1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Why Civ V is more complex than Civ IV

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Stefanskantine, Oct 6, 2010.

  1. kaltorak

    kaltorak Emperor

    Jul 7, 2009
    Because beeing able to plan things is much more complex than randomness. But that would be if civ5 would only hide civ4 modifiers. But it is much worse, it's not just that its hidden.

    If you leave civ5 current happines system, but hide the modifiers, not showing what is giving you happiness and what not, or how mcuh you have, you would surely call it more complex...
  2. Generals3

    Generals3 Warlord

    Sep 26, 2010
    That's all very nice but why would i please an AI who will most likely backstab me in the coming 100 turns for god knows which ******** reason. I have already been backstabbed because i destroyed a civ i and the AI went to war with TOGETHER. he asked me to join , i did , destroyed it and he got pissed. Why would i even try to please such morons? Diplomacy is very simple in Civ V for me : "only do what directly benefits yourself" and not thinking like in civ IV : "if i please him he can become a valuable ally" . Because in Civ V you never have allies , only enemies and soon to be enemies . You could give 1000 different kind of pacts and the diplo in Civ V would still be beyond ******** . Because they don't affect the gameplay in the least bit
  3. falconne

    falconne meep

    Nov 24, 2005
    New Zealand
    In my first game Gandhi asked me to go to war with him against another Civ and I agreed... my first DoW. After the war, he was hostile towards me because of all my "warmongering".
  4. TheDisco

    TheDisco Warlord

    Jun 19, 2008
    Actually there is already a mod available that changes the AI such that it doesnt get pissed simply because it thinks it is losing the game. This is similar to how the AI worked in Civ4 where if you are buds with them then you won't get a DoW just because you are beating them.

    I appreciate that the developers want the AI to actually "go for the win" in this version (despite being a little mentally challenged) but I prefer a more role-play type AI that, if you are friends with them they won't get pissed just because you are building a spaceship. I like a little more emersion in my civ where I can actually have allies that I can trust.


    And by the way that is exactly how I like to play Civ5 and it is very fun. I can see why those that just go for domination don't find it as fun but what I don't see is why they won't mix it up and play a different style, or use some of the mods that balance the domination aspects....
  5. MajKira

    MajKira King

    May 10, 2010
    It also depends on expectation or wish of players have while playing civ. If you want more like a actioned wargame or rather more of a simming simulation of civilizations. Or if you rather wanna whole stories written already into civilizations or rather a randomized game without any linear story involved.
  6. Toady

    Toady Chieftain

    May 11, 2006
    Disclaimer: I am comparing Civ V to Civ IV + BTS + Warlords + Whatever anyone belonging to Firaxis might have put there, anyone who finds this "unfair"... tough luck. I am sick and tired of this utterly senseless argument that Civ V should be compared to Civ IV vanilla only as if the know-how of concepts from BTS & Warlords was something that was magically whisked away from Firaxis Devs when they started on Civ V.

    *Removed* City Maintenance based on - Distance to Capital. Concept using Forbidden Palace, Main Palace Relocation, Courthouses, Colony concept from BTS, Vassalage Concept from Warlords. Replaced with Global happiness - Building maintenance

    *Removed* Trade Network with other nations - Not really replaced with anything

    *Removed* Connecting resources with road, connecting roads with rivers, Intra nation wide network to determine which cities had which resources & luxuries. - Replaced with... moving across the galaxy.... droping a town next to a resource... building improvement on top of resource... instant nationwide access.

    *Removed* Terrain bonuses for woodland - hills - hills & woodland - flats. Replaced with Rough Terrain - Open ground ... +25% -33%.

    *Removed* Promotions like First Strikes, City Attack, Guerilla, Woodsman, vs Archer - Horse - Melee etc etc etc. Replaced with generic bland +% open ground +% rough terrain

    *Removed* War Weariness. Replaced with nothing... part of the dumbed down global happiness

    *Removed* Religion & Corps - Replaced with nothing

    *Removed* Any real need for diplomacy between Players or AI. Replaced with "1 trick pony" City States

    *Removed* Fluid & Flexible Civic System. Replaced with Fire & Forget rigid Policy system

    *Removed* Correlation between Income & Research, Income vs Hammers. Replaced with Income = *end all be all*

    *Removed* Great General - Add to Unit with Unique promotions - Golden Age - Military Academy. Replaced with Tag along +25% bonus, semi useless Golden Age trigger since happiness will do that for you, completely useless fort improvement.

