Who has come back to Civ IV after playing Civ V?

[oldskald]

Ok, my two cents... CivV is pretty, but hollow IMO. Perhaps expansion packs will fix some of the problems, but as one of my friends commented (and has been echoed here), it seems like a console game that has been chucked onto a computer.

And so to the attempts to tackle the SoD... The SoD has been described as a flaw of CivIV. I disagree, however I can see that it can get out of hand. But the developers have adopted a too radical method of dealing with it; 1UPT. Perhaps a better way might have been to limit stacks to say 5, or 3, or 10 (the number isn't so relevant as the existence of a limit) UPT on plains/grasslands tiles, with smaller limits for more difficult terrain.

I can't get over the feeling (and it isn't backed up with anything substantial), that the developers have been increasingly trying to limit war over the course of the series. This may be an admirable aim, and making decisive warfare more difficult might reflect the reality of our planet, but I can't help thinking that stronger economic/social pressures may have been more effective.

For me, the overly simplistic approach in CivV is worse than the micro-management necessary in later era warfare in CivIV, and takes much of the enjoyment out of the game for me.

As for making the AI more effective... welcome to the Holy Grail of technology!

 

[gilmore606]

I'm the opposite of zarakand; I don't see the problem with "stacks of doom". Yeah, in the late game when I have a big industrial civ, I can build a seriously big-ass army. Where's the problem? From what I've seen in Civ 5, you just end up with the same thing -- the "carpet of doom". Except it's way more annoying because it covers your entire country.

 

[gilmore606]

If they wanted to limit war, they should limit it the way the real world limits it: make it more economically destructive. Military units on the march should damage tile improvements just from passing over them. Battles taking place on a tile improvement should completely wipe it out. Hitting a city with siege weapons should remove population. Wars should be of questionable value even when you DO win.

 

[Iranon]

I always seen people sticking to old version of games like Civ to be somewhat ...eh, special The "I hate changes"-type of people. Now I'm officially a weirdo too

1 and 2 maybe (I like both, but Civ1 will always be special to me for the nostalgia). From 3 onwards, each game is different enough from any before that there are legitimate reasons to prefer one over the other.
Never liked Civ3 because I felt like the chief accountant, spending most of my time with mindless busywork and exploiting known loopholes. Civ4 is my favourite of the lot so far... plenty of things wrong with it, none that kill my enjoyment.
I'm unconvinced about Civ5... again, some safeguards against degenerate play can be worked around too easily, and we also have some mechanics that make it unnecessarily hard to create an adequate AI or mask AI inadequacy.

 

[blind biker]

I agree, but I think we're in the minority. Some of the returnees liked 1UpT and all the Civ V lovers like it. I feel it's an excellent concept, for other games. It doesn't fit well with Civ, however.

We are not and never have been in the minority. It is just that those who complained about "SoD" (I just call them stacks) were extremely vocal. The rest of us just shrugged and let them whine. Then Firaxis, in their attempt to grab a wider market (that is, not the core Civ gamers), "streamlined" Civ V - and 1UpT is one of these aspects of dumbing down the game. Firaxis didn't do it to appease the vocal "SoD"-hating minority. They did it because it makes for a more streamlined, bland game.

Sadly, it also doesn't work.

 

[Windsor]

What are some of he issues that you guys hate?

- Time. Unit movement takes a lot of time. This not only kills the pace of the game, but takes focus away from empire management.
- It's a combat system the AI can't handle. This makes warfare way too easy. If you got 5 units, the AI can throw 50 at you - and still lose! So the AI needs a massive army on the higher levels. However, the maps ain't made for huge amount of units and traffic jams start appearing. 1upt requires space to move, but the AI have more units than tiles! Slugging through all the units is tedious. It's time consuming, but not challenging. Units are lost because you where sloppy, not because of strategic risk/reward decisions.

No, do NOT think I view Civ4s combat model as very good. However, moving military units in Civ4 is just a small percentage of your playing time. In Civ4 moving your stack into enemy territory is better seen as collecting the reward. The challenge was to build the army and create a diplomatic environment that let you attack.

The small maps in Civilization and the nature of the game(no preset scenarios) requires a combat model where both sides have a limited number of tiles with military units on them. Suicide siege in Civ4 needs to go away, and it's nice if maybe splitting your stack into 5-7 smaller stacks is beneficial but we need stacking.

 

[peppe1]

On 1UPT vs Stack of doom.

