Why Civ V is more complex than Civ IV

[Jediron]

How you can win or not is not my issue. The warfare bothers me, i think it's worse then other CIV;s, mostly due to the limited number of units you can exploit and the poor AI, combined with too easy barbs it and predictable AI's; it just ain't challenging and surprise me enough.

Yuo may feel otherwise, but i find the socalled tactical warfare a big joke.
So, i could have fun going for another type of Victory i hear you say. NO!
Without the challenge to defend (or attack), any other scenario seems bland to me.
Without a "real" threath, what's the point ? (click next turn zillion times?)

 

[charon2112]

It depends on how you define "path".

In Civ4, there are no two games where I have followed the exact same sequence of Civics. Depending on game dynamics, this sequence will change from game to game. Also often there are more than one meaningful choice and each choice has its plusses and minusses. It is not a fixed track but a road system with detours and backtracks and such.

I find this hard to believe, and even if you didn't choose the same path twice, the best path is still there laid out for you to follow if you want.

This aspect is not present in Civ5 AT ALL. There is only one path because one path has all plusses and other paths have all minusses. Social Policy as implemented now is a rigid, fixed track that you move along from start to finish.

This really isn't true either, the game doesn't force you to do anything. There's a ton of choices in V.

The fact is, there's just two different systems in place, some people like one, and some people like the other. It's all personal preference.

 

[Roxlimn]

Jediron:

That's an AI issue, not a systems issue.

 

[falconne]

falconne:

Does it matter? I can play a Deity game right now and win with Horsemen. What would that prove? Nothing.

Currently, I play at King, if that's useful for you to know. You can do ICS-style play in Civ V and win at Immortal or Deity. Quite a few players are trying it out now - there's a thread in the Strategies and Tips portion if you want to take a gander. Get 60 cities, maintain positive happiness. Totally doable, and you didn't know about it - because you are not experimenting.

Exploits that won't be useful after rebalancing aren't fair, I'm only talking about optimising base concepts of the game which will always be true. Besides, I play on a continents huge map - the AI needs to be fairly close to you if you want horse rush to work.

There's nothing preventing big expansion obviously, the question is, is it useful?

From the way my games have played out, I reckon you'd get a domination victory quicker than you could build 60 useful cities.

 

[Roxlimn]

falconne:

Domination victories are always the fastest wins in Civ. This has always been true.

In Civ V, not so much on various settings. The ingredients you need for ICS arrive at Industrial Age, and you need to be about that tech level to take the war to the second continent. Might as well make your city sprawl and get tons of production.

Cultural wins can be made faster this way as well. I think that you'd want to experiment with Civ V systems a bit more before jumping to conclusions.

 

[polypheus]

I find this hard to believe, and even if you didn't choose the same path twice, the best path is still there laid out for you to follow if you want.

Each civic has different benefits and drawbacks depending on in-game situations. It is quite common to switch civics for this reason. Perhaps you haven't played Civ4 much???

This really isn't true either, the game doesn't force you to do anything. There's a ton of choices in V.

The fact is, there's just two different systems in place, some people like one, and some people like the other. It's all personal preference.

How is choice meaningful if there is only one path that makes sense? Remember I am speaking simply of social policy system here.

Can you give me examples where in the course of the game you had a choice of social policy and multiple choices made equal sense? Yes or no?

If NO, then social policy "choice" is meaningless.

 

[Roxlimn]

polypheus:

I'm at war with an AI. It's in the Industrial Era and I have a massive army and so-so income. I can choose Professional Army to lower my upgrade costs going into modern units, or I can get an income bonus right away and maintain my large, hard to upgrade army. Both are valid choices.

 

[Venereus]

polypheus:

I'm at war with an AI. It's in the Industrial Era and I have a massive army and so-so income. I can choose Professional Army to lower my upgrade costs going into modern units, or I can get an income bonus right away and maintain my large, hard to upgrade army. Both are valid choices.

If you're playing to win, the first one is clearly the correct answer.

 

[Roxlimn]

Venereus:

Is it?

Getting a bonus to upgrading units will only benefit my units as I upgrade them - I need them in friendly territory, they spend a turn upgrading, and I actually need to tech the tech in order to get the upgrade. Massive when it kicks in, but delayed.

Getting a discount on maintenance now means I can buy more units and maintain more units. It means I can buy happiness buildings to offset the happiness costs of war, meaning I can carry on my war for longer and possibly end it before I go below -10. I can pay City States who are Neutral to attack my enemy.

So how is Professional Army better than Order?

 

[DaveShack]

I doubt you could have played much Civ 4 if you think this is equivalent.

Actually he hasn't played it at all.

