed by any nation because they aren't good enough to be worked by a city, and they just sit there empty forever. I hate that, I want those all in my borders dammit, just because people aren't living there and working doesn't mean my nation can't even fill in the continent it's on. Honestly the 1 tile at a time cultural expansion works pretty well, at least as well as how it was in IV, but it directly leads to the huge empty spaces issue and it's just in no way worth it at all, this outweighs for me even the much improved system of national culture, it's just so awful.
So, yeah, I'm a Civ IV guy at heart, definitely prefer it to V but it's a different game and now that V has been patched to release quality it's a great game as well, it's not the classic that Civ IV was but outside of a few issues it's worthy of the Civ franchise.
Science is decent in V but I have to say I prefer the way it was in IV, where managing your economy is more of a balancing act than just maximizing everything. Also, tile improvements were way better IMO in IV both by being interesting and the awesome feeling of seeing 8
river towns. Also I absolutely HATE maintenance on roads, it slows your units down unnecessarily and adds a gold drain in a really unpleasant way. Those things I feel are all symptoms of having science separate from the economy, I really think the way it works in V is fine it's just everything that goes along with it isn't as good, IMO.I do really enjoy Social Policies but I honestly don't feel at all like they fill the role of civics. I prefer having the government be a feature in the game and I loved the way civics did that. Social Policies are really fun and go extremely well with the nationalized culture, I just don't see them as being a worthy replacement.
Hands down have to say I prefer local happiness and health to collective happiness. It is a perfectly fine mechanic in V for controlling expansion but just cutting health and the realism aspect are kinda lame.
Religion was fun and just cutting a feature like that is never great but it had its issues and I can't say I miss it that much, it was as much of a hassle as it was useful and I don't think it'd add too much to V, plus the most essential bonus of giving some culture to each city is covered by SPs.
I do prefer hexes to squares, very minor feature IMO hexes are just a bit better both combat and realism wise.
The culture thing's my main issue. First of all, I absolutely love the concept of national and local culture, I think it just makes so much more sense than having each city of the same civ completely culturally independent. Having national culture add up to give benefits to the whole civ is great and really fun, I just really like how it works both ways. I feel similarly about happiness, ideally I'd like to see happiness locally managed but having the entire nation's happiness still add up in the GA meter, that's a great feature much like national culture and I just really like how it works. However I still voted for Civ IV on the culture one, for the simple reason that I HATE HATE HATE ABSOLUTELY CANNOT STAND that cities get one tile at a time, slowly slooooooowly pick up the area around them that their citizens work and then NEVER EXPAND AT ALL beyond that. Seriously, my #1 beef with Civ V, well close to how restricted expansion is but now that SP costs are more reasonable even worse than that, is the huge areas of wilderness covering so much of the map even into modern times. I absolutely hate it, it just kills the immersion for me. Having one square here and there in the desert or on an isolated peninsula is fine but every single game of CiV inevitably results in tons of empty spaces that are unclaimed by any nation because they aren't good enough to be worked by a city, and they just sit there empty forever. I hate that, I want those all in my borders dammit, just because people aren't living there and working doesn't mean my nation can't even fill in the continent it's on. Honestly the 1 tile at a time cultural expansion works pretty well, at least as well as how it was in IV, but it directly leads to the huge empty spaces issue and it's just in no way worth it at all, this outweighs for me even the much improved system of national culture, it's just so awful.
So, yeah, I'm a Civ IV guy at heart, definitely prefer it to V but it's a different game and now that V has been patched to release quality it's a great game as well, it's not the classic that Civ IV was but outside of a few issues it's worthy of the Civ franchise.
GrayingGamer
Prince
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 565
Pretty much this.
Nightshades
Chieftain
I prefer Civ V over IV in every area. Except maybe the local/global happiness thing.
The only thing I prefer in Civ4 is the local happiness and health thing. Though I do believe the new system of global happiness is very streamlined, which is great.
I also miss some sort of Espionage (but not Spies unit per see).
Other than that, I much prefer Civ5.
I also miss some sort of Espionage (but not Spies unit per see).
Other than that, I much prefer Civ5.
Gunship_Down
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 69
Yeah right. Just stop right there, nobody is buying it. Results are results. Civ 5 is winning in most areas.
janboruta
Artistriarch
I can't say I prefer one game over another. They are both great in my opinion, both are immersive, although in different ways.
The option I chose in the poll:
- units per tile - no preference. I like both systems, they represent different game concepts and they both play out well (maybe except the stack of doom from IV)
- city defence - I'd like my cities to force me to garrison them with defensive units, as in Civ IV. A city which can defend effectively without soldiers seems childish to me (I don't count guerrilla and such), but it is present because of 1 upt, which is understandable.
