Why Civ V is more complex than Civ IV

Originally Posted by EscapedGoat View Post
...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.

Yeah, CiV 5 AI manages the empire building side well ... a bit too well actually, they don't seem affected by the happiness balance and get tons of cities while you struggle to expand just a few ones. I feel I'm not playing the same game as the AI, and that's not good.

There are some great new concepts in CiV 5, but some are overkill, and overall the AI / UI makes the game horrible to play. I don't know if CiV 4 was that horrible to play when it came out, but CiV 5 isn't a great experience at the moment.
 
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).

such as?
 
Expansion- Prior civ games had no effective check on expansion. Founding an additional city was nearly always advisable, bigger was always better. In Civ V there is a very real cost to reckless expansionism. There are benefits too, and therin lies the essence of complexity. A larger empire will generate more hammers and gold, but it will be difficult to keep happy. Founding a city to gain an additional resource may help with happiness or military power, but detract from your ability to accumulate social policies. There are all kinds of tradeoffs, and the optimal strategy may very depending on your situation and what victory condition you are aiming at.

LOL!

Unless your going for culture just spam trade posts and buy your happiness off buildings, I promise you will never have any checked expansion and the effect snowballs into a game I feel bad about playing(cuz the AI is so incompetent) where I am always the dominant force(I play prince and king, and no I dont want to play against a dumb AI with a ridiculous handicap, like i dont wanna hit a handicap kid whether he had a stick or gun)

Also why is my capitalistic american civ paying maintenance on theatres and town buildings like some kind of socialist society?IDK this i can overlook.

But SERIOUSLY where are my intercontinental trade routes? why should I EVER sign open borders? where is the game I can still learn new things about after hundreds of hours of play? def not on steam thats for sure...

The only plus is the improved combat system the AI cant use...

ugh, 75 hours in and I cant play a minute more without closing the game in disgust
 
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....

You can play not using the leader ability in combo with social politics at their maximum strenght... But in a multi game, for example, don't assume you can win... It is more profitable using them at maximum... So basically your statement is idiotic... As well the statement on CIV IV leader traits... They are so generic and much less game-breaking... But of course you will defend the game no matter what i can say... To the extend of reality nagation, of course:lol:


I don't think you can win a war with Iroquese against me if i use the most powerful combo of Nobunaga.... Would you try?:p

I can see you using Persians and not boosting your ability of Golden Age and instead waging war...

Losing....
 
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.

Are you seriously complaining that the city emphasis (i.e. citizen automation) options are too good? You don't have to use citizen automation you know. And it is possible to pick better tiles than what the city governor does (I've seen many examples already of it picking suboptimal tiles, so I check back every few turns or when the city grows).
 
Are you seriously complaining that the city emphasis (i.e. citizen automation) options are too good? You don't have to use citizen automation you know. And it is possible to pick better tiles than what the city governor does (I've seen many examples already of it picking suboptimal tiles, so I check back every few turns or when the city grows).

Err no. I'm talking about city specialisation not citizen focus. About how easy it is to decide which building to build because they fall so neatly into the city specialist categories, unlike the Civ 4 buildings which were not so easy to categorise. You want to read the last 3 or 4 posts I made if you want complete context of that conversation.

I think you misread the sentence "Civ 5 makes it dead simple by all but giving you an option box for each city to assign it a specialisation". I'm not talking about the citizen focus option boxes, I'm saying Civ 5 makes figuring out how to specialise cities so easy they may as well have given you option boxes.
 
You can play not using the leader ability in combo with social politics at their maximum strenght... But in a multi game, for example, don't assume you can win... It is more profitable using them at maximum... So basically your statement is idiotic... As well the statement on CIV IV leader traits... They are so generic and much less game-breaking... But of course you will defend the game no matter what i can say... To the extend of reality nagation, of course:lol:


I don't think you can win a war with Iroquese against me if i use the most powerful combo of Nobunaga.... Would you try?:p

I can see you using Persians and not boosting your ability of Golden Age and instead waging war...

Losing....

Okey....?
 