Could CIV use a Master of Orion 2 (MOO2) combat system? Been a while since i played, so details may be fuzzy. On attacking each fleet is placed on a tactical battle map. MOO2 had limit on the number of units each side could bring on the tactical map (think it was like 256 of the largest ship type). I don't think you could arrange your fleet, but if you are making a new system that would be something to add or maybe something a great general in the army adds.

Anyway the point is you get to move stacks around the map quickly/easily and jump into a tactical combat map for the battles. In GalCiv 2 the battles are automated in MOO2 they are turn based and you control each ship if not each weapon.

A tactical combat presentation would add a whole layer to the civ franchise over the current best attacker vs best defender model.

I know it would be a major undertaking. I haven't looked at modding Civ IV, but I am a programmer by day... Is this something that could be modded?

 

[Ataxerxes]

We are not and never have been in the minority. It is just that those who complained about "SoD" (I just call them stacks) were extremely vocal. The rest of us just shrugged and let them whine. Then Firaxis, in their attempt to grab a wider market (that is, not the core Civ gamers), "streamlined" Civ V - and 1UpT is one of these aspects of dumbing down the game. Firaxis didn't do it to appease the vocal "SoD"-hating minority. They did it because it makes for a more streamlined, bland game.

Sadly, it also doesn't work.

It might make for an interesting poll. The possibility of me being mislead by vocal posters is, of course, a possibility, but I get the feeling most of the CivFanatics like it. On the CivIV forum, 1UPT probably isn't popular. I don't like it because of the micro involved and that if you're playing on an Earth map, firing arrows from Switzerland into Paris seems ridiculous. For tactics, I think UPT is good (Panzer General). Civ is more strategic, which is why I don't care for 1UPT. I don't think the leader of a civilization worried about precise placement of his archers, in most cases.

I'm not sure 1UPT "dumbed down" the game. I think other factors were worse. You are absolutely right, however, that Firaxis is aiming for a wider market and the serious players often feel let down. They're going for better graphics more than content IMO.

For us, it sure doesn't work. I haven't looked to see how well it's selling - which is also subject to inflation from a feeling that "anything Civ has to be good".

 

[blind biker]

Yeah, for Panzer General and other tactical games like that 1UpT works (even if it isn't always realistic). The sizes are very different in those tactical games, of course.

By the way, if you visit the Civ V forum, you would be surprised just how many patrons dislike 1UpT.

You're right about the graphics - much work invested into that, and little into gameplay, testing and AI coding. But with 1UpT, they made a gigantic mistake.

 

[shpeka]

1UPT is a good concept in itself. Panzer General is an excellent example that comes in mind.

The problem is that the strategical gameboard that is CiV quickly becomes cluttered by units. Units that occupy a whole city and move at 2 tiles per turn is the undoing of CiV.

Maybe if the hex was divided into 7 subhexes, each army occupied 1 subhex and moved at a speed of 6 subhexes things would be different.

 

[blind biker]

1UPT is a good concept in itself. Panzer General is an excellent example that comes in mind.

The problem is that the strategical gameboard that is CiV quickly becomes cluttered by units. Units that occupy a whole city and move at 2 tiles per turn is the undoing of CiV.

Maybe if the hex was divided into 7 subhexes, each army occupied 1 subhex and moved at a speed of 6 subhexes things would be different.

7 subhexes? Cool. How about 23 subhexes, though? I am sure an army would definitely be capable of containing 23 units.

Just sayin'.... it's an OK idea, otherwise. It will probably require a megagalactic monster of a computer. Or the (remaining) firaxis engineers should learn to program.

 

[shpeka]

Or maybe vice-versa - each city could occupy 7 hexes, should provide interesting options for city combat.

 

[Peregrine]

As I've stated in other places, a LOGISTIC system included w/stacking would ameliorate the problems of oversized stacks. If one moved a stack across a desert and units began dying, that would, of necessity, top out the total stacking limit. This is also realistic and historically accurate.

Individual tiles could supply a specified number of units, the proximity of granaries could supply a number of units, and, as the technology advanced, tile improvements could be unlocked that would allow increased supply. Plunder and Pillage could also now serve the purpose of military supply as well, rather than simply giving a gold award. Units could either be attenuated in strength or be eliminated due to lack of supply.

In these ways stacking could be ingame and yet not reach absurd levels as we see w/leaders like Shaka, who can sometimes appear w/a stack composed of 50+ units. I have seen Augustus gather an army w/90+ units as well. Logistics would deal w/these things.

At any rate, the 1upt is unworkable, unrealistic, and tedious in its implementation in V. Clearly, it's a failure on a colossal scale. A gross overreaction to stacking's perceived "problems."