- science - I prefer the system in IV. More gold = more scientists = more beakers. Population alone doesn't count if there is no money. But Civ V has different approach to money (you earn more, and you have more uses for it, e.g. rush buying units/buildings), so the switch to population as the base for research is necessary.
- I prefer social policies. More ways to customize your civilization. And I hated the pyramids in IV, unlocking democracy or other modern governments in the civics tab in 1500BC.
- I honestly want health and local happiness back in Civ V. Health made you build all those aqueducts and actually CARE about your citizens. And local happiness could work as local culture - you may have one rioting city, but rest of the empire stays relatively happy. Much more lifelike and immersive.
- I preferred religion. There was more immersion thanks to it, and it was an interesting way of creating diplomatic situations (religion was often the cause of wars in history, and it was quite an important one back then). But there other ways in Civ V that shape diplomacy, so it's quite balanced out.
- I like the hexes. More flexible, and looks better, especially in border shapes and geography.
- I prefer the Civ V model of cultural expansion and the system of global and local culture. Much more lifelike, IMO. I don't like buying tiles with gold, though. From whom am I buying it? I have to explain too much to myself
The option I chose in the poll:
- units per tile - no preference. I like both systems, they represent different game concepts and they both play out well (maybe except the stack of doom from IV)
- city defence - I'd like my cities to force me to garrison them with defensive units, as in Civ IV. A city which can defend effectively without soldiers seems childish to me (I don't count guerrilla and such), but it is present because of 1 upt, which is understandable.
- science - I prefer the system in IV. More gold = more scientists = more beakers. Population alone doesn't count if there is no money. But Civ V has different approach to money (you earn more, and you have more uses for it, e.g. rush buying units/buildings), so the switch to population as the base for research is necessary.
- I prefer social policies. More ways to customize your civilization. And I hated the pyramids in IV, unlocking democracy or other modern governments in the civics tab in 1500BC.
- I honestly want health and local happiness back in Civ V. Health made you build all those aqueducts and actually CARE about your citizens. And local happiness could work as local culture - you may have one rioting city, but rest of the empire stays relatively happy. Much more lifelike and immersive.
- I preferred religion. There was more immersion thanks to it, and it was an interesting way of creating diplomatic situations (religion was often the cause of wars in history, and it was quite an important one back then). But there other ways in Civ V that shape diplomacy, so it's quite balanced out.
- I like the hexes. More flexible, and looks better, especially in border shapes and geography.
- I prefer the Civ V model of cultural expansion and the system of global and local culture. Much more lifelike, IMO. I don't like buying tiles with gold, though. From whom am I buying it? I have to explain too much to myself
LegionSteve
Motörhead
True the poll shows Civ 5 features are more popular than Civ 4 features in the Civ 5 forum. But that isn't surprising or particularly interesting.
Tasunke was right, the interesting thing about the poll is the size of the majority in each area. For example, people who voted prefer hexes by a large majority. But voters are a lot more split on population science v commerce science.
This is useful not to compare Civ 5 with Civ 4 but to show which features of Civ 5 work well and which could use some patching/modding.
A bit off-topic, but it's a curious effects that happens with many games (and other stuff also): people that don't like it will be very vocal about that.
People that like it will just enjoy it and usually won't be as vocal, even when they're the vast majority.
So, if you take a quick read on those forums (or others Civ forum), you may end up with the impression that Civ5 is the most hated game of all time. While, in actuality, the game is pretty much always in the top10 of games being played at any time of the day on Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/stats/), showing that a lot of people do enjoy it.
This pool also shows that there are many lurkers around here that do prefer the way things works on Civ5. Although I'll give it that the pool indeed doesn't serve the purpose of comparing civ5 vs civ4 all that well, due to being posted on the civ5 forum.
People that like it will just enjoy it and usually won't be as vocal, even when they're the vast majority.
So, if you take a quick read on those forums (or others Civ forum), you may end up with the impression that Civ5 is the most hated game of all time. While, in actuality, the game is pretty much always in the top10 of games being played at any time of the day on Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/stats/), showing that a lot of people do enjoy it.
This pool also shows that there are many lurkers around here that do prefer the way things works on Civ5. Although I'll give it that the pool indeed doesn't serve the purpose of comparing civ5 vs civ4 all that well, due to being posted on the civ5 forum.
exactly. While areas with a landslide vote are most likely clear improvements (at least as a concept) ... areas which are *less* than one-sided, closer to 40-60 or 50-50, should probably have discussions.
This is not to say that any 50-50 poll is a feature that demands return to Civ IV, but clearly its a feature that should *probably* be scrapped for something either akin to an earlier civ game (such as IV or Alpha Centauri) or for something new altogether.
Bar that, it certainly shows which of Civ V's features are in disfavor.
as to the specifics of what type of feature should replace each "unpopular" Civ V feature, that is for the discussion(s) to deside. IMHO
BranjoHello
Chieftain
Excellent poll!