Err no. I'm talking about city specialisation not citizen focus. About how easy it is to decide which building to build because they fall so neatly into the city specialist categories, unlike the Civ 4 buildings which were not so easy to categorise. You want to read the last 3 or 4 posts I made if you want complete context of that conversation.

I think you misread the sentence "Civ 5 makes it dead simple by all but giving you an option box for each city to assign it a specialisation". I'm not talking about the citizen focus option boxes, I'm saying Civ 5 makes figuring out how to specialise cities so easy they may as well have given you option boxes.

Ah, sorry yeah I misunderstood. :blush:

On the actual point, I don't agree entirely with how you've described civ4 and how it was much more difficult to pick buildings according to a city's focus. It was still pretty straight forward in that game. Did I miss a post where you elaborated or gave an example of a city specialisation in civ4 where it was hard to choose a building?
EDIT... I see you made such a thing in 52. I'll post a reply in a bit.
 
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.
First off, don't ignore opportunity cost, especially if you're effectively counting that when you refer to the decisions made in civ4. There are still some choices in civ5. e.g. Suppose you want to increase science output, maybe you'd say the library is the obvious choice, but maybe the granary would be better to build first to get the population increasing, or perhaps a monument first so that the city can expand onto one of those grass tiles which you can farm to increase population. In civ5 there are still times when you make a decision between multiple buildings that advance you toward some short or long term objective, and which you pick may also be influenced by other needs of the empire (especially now that individual cities have the option of building things that have an empire-wide impact).
No more Civ 4 choices due to buildings with multiple benefits, like "Do I build the temple first or the library?
Well, unless you were spiritual, there'd be no reason to build the temple first if it was for culture. Perhaps you meant the monument? If you needed both science and culture, and the culture wasn't extremely urgent (where you'd build a monument or use a missionary) you would almost every time build 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"
True, this was an important decision, but in many cases it would have been better to do neither and instead build wealth.
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.
All true, but you miss out on the accrued points towards new social policies, but you'll probably counter that with making use of cultured city states. :)
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.
While true that there can be set build orders that work really well in most of your games, how is that not also true in civ4? In fact, in civ4 the granary was so overpowered that in almost every city regardless of specialisation it was the definite first build. The only exceptions were really when the city needed an early culture boost and there weren't missionaries available for that task. In science specialised city, you'd always build the library next. Not exactly a tough decision there either. After that, if universities and observatories were available, you'd always pick the uni first until you'd unlocked Oxford.

In military cities, it was only the hammer improving buildings like the forge, factory etc. and the barracks. Again, not exactly difficult choices. If the city was big enough, you might need some happiness buildings.
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.
True, there's a lack of buildings in the later eras. But I think the idea is for the game to start coming to a head, and besides, people have been complaining about how powerful buildings like the hospital supposedly come too late in the game to have any impact.
Really, the game just holds your hand when it comes to city specialisation.

That's one way of putting it. I would say it makes the task of specialising cities a bit more intuitive. It's all in the phrasing.

By the way, I know I say "true" a lot. :p
 
Regarding social policies, I disagree with the OP.
They are less complex than in Civ IV. They are static instead of dynamic, which means you don't have to pnder every turn whether changing policy is worth it and whether the anarchy cost is worth it, or whether it's better to wait for a golden age.

To me most of the issues of the game right now are linked to an ai that has no idea how to use the game system, like research pacts which are overpowered, and doesn't assess correctly other players strengths (vastly underestimates the importance of troop quality vs. quantity).

As for requiring to decide early on which victory condition to go with, I totally disagree. UN is pretty simple, you just need money to buy the CS votes. Winning militarily just requires a tech lead, so it's about the same as a spaceship victory in terms of planning. The culture win may require some planning, but I doubt it requires more than what was in Civ IV.
 
Both games are complex, they just have different emphasis.

I think that Civ V just has different areas of complexity versus Civ 4. That's why you have some people complaining that it's less complex, while others are complaining that it's more complex. To be fair, we're also comparing Civ V vanilla to Civ 4 with two expansions. I'm not sure that's a valid comparison since I think Civ V base is a more strategic game than Civ IV base.