 

[mynystry]

Well, another sad soul here... i was really looking forward to play Civ5, great expectations... Then it started, i liked the intro, but it annoyed me that couldn't skip it until i learned how to disable it.

then i began a game very optimistically. learning the new mechanics. I like the hexes and graphics are fine. But i didn't like the "1 unit per tile" system, i know stacks of doom were a major problem in Civ4, but I thought they could bring back the ideas of armies. one unit per tile, but as HUGE and varied as you could make it... well, whatever.

I didn't like the way they simplified the game, CIV is a complex game which need thinking and strategy, the more thinking the best, it was a let down to see they removed espionage, religion, health, etc.

I also didn't like the tech tree, Civ4 seems more realistic. Also they destroyed the wonders too.

Don´t get me started with Diplomacy and the AI. Also everything seemed to happen to slow till i got bored and then i decided to play a game of Civ4 and that was a "good bye for now" to Civ5.

I hope they improve it till it makes me want to play again. I remember when Civ4 vanilla came out, it was also a bit of a let down, not so bad as now, but they manage to make it much better till BTS.

C´mon guys, make Civ5 stand up for the legend

Not a good beginning for

 

[kiwitt]

1) I spent over 2 years developing my mod to near "perfection". It would seem a shame to waste it.

2) The interface is great and feels right after years of experience

3) I played Civ IV without mods for years, believing that if the developers thought it was a good idea, they would have put it in.

4) The "official" Mods (i.e. in expansion packs), kept me happy for years "Next-War" was a great addition and it could give you more techs after "Future Tech", from the base.

5) Dale's Combat Mod added a better combat system, further enhanced in "Road to War".

6) "Road to War". I am a 40+ year wargamer and the ability to combine Civ IV with WWII was the ultimate expression of it.

BTW: Considering uninstalling Civ V.

 

[Cliffff41]

After playing a dozen CIv 5 games, I decided to go back to CIV IV, which I hadn't played in over 2 years. Needless to say, my first CIV IV game was the best Civ game I ever played in my life. The game seemed quite hopeless but I stuck it out. Finishing the space race first when three other civs were ahead of me was the biggest surprise.

I do like some of the features of Civ V. I actually enjoy the challange of 1 unit per tile and the hex format, although I haven't gotten into those games where units abound and hopelessly clutter the land masses. I've had a few problems negotiating choke points, once I sent some armies completely around.

The deplomacy is almost non-existant. I've given up even trying to communicate with those idiots. I feel that the only way I can play is simply send my armies straight for each opponent's capital.

Right now, I alternate between Civ IV and V. I'll play one game of CIv IV, then one game of Civ V, then back to Civ IV. . I only played about 30 Civ 4 games in 2006 and 2007, mainly Warlords and a few BTS, so I've got a long future ahead of me playing Civ games.

 

[Aamto12]

playing Civ V after thousands of hours on Civ IV was like moving from the deep end to play in the kiddie pool. I only played about ~15 hours before I decided I was too offended by the dumbing down of everything to continue.

Hopefully Civ VI will return to its roots.

 

[blind biker]

playing Civ V after thousands of hours on Civ IV was like moving from the deep end to play in the kiddie pool. I only played about ~15 hours before I decided I was too offended by the dumbing down of everything to continue.

This.


I could not believe when I saw polls asking "Is Civ V dumbed down?" Do you even have to ask?

 

[gray94]

I joined just to post this;

Civ 5 is a dog.

Most of what I think has been said in a variety of other posts.

Overall the game seems dumbed down but with extra graphics, like a console game really.

The fun of civ, at least to me, was making all the little decisions to enable the bigger strategic decisions. Every turn had decisions to make, manage the city, stage the army, build the transportation network. Now I click through dozens (hundreds?) of turns where nothing happens. Moving an army is a tedious chore.

SoD were silly but 1UpT is sillier. They tried to blend strategic and tactical concepts and failed badly.

Now I tear up roads to save a little money. ( after I build harbours) Just like throughout history. . . .

Forget Railways. Just like Moltke did.

Trading posts? How is that an improvement over cottages?

Just a lot of bad design decisions that have killed the fun.

It was designers notes on Civ 2 or 3 where Sid said that they had to be careful because they didn’t want to wreck the franchise. Well it took a while but finally they have.

I’ve played Civ since Civ 1.

 

[Andoo]

As a person who protected civ5 from day 1, it's sad to admit civ4 is more apealing than civ5 after 120 hours of playtime now. Yes the combat still feels better and the realistic landscape is still more preferable but the game just feels too dull.
I'm still positive that more contents and fix will make the game better than civ4bts but for now I'm finding myself playing more civ4 than civ5