I give you an advice, if I may: Play Civ4 just one time.

Moderator Action: Discussing the other poster's experience or lack of is not constructive to the discussion, and can be infracted for trolling or flaming as circumstances warrant. Keep the thread focus on the topic, not the other members
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Venereus]

Venereus:

Is it?

Getting a bonus to upgrading units will only benefit my units as I upgrade them - I need them in friendly territory, they spend a turn upgrading, and I actually need to tech the tech in order to get the upgrade. Massive when it kicks in, but delayed.

Getting a discount on maintenance now means I can buy more units and maintain more units. It means I can buy happiness buildings to offset the happiness costs of war, meaning I can carry on my war for longer and possibly end it before I go below -10. I can pay City States who are Neutral to attack my enemy.

So how is Professional Army better than Order?

Ignore happiness and keep warring until you win. You don't even need more units to do that. Update the ones you have so it'll be faster.

 

[Roxlimn]

Venereus:

If that's your strategy, then you don't need either Policy. Better to grab something related to Rationalism to get the science rate up faster!

 

[falconne]

falconne:

Domination victories are always the fastest wins in Civ. This has always been true.

In Civ V, not so much on various settings. The ingredients you need for ICS arrive at Industrial Age, and you need to be about that tech level to take the war to the second continent. Might as well make your city sprawl and get tons of production.

Cultural wins can be made faster this way as well. I think that you'd want to experiment with Civ V systems a bit more before jumping to conclusions.

Well on Immortal, if you let the AI get more than halfway past the industrial era, they develop the blob of doom, the replacement for SoD. If you aren't well on your way to a culture or science victory before 2 AIs get past the Industrial era, chances are you won't get there. It's hard to beat a domination strategy from my point of view.

When I experiment, I want to discover strategies that will help me win faster, on higher difficulties, not ones that may work "almost as well" if the conditions are just right. I don't mind experimenting alternative scenarios in games, but only in the kind of games that make the journey worth it, like Hearts of Iron III (and probably Victoria II when I get around to playing it). Civ 5 just doesn't give me enough to do to keep me interested, so all I care about is winning as fast as possible.

 

[Roxlimn]

So it's not that you can't experiment, but that you don't find the incentive to do so? Clearly that has less to do with complexity and more to do with other factors for why you're not liking Civ 5. Industrial Era BoDs don't impact Cultural Vics since the AI closes horribly, and it can't launch intercontinental invasions worth anything, just like before.

You can take your sweet, sweet time pursuing any victory condition you like. You can decide to take Cultural in the Industrial Era and you'll get there in good time, no problem. If you just want to win fast, then dedication to the win condition is necessary in all versions of Civ from 3 onwards.

 

[falconne]

So it's not that you can't experiment, but that you don't find the incentive to do so? Clearly that has less to do with complexity and more to do with other factors for why you're not liking Civ 5. Industrial Era BoDs don't impact Cultural Vics since the AI closes horribly, and it can't launch intercontinental invasions worth anything, just like before.

You can take your sweet, sweet time pursuing any victory condition you like. You can decide to take Cultural in the Industrial Era and you'll get there in good time, no problem. If you just want to win fast, then dedication to the win condition is necessary in all versions of Civ from 3 onwards.

Well you kind of jumped into the middle of a cross conversation already in progress and took a post out of context. It began around discussion about experimentation and I was saying the game doesn't really make it interesting or worth it. Unlike an empire sim, there's not lot of interesting stuff going on to make scenarios worth it. As for strategies, you still won't discover any that get victory faster, just alternative ways to victory that avoid the obvious paths.

The relation that has to do with complexity is that in empire sims of the kind Paradox makes, those kind of experiments are fun (for me). They have a huge amount of mechanics going on to try and simulate real world conditions, so it feels more meaningful. An experiment in HOI3 like "What if Japan joined Germany in 1941 in attacking Russia, instead of provoking the US?" is a fun experiment. With Civ, especially this version, it feels more like trying to find alternative routes to solve a mathematical equation that's already been adequately done. Every game feels the same, there's nothing to do 90% of the time but hit End Turn. At least Civ4 BtS had stuff to do.

 

[ohioastronomy]

Not true that that the AI never attacks across the ocean. I've had games where this has happened, and it has happened twice.

Moreover, the same could be said about Civ IV. Clear your continent - defend your seas. That's an easy way to defeat Civ IV war AI. Being too large can be seen as a threat, but not always. I've had games where a smaller Civ stuck by me through thick and thin.

Keeping a city under Puppet rule is actually very strong - preferable to razing or annexing at the moment. The options for keeping cities is anything but harsh. We're actually discussing on how to make it harsher, because expanding and keeping cities in Civ V is too easy at the moment.

