Why Civ V is more complex than Civ IV

[Thormodr]

Seriously, what are they paying you? Every experienced Civ-player can beat Deity rather easily on Civ5, so please, stop with the propaganda.

I'm sure many players love Civ5 and I agree there are some really positive aspects of the game, but the AI sucks and many of the strategic aspects of the game were cut.

@Moderators: Is there a way to ignore/hide posts from certain people?

Just click on the poster's name and it will give you a list of options. The bottom one will give you the option to put someone on your ignore list.

 

[falconne]

...That the computer put up a better fight in CIV4?

You cannot draw a conclusion on the complexity of the game from that. I played some platformers 20 years ago that required pixel perfect timing of jumps from one platform to another. It was hard, but it was not complex.

No, it didn't. Vanilla Civ 4 AI was even worse than this one. At least this one can manage the empire building side. Civ 4 was too complex even for its own AI in the beginning. But the thing was, it took a long time for players to get their head around all the variables and figure out how to balance the empire. That's where the fun was. Once you've figured it out, it's not that fun any more.

 

[JoxerNL]

Yeah civ 4 vanilla AI was horrendous, and as it is now, i wouldnt even play the civ 4 BtS AI, i'd get some mods to fix some of the AI's stupidity still.

 

[King of Spades]

As pointed out, that we can beat the game on Deity during the first week doesn't prove that the game is less complex - it simply proves that the AI isn't good enough. Perhaps the game is too complex for the AI....?

Would anyone here call the original Donkey Kong a complex game?

 

[Markstar]

Just click on the poster's name and it will give you a list of options. The bottom one will give you the option to put someone on your ignore list.

Ahh, thanks. I should have tried that first.

On topic: The AI is not the reason why Civ5 is less complex, it's the fact that your choices in this game are severely limited, even the aspects that they decided to leave in (e.g. the buildings fall into three simple categories now, instead of forming a complex web).

 

[lonemessiah]

Care to explain what those '3 simple catorgories' are?

i can think of 7 different ones without even trying

 

[falconne]

As pointed out, that we can beat the game on Deity during the first week doesn't prove that the game is less complex - it simply proves that the AI isn't good enough. Perhaps the game is too complex for the AI....?

Would anyone here call the original Donkey Kong a complex game?

And as I pointed out, the AI in vanilla Civ 4 was worse than that of Civ 5. This AI at least has some semblance of empire building capability. It simply took a long time for people to get their head around all the mechanics of Civ 4 and play it right, at which point they realised the AI had been running around like a headless chicken and mostly only getting anywhere by luck.

Civ 5 is so mathematical it won't be too hard for the AI to be made very good at it. That would make it more challenging, but it won't add extra fun. It will just become a game of optimisation.

 

[Markstar]

Care to explain what those '3 simple catorgories' are?

i can think of 7 different ones without even trying

Alright, now that I think about it more there are some more, but most of them are not worth building in higher difficulties.

Somebody here on the forum wrote about the simplicity of buildings more eloquently, but I can't find it right now, sorry.

 

[lonemessiah]

Nicely countered....

for the record (and i have probably missed some types)

1/ food production:- granary, water mill, hospital etc
2/ hammer production:- factory, windmill etc.
3/ Happiness:- theatre, circus etc.
4/ culture:- temple, monument etc.
5/ military:- walls, barracks etc
6/ science:- university, observatory etc.
7/ gold:- market, bank etc.

You could also probably have 8/ great person production, but IIRC these are normally a by-product of buildings rather thhan the main goal (gardens excepted i suppose)

Some of the buildings help with more than one function, i.e universities can also increase happiness with the right policies. You could also probably argue that walls and barracks are seperate categories. And there are a few that don't really fit in with any such as habours.

Maybe i have forgotten all the other types of builings in Civ 4, but i really can't remember it being all that different, accept that you could easily build them all. No matter what the fancy titles they still watered down to the same thing.

 

[Taan]

wow, so many mistakes in the ops-post. I am pretty sure he never actually played civ 4. at least it seems that way, nobody who played the game would make so many false statements (even if you prefer civ V you wouldnt make stuff up like that).

 

[lonemessiah]

Maybe you could explain the things the OP got wrong, it is very easy to counter an arguement with 'it is wrong' but it would be much more constructive to explain what and how.

 

[falconne]

Alright, now that I think about it more there are some more, but most of them are not worth building in higher difficulties.

Somebody here on the forum wrote about the simplicity of buildings more eloquently, but I can't find it right now, sorry.

Technically you still have several categories, but several of the categories have become so easy to attain you don't have to specialise them.