In some ways, Civ 4 is more complex. The individual city improvements are probably a less complex in Civ V with the current game balance, because it's too easy to befriend a city-state and get lots of food from them. By doing so, it removes a lot of the though process out of city improvements because a smart player will just spam trading posts. Without religion and with fewer options (and borked AI), diplomacy is severely gimped compared to Civ 4. There's one less thing to worry about with no espionage.

However, Civ V does have it's strong points. With the longer building times, I think there's more strategy in deciding what to build in Civ V. With the limited resources, it's much tougher to decide which units to build. Battles and unit placement require a lot more thought because bad planning will equal a destroyed army. You have to plan more with your city placement and gold is always too limited to spread around willy-nilly.

But I think the main difference is this:

Civ 4 has more flexibility in the strategies you can employ because you can easily switch your emphasis quickly. If you want to go to war, you can switch your focus over with your civics and start gearing up. Civ V requires advanced planning since you can't adjust your strategy on the fly. You're far more stuck with the choices you've made in the past - social policies and the buildings you've built drive what you can really achieve. As such, Civ 4 allows ongoing strategy flexibility and Civ V requires more advanced planning. Both are valid strategic concerns, but I can see why some people claim that Civ 4 is more strategic and some claim Civ V is the more complex game.
 
Regarding social policies, I disagree with the OP.
They are less complex than in Civ IV. They are static instead of dynamic, which means you don't have to pnder every turn whether changing policy is worth it and whether the anarchy cost is worth it, or whether it's better to wait for a golden age.

Many claim that they are static, and that you never lose anything when adopting a SP, but I'll have to disagree with both (even though LDiCesare here only mentions the static-part; I'm not going to put words in your moth:)).

First off, I agree that SP are static in the way that you don't lose what you already have. But, at the same time you evolve all the time - you will pick up something new throughout the entire game - it's not like in Civ IV where you at one point decided that this is it. So will your opponents. This means you will become better than the rest in some aspects, and worse in others as time passes along. This for me is not static. It keeps evolving, not necesserily through revolution, but still.

This leads into my second point, "the never giving anything up"-side of the SP, pointed out in several other threads/post. I find that I do give something up every time I pick a new SP. When I decide which one i want, I pick it at the cost of another one. This makes for some really tough decision-making, based on your current state (do I need money, do I need culture, am I at war etc.). In Civ IV there were some Civics that you just had to take at certain stages, but I do agree that this was well implemented in Civ IV as well (not taking anything away from the great game).

To me most of the issues of the game right now are linked to an ai that has no idea how to use the game system, like research pacts which are overpowered, and doesn't assess correctly other players strengths (vastly underestimates the importance of troop quality vs. quantity).

I agree, and it seems this is the main complaint from the vast majority of posters. But some people seem to misunderstand the complexity/dumbing-down discussion just because of these mistakes. I'm not saying that LDiCisare or anyone else in this thread has misunderstood, but if you take a look at some of the posts in the "Are Civ V dumbed down"-thread, many say they voted yes because they easily defeated the AI using the Four Horsemen, or the AI did some really bad decisions or the Fortify-button is hidden or Spain is not in the game. This has nothing to do with complexity.
 
Maybe the AI is so bad as the detractors claim simply because Civ5 is much harder to program an AI to, meaning it is more complex and simple AI rules don't work as well.

1) AI has a harder time with the much more complex battle system
2) AI has a harder time with the much more complex city-state diplomacy network
3) AI has a harder time with the more complex building maintenance issues
4) AI has a harder time with the much more complex city border expansion decision process
5) AI has a harder time with the complex balance of growth, happiness, golden age generation, and culture point generation all intertwined
6) AI has a harder time with the more complex combination naval/land coordination
7) AI has a harder time with the more complex strategic resource optimization when you are limited
8) etc.

But AI is fine in Civ4 you say? Perhaps its just easier to program the AI in Civ4? You are not supporting your own arguments regarding complexity by pointing out the Civ5 just cant handle the rules very well.

And I also find it funny the reasons some use to claim it is not complex, such as their is currently a horseman exploit to beat the game. That means nothing regarding complexity just a game balance/AI issue. Their are rush exploits in every civ, especially at launch.
 