I'm sorry, but this is grasping at straws. Are you really, really honestly claiming that the AI in this game can handle naval invasions? Or that peaceful diplomacy is even remotely reliable? Or that either of these things is remotely as bad in Civ 4 as it is in Civ 5? Maybe you can hope that these are fixed, but they are serious weak points indeed in the current game.

 

[Roxlimn]

falconne:

I didn't take it out of context at all. That is exactly the context in which I questioned the statement. You can't say that it's all been figured out, and then say in the next statement that there may be alternative ways of doing it. Those are inconsistent statements.

There are already ways to win Culture victories faster with bigger Civs. Whether or not this is better or is even desirable is up for discussion, but this is a fairly recent thing.

What you seem to miss is all the little fiddly bits, that may or may not really have any strategic importance, but make it more like a sim. That does not mean the game is less complex, only that it is more of a game and less of a sim.


ohioastronomy:

I'm not claiming it. I've seen it firsthand. Twice. It can't do it well; but then again, it can't do anything militarily well. Peaceful diplomacy is also more than possible. I have also done it. PieceofMind has done it, too, and Julian Murdoch of Three Moves Ahead has had some games where he has had no occasion to actually use combat units in combat.

I find peace more sustainable in Civ V than in Civ IV provided that you did not pay attention to the numbers running behind the screen in Civ IV. Civs in IV were more likely to declare war on you, even if you were in another continent. So far, in Civ V, only the most belligerent Civs do that.

 

[falconne]

falconne:

I didn't take it out of context at all. That is exactly the context in which I questioned the statement. You can't say that it's all been figured out, and then say in the next statement that there may be alternative ways of doing it. Those are inconsistent statements.

Actually I was saying "the path to victory is obvious". It may not be the 100% optimum path, but it's pretty good. You could spend 75 hours optimising a 85% efficient path into a 89% efficient one, but for me that's not fun. Not in this board game format anyway - it just feels too mathematical. If it was a complex empire sim it would be another story.

Besides, you haven't found a peaceful strategy that works better than a military strategy have you? As I've said a number of times, if I want to experiment in a mathematical game like this, I want to find better strategies, not decide "How about if I play with one hand tied behind my back? Can I still win?". It's fairly obvious the easiest path to victory is domination so why should I try to handicap myself? If the game was complex enough that this wasn't the case, then I'd have fun experimenting with it.

I don't know how you managed to see the AI launch a naval invasion, none of my AIs have even been able to handle inland water ways let alone ocean tactics.

 

[Roxlimn]

falconne:

A game that's a sim - something with more fiddly bits and such - it would not necessarily be more complex. It could have all manner of things simulated in it, but if few of those factors really mattered in the big picture, or if they all just pointed to a few key synergies, then the game is really simple - it just has a lot of things to click is all.

For instance, The Sims has a LOT of things you can fiddle with and change and modify to your heart's desire. It's got a lot of factors you can fiddle with, and they mostly have some kind of effect, but the game itself is relatively simple.

Civ IV's got more of those fiddly bits, but there are less things that actually have strategic impact.

The streamlining that you don't like isn't mathematics. It's just game design. It involves math, but it's no more math than what was used to figure optimum paths in Civ IV. Basically, they tried to do away with anything that didn't actually involve strategy, so it's less of a sim in that way.

Some people don't like that, and that's cool, but it's not because Civ V is less complex. It's because it's less a sim and more an actual strategy game.

 

[falconne]

falconne:

A game that's a sim - something with more fiddly bits and such - it would not necessarily be more complex. It could have all manner of things simulated in it, but if few of those factors really mattered in the big picture, or if they all just pointed to a few key synergies, then the game is really simple - it just has a lot of things to click is all.

For instance, The Sims has a LOT of things you can fiddle with and change and modify to your heart's desire. It's got a lot of factors you can fiddle with, and they mostly have some kind of effect, but the game itself is relatively simple.

Civ IV's got more of those fiddly bits, but there are less things that actually have strategic impact.

The streamlining that you don't like isn't mathematics. It's just game design. It involves math, but it's no more math than what was used to figure optimum paths in Civ IV. Basically, they tried to do away with anything that didn't actually involve strategy, so it's less of a sim in that way.

Some people don't like that, and that's cool, but it's not because Civ V is less complex. It's because it's less a sim and more an actual strategy game.

Perhaps you should try playing Hearts of Iron 3 and tell me that's a "lot of fiddly bits" but not much strategy. Then play some Euro board games, so you'd see why I already get my abstract strategy fix from them and prefer empire sims on computers.