First off most buildings only have one benefit and the only penalty is maintenance, so once you decide what the specialisation of the city is, it's easy. No more Civ 4 choices due to buildings with multiple benefits, like "Do I build the temple first or the library? I need the culture real quick, but that extra science boost might get me a tech 1 turn quicker" or "Do I build the bank first or the grocer? I need cash fast, but my city's also about to get unhealthy"

More importantly, you don't need to specialise your tile improvements. Three hex radius means you have way more tiles than you'll need, so pick a good spot with hills, put mines on hills and spam TPs. Build farms in your science specialist cities. When you need to build something, set citizen priority to Production, otherwise Gold. You have plenty available to maximise both. In the beginning, buying tiles is more cost effective than building too many culture buildings in non-culture specialised cities, because the near radius, plain tiles are cheaper to buy. Money is plentiful, so you can save up from the maintenance cost of too many culture buildings to buy tiles instead.

Your building choice is dead simple... you have 4 or 5 main "specialist" cities: Culture, Science, Money and Military and maybe Wonder. The last three are really only partial specialists, because they won't be doing much "specialist work" most of the time. For the first two, you build the science or culture buildings when available. With military, you build units when required, but you loose so few in this game and upgrade everything, this won't be needed much. You should build a forge, XP buildings if you like, but I find just letting the units fight is good enough. So these cities should have a secondary specialisation. All cities, with nothing special to build at the moment, should build economic or happiness buildings if available. If not, any city without enough hills around should build production bonus buildings. You get the idea. You only need 6-12 well built cities to win even on a Huge map and all you got to do is keep following this set build order. Not many buildings available from the industrial era on, so it becomes even simpler as you go... don't worry about city building, just go eXterminate everyone.

Really, the game just holds your hand when it comes to city specialisation.

 

[falconne]

Nicely countered....

for the record (and i have probably missed some types)

1/ food production:- granary, water mill, hospital etc
2/ hammer production:- factory, windmill etc.
3/ Happiness:- theatre, circus etc.
4/ culture:- temple, monument etc.
5/ military:- walls, barracks etc
6/ science:- university, observatory etc.
7/ gold:- market, bank etc.

It's not the building category that matters in gameplay complexity, but what buildings go in what specialist cities. The above is a good breakdown of Civ 4 specialist cities. Civ 5 doesn't need as much. 1 & 5 go in the same city. 2 goes in any city that doesn't have enough hills. 3 and 7 go in every city not doing anything else, though 7 can be a minor specialist city too. 5 is only a partial specialist city.

 

[lonemessiah]

"Do I build the temple first or the library? I need the culture real quick, but that extra science boost might get me a tech 1 turn quicker"

How is this different than Civ 5? And in Civ 5 you have the added choice of, 'Can i afford to build this improvement, is it worth the money i am paying for it? Is this the right city for this improvement?' Where as Civ 4 was 'Which order shall i build all the buildings in for this city?'. Swings and round-abouts, both methods have their upsides and their downsides, put i would argue that they are equally complex.

 

[falconne]

"Do I build the temple first or the library? I need the culture real quick, but that extra science boost might get me a tech 1 turn quicker"

How is this different than Civ 5? And in Civ 5 you have the added choice of, 'Can i afford to build this improvement, is it worth the money i am paying for it? Is this the right city for this improvement?' Where as Civ 4 was 'Which order shall i build all the buildings in for this city?'. Swings and round-abouts, both methods have their upsides and their downsides, put i would argue that they are equally complex.

No it's not. If you've picked the right balance of specialised cities in Civ V, you shouldn't have to worry about maintenance. And you shouldn't be having a shortage of gold either. The opportunity cost in Civ V is much lower, because it's quite obvious what buildings to build in each specialist category. In Civ 4, with so many buildings with multiple benefits as well as penalties, a lot of them blended between categories... you have to balance short term benefit vs long term gain. Not so in Civ V, the buildings come to each specialist city in a nice order and you can build them one after the other without much thought.

 

[lonemessiah]

It's not the building category that matters in gameplay complexity, but what buildings go in what specialist cities. The above is a good breakdown of Civ 4 specialist cities. Civ 5 doesn't need as much. 1 & 5 go in the same city. 2 goes in any city that doesn't have enough hills. 3 and 7 go in every city not doing anything else, though 7 can be a minor specialist city too. 5 is only a partial specialist city.

And that comes back to my arguement in a different thread (what are the differences between Civ4 and Civ 5)

I stated one difference was that Civ 4 was very city focused, but Civ 5 is more empire focused. That does not make one more complex than the other, just different. Civ 4 was all about the city screen, getting those powerhouse specialist cities churning out stuff. It was all a bit 'play by numbers'. Every game was fought with the same strategy no matter what you were trying to achieve, and it was all about city placement and maximizing them. In Civ 5 it is about making the right choices for the empire, Do i need another city? Do i need this building? Do i need this troop?. Civ 4 was about quantity, Civ 5 is about quality. Both hard to get the balance right with, both requiring very different skills.

As we know the argument will be shot down because of the poor AI meaning that the design doesn't quite match the experience yet, but i always argue for the design, since we have no idea as yet as to how well it will eventually be remembered. Was Civ 4 ever remembered for being bug ridden and having very poor AI? ... No... and yet that is how it was recieved at first.