As for flexibility, yes Civ IV was more flexible. You could make radical changes by turning a slider or revolting. But how does this make the game more complex?

It makes it more complex since you also have the question of when to do it and how to do it. In CIV5 there is a policy blueprint for your nation and as your policies come along you'll tick the next box and move along.

This is my long term fear that I have for the game, which I actually haven't seen many other people realise. Once you've played Siam, say, and know which policies combine well for patronage then you're always likely to play Siam the same way. There will be very few policy decisions to be made in each game. All your building, development, and expansion choices will be dictated by the policies and so those will be similar in each game. Replayability will have dropped significantly. This is different to CIV4 where you always had to make civic decisions as you went along, at the right times, with an eye on your opponents. Games had variation in CIV4.
 


Expansion- Prior civ games had no effective check on expansion. Founding an additional city was nearly always advisable, bigger was always better. In Civ V there is a very real cost to reckless expansionism. There are benefits too, and therin lies the essence of complexity. A larger empire will generate more hammers and gold, but it will be difficult to keep happy. Founding a city to gain an additional resource may help with happiness or military power, but detract from your ability to accumulate social policies. There are all kinds of tradeoffs, and the optimal strategy may very depending on your situation and what victory condition you are aiming at.


It is points like this that makes people wonder whether you play the same civ 4 as the rest of us.
 
Maybe the AI is so bad as the detractors claim simply because Civ5 is much harder to program an AI to, meaning it is more complex and simple AI rules don't work as well.

1) AI has a harder time with the much more complex battle system
2) AI has a harder time with the much more complex city-state diplomacy network
3) AI has a harder time with the more complex building maintenance issues
4) AI has a harder time with the much more complex city border expansion decision process
5) AI has a harder time with the complex balance of growth, happiness, golden age generation, and culture point generation all intertwined
6) AI has a harder time with the more complex combination naval/land coordination
7) AI has a harder time with the more complex strategic resource optimization when you are limited
8) etc.

But AI is fine in Civ4 you say? Perhaps its just easier to program the AI in Civ4? You are not supporting your own arguments regarding complexity by pointing out the Civ5 just cant handle the rules very well.

And I also find it funny the reasons some use to claim it is not complex, such as their is currently a horseman exploit to beat the game. That means nothing regarding complexity just a game balance/AI issue. Their are rush exploits in every civ, especially at launch.

Don't change the combat system if you can't program the AI accordingly. Or maybe the new combat system is so badly designed that you can't program a decent AI ? How can you manage 50+ units with the 1 upt ? Obviously you can't. So maybe the problem is not only the programmation of the AI (though it could really be better, I agree)
 
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....

Actually the real war traits are Spiritual and Philosophical (at least in single player).
 
Don't change the combat system if you can't program the AI accordingly. Or maybe the new combat system is so badly designed that you can't program a decent AI ? How can you manage 50+ units with the 1 upt ? Obviously you can't. So maybe the problem is not only the programmation of the AI (though it could really be better, I agree)

There are some good ideas out there on how to tweak the 1 upt, such as technically allowing stacking but with large penalties to attack/defense or friendly fire damage to all in the stack when in battle. Main reason to add this is to not interfere with troop movement but still provide the large disincentive to creating stacks

But the move away from SoD is definately the right direction from my point of view. And the difficulty the AI has with it is exactly because of the complexity it adds to the game
 
There are some good ideas out there on how to tweak the 1 upt, such as technically allowing stacking but with large penalties to attack/defense or friendly fire damage to all in the stack when in battle. Main reason to add this is to not interfere with troop movement but still provide the large disincentive to creating stacks

But the move away from SoD is definately the right direction from my point of view. And the difficulty the AI has with it is exactly because of the complexity it adds to the game

Errr, no. It's not more complex, it's just unplayable. Yes, you can move away from SoD with collateral damage to all the stack, or any sort of incentive, but that's more in line with Civ 1/2 than with the 1upt system. 1upt just doesn't work for Civ, or you would need a map and cities 5 times bigger compared to units. My opinion is that the AI will never be (entirely) fixed, because it's unfixable.
 
Back
Top Bottom