I'm quite happy with the results, only thing where mine and the opinion of majority don't match is religion, since I dislike it (at least the how it worked in Civ4).
So the only thing (from the poll) that was better in Civ4 is Local Health and Local Happiness so please bring that back.
I'm quite happy with the results, only thing where mine and the opinion of majority don't match is religion, since I dislike it (at least the how it worked in Civ4).
So the only thing (from the poll) that was better in Civ4 is Local Health and Local Happiness so please bring that back.
1UPT is fairly settled, even during the <snip> right after launch 1UPT always polled favourably. I think people see it's promise but some feel the AI/specs of current computer isn't quite there yet PLUS firaxis hasn't really optimized it as much as they should.
Moderator Action: Inappropriate language removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Inappropriate language removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
1 UPT is rather broken in how Civ-axis is currently trying to handle it. Perhaps 1 Army Per Turn would be more favorable, but again that is a new feature than pure 1UPT, if along the same premise.
With 1 UPT, while an awesome concept, in Civ V it does not allow for the types of battles which 1 UPT was made for, namely sizable tactical battles yet over a broad scape ... without much crowd factor. Yet the sheer narrowness of continents, or rather the largeness of the indivdual tiles, prevent this one the one hand ... and on the other hand such lack of maneuvering space leads the designers to handicap production so that there is no carpet of doom, leading to a very boring early game. Yet of course, carpet of doom remains possible in late game, and due to way cities were designed in order to avoid early came Carpets, Big cities aren't that much better than smaller cities, and thus ICS is the typical strategem at the end of the day.
I'd prefer a call back to "paying for cities, not buildings" with more vertical development of cities being economically practical.
As it is however, I feel that the necessary limitations on military (and domestic) production imposed by strict 1 UPT will prevent this vertical mobility of cities and lead to a "broken" core game.
However, I feel this could be fixed with 1 army per tile. with the ability to produce multiple units for a single tile, yet all those units acting as a single entity (and a limit of how many units can be part of an army), the production can be reasonable again, thus vertical development of cities may return as a pragmatic option, and the basis behind 1UPT remains virtually intact.
Obviously since Multiplayer is largely a non-issue for Civ V, time constraints are not a primary factor .... therefore perhaps they could institute "tactical battles" between two land armies. (on a tactical, equally hexagonal, map).
This could alleviate the silliness of ranged bombardment on the strategic map ... except perhaps for Naval Gun Lines and Aircraft sorties. (especially if such units are not allowed to participate directly in the tactical battles)
Also, this could help to add "Spaciousness" to the map ... since there is a limit of maneuverablility (by design) in Civ maps ... partly due to the small radii of cities, partly due to the nature of the game .... these "battle maps" within tiles will add maneuverability to the units within said army. Then, you would get a miniature taste of what the 1 UPT "tactical" battles in Civ V were supposed to be like, if it were not for the limitations of the current economic/map system of CiV.
With 1 UPT, while an awesome concept, in Civ V it does not allow for the types of battles which 1 UPT was made for, namely sizable tactical battles yet over a broad scape ... without much crowd factor. Yet the sheer narrowness of continents, or rather the largeness of the indivdual tiles, prevent this one the one hand ... and on the other hand such lack of maneuvering space leads the designers to handicap production so that there is no carpet of doom, leading to a very boring early game. Yet of course, carpet of doom remains possible in late game, and due to way cities were designed in order to avoid early came Carpets, Big cities aren't that much better than smaller cities, and thus ICS is the typical strategem at the end of the day.
I'd prefer a call back to "paying for cities, not buildings" with more vertical development of cities being economically practical.
As it is however, I feel that the necessary limitations on military (and domestic) production imposed by strict 1 UPT will prevent this vertical mobility of cities and lead to a "broken" core game.
However, I feel this could be fixed with 1 army per tile. with the ability to produce multiple units for a single tile, yet all those units acting as a single entity (and a limit of how many units can be part of an army), the production can be reasonable again, thus vertical development of cities may return as a pragmatic option, and the basis behind 1UPT remains virtually intact.
Obviously since Multiplayer is largely a non-issue for Civ V, time constraints are not a primary factor .... therefore perhaps they could institute "tactical battles" between two land armies. (on a tactical, equally hexagonal, map).
This could alleviate the silliness of ranged bombardment on the strategic map ... except perhaps for Naval Gun Lines and Aircraft sorties. (especially if such units are not allowed to participate directly in the tactical battles)
Also, this could help to add "Spaciousness" to the map ... since there is a limit of maneuverablility (by design) in Civ maps ... partly due to the small radii of cities, partly due to the nature of the game .... these "battle maps" within tiles will add maneuverability to the units within said army. Then, you would get a miniature taste of what the 1 UPT "tactical" battles in Civ V were supposed to be like, if it were not for the limitations of the current economic/map system of CiV.
Similar threads
- Poll