 

[falconne]

And that comes back to my arguement in a different thread (what are the differences between Civ4 and Civ 5)

I stated one difference was that Civ 4 was very city focused, but Civ 5 is more empire focused. That does not make one more complex than the other, just different. Civ 4 was all about the city screen, getting those powerhouse specialist cities churning out stuff. It was all a bit 'play by numbers'. Every game was fought with the same strategy no matter what you were trying to achieve, and it was all about city placement and maximizing them. In Civ 5 it is about making the right choices for the empire, Do i need another city? Do i need this building? Do i need this troop?. Civ 4 was about quantity, Civ 5 is about quality. Both hard to get the balance right with, both requiring very different skills.

As we know the argument will be shot down because of the poor AI meaning that the design doesn't quite match the experience yet, but i always argue for the design, since we have no idea as yet as to how well it will eventually be remembered. Was Civ 4 ever remembered for being bug ridden and having very poor AI? ... No... and yet that is how it was recieved at first.

How do you figure that's "Empire focused"? You're making exactly the same kind of choices, except they are easier to make. Both games are city focused, cities are the only thing that's producing for your economy. The difference is, Civ 4 makes it hard to decide exactly how many categories of specialist cities you need, what ratio to choose and what exact buildings fit into what category. Civ 5 makes it dead simple by all but giving you an option box for each city to assign it a specialisation.

In fact, Civ 5 is not like running an empire, it's like running one giant city. That's what this game is, it's not an empire builder, it's a city state builder.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

This "turning your civilization on a dime" method from IV is definitely a reason it was less complex. V requires much more forethought.

But in CIV IV your strategy was more flexible... In CIV 5 if you pick Nobunaga, your strategy is binded by the ability chosen, so you are going to wage war... If you pick Alexander your strategy will be obviously diplomatic with large use of City state and Mecenatism... I can go on forever.... It is less strategic than CIV IV, you can't change your strategy during the game, and if you have some difficulties due various circumstances, your game will be screwed, and way more in multiplayer games...

The leaders are so umbelanced that in multiplayer you must tag as werboten civ as Russia or Japan...

But maybe who stated that Civ V is more complex and strategic than IV probably don't play multi...

And the absence of naval protection due the 1UPT is idiotic, unless you are shongai...

Ah, i don't speak about the Artificial Deficiency (AD for friends) that put archers or ranged unit in the first line of combat and the other problems in tactical combat that the DA has...

 

[Generals3]

And that comes back to my arguement in a different thread (what are the differences between Civ4 and Civ 5)

I stated one difference was that Civ 4 was very city focused, but Civ 5 is more empire focused. That does not make one more complex than the other, just different. Civ 4 was all about the city screen, getting those powerhouse specialist cities churning out stuff. It was all a bit 'play by numbers'. Every game was fought with the same strategy no matter what you were trying to achieve, and it was all about city placement and maximizing them. In Civ 5 it is about making the right choices for the empire, Do i need another city? Do i need this building? Do i need this troop?. Civ 4 was about quantity, Civ 5 is about quality. Both hard to get the balance right with, both requiring very different skills.

As we know the argument will be shot down because of the poor AI meaning that the design doesn't quite match the experience yet, but i always argue for the design, since we have no idea as yet as to how well it will eventually be remembered. Was Civ 4 ever remembered for being bug ridden and having very poor AI? ... No... and yet that is how it was recieved at first.

I beg to disagree. It's still about quantity now , its just the numbers shrunk a lot and that the game basically tells you what quantity you need. Its not an option anymore to build every building because the production is too low . The game tells you to specialize but specialization was very present in the past , the only difference is that it was a choice to optimize your empire.

Same goes with the global unhappiness, the game now truly tells you : This is going wrong because your empire is unhappy. In the past it was less obvious. So what i have one tile less being worked on . But did you think about that tile producing production/food/commerce ? Isn't the effect exactly the same but simply less obvious? So what truly changed is that now you don't need to build the buildings on the right place and that even the most blind player realizes it hurts the empire. So it has nothing to do with empire management vs city management

 

[King of Spades]

But in CIV IV your strategy was more flexible... In CIV 5 if you pick Nobunaga, your strategy is binded by the ability chosen, so you are going to wage war... If you pick Alexander your strategy will be obviously diplomatic with large use of City state and Mecenatism... I can go on forever.... It is less strategic than CIV IV, you can't change your strategy during the game, and if you have some difficulties due various circumstances, your game will be screwed, and way more in multiplayer games...

I've played with Japan without waging war - their skill mean you don't need to focus on military as much, as you can still hold of a large with a small defencive force. I would guess this would go for Alexander as well - you can focus on everything else, because City States are a sure thing already.

What you're complaining about here is no different from Civ IV in Civ V. The leaders basically decide your overall strategy (in Civ IV Philosophical=SE, Financial=CE, Aggressive=War), and if "various circumstances" gives you difficulty (?), you may have problems. I've played my share of MPs in Civ IV to know that now metal or no oil equals trouble.

Of course, we could go back to how things were in Civ II with no UA/UB/UU and no need for resources....