    *Removed* Every UN Resolution Option. Replaced with single vote option for Diplo Win

    *Removed* Espionage. Replaced with nothing at all

    *Removed* Random Events. Replaced with generic handfull of city state quests...

    *Removed* City Health system. Replaced with nothing

    *Removed* Various military units. Replaced with less more generic units

    I guess i could go on... and on.... and on.... but you get the picture.
  7. silentknight111

    silentknight111 Warlord

    Oct 27, 2005
    Most of that list wasn't in the original Civ IV, it was almost all added in expansions.
    Religion is the only thing that was "missing" there that Civ IV started with.

    Other things you mention aren't "missing" they're just handled differently.

    When two expansions come out for Civ 5 in 3 years, then you can compare features.
  8. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Dec 14, 2005
    The only things I see on his list that came from expansions were espionage and corporations. All of the other things were present in the core game.
  9. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Apr 23, 2003
    So basically another whine post that Civ5 isn't Civ4 BTS with four years of patching.

    boo hoo

    Moderator Action: If you have nothing to post that furthers along the discussion, please post nothing at all. Thanks. :)
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
  10. Toady

    Toady Chieftain

    May 11, 2006
    I wonder what people would have said if SC II turned out to be worse than SC: Brood War and Blizzard would justify it by saying:

    Blizzard Rep: "Hey SC II isn't SC + Expansion + 12 years of patching!"

    3 million gamers : "Ah ok... us bad!"
  11. Venger

    Venger Give it a tumble, sport

    Apr 18, 2002
    I can compare features NOW, because there is no reason to move all the way back to square one - and I can add other things if you like, say, health - the fact is Civ5 is less complex, it is inarguably so. The only reason to do so is out of defensive reflex.

    This is likely the first Civ release with fewer features than the last release. Every Civ, from 2 to 3 to 4, was a greater whole than the previous release. Civ5 is not. It has enormous sections of game mechanics simply removed - religion, corporations, espionage, health - they are just gone. The game is less complex. That doesn't have to be necessarily bad - frankly, I don't miss corporations or espionage in the least, I like the game better without them. But I don't pretend that their removal isn't a reduction in game complexity.

    Civ5 is less complex than Civ4. That is by design.
  12. silentknight111

    silentknight111 Warlord

    Oct 27, 2005
    This is true, and I agree with that. :)

    What I don't agree with are people saying that simply because some complexity has been removed that makes the game worse. The more I play the game, the more strategy I find. I agree with one of the previous posters who said that it's easy to play, but hard to master.

    Some may blame this on the AI, saying that the game is easy, but an erratic IE makes it difficult to develop a sound strategy. I don't think the AI is actually irrational. I think it does make decisions that make sense, but it lacks the ability to communicate why it makes a decision.

    After looking through XML related to AI relations, I see that their are tons of factors. But the AI personalities seem to have very few pre-programmed things to "say" when they communicate to you. This makes it look like they are being irrational.

    I don't think we need a trapsrent number system of relations like in Civ IV, but rather, we need an AI that can communicate it's "feelings" to you in ways other than friendly or hostile.
  13. Venereus

    Venereus This Is Streamlined!

    Aug 8, 2010
    The "Civ 5 is only comparable with Civ IV vanilla" argument is getting tiresome. I'll say this one last time. It's not only valid to compare Civ V with Civ IV BTS 3.19, it's actually the fair thing to do (unless you're just talking about the common vanilla bugs, wich isn't the point). Firaxis didn't just magically forget 5 years of improvements to Civ IV. They purposely ditched a lot of them for who knows what reason, and it was a mistake.
  14. Flavorable

    Flavorable Warlord

    Sep 23, 2010

    Well, that is an incredibly stupid suggestion. Starcraft 2 is actually just Starcraft 1 HD.

    Civilization V is an entirely new set of rules from Civ IV.
  15. Marshall Thomas

    Marshall Thomas King

    Dec 11, 2005
    I'd like to try that mod. What's it called? And do you know if it's saved game compatable? Thanks in advance
  16. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Sep 24, 2010
    A) How hard was espionage? Build a spy....send spy to enemy city....poison water. Not hard. Plus they were great for scouting enemy territory.

    B) You had to plan ahead in previous civs as well (something people seem to froget). Now the onyl difference is you're LOCKED IN which doesn't make it "more challenging"....just more frustrating.
  17. Grimberht

    Grimberht Chieftain

    Oct 9, 2008
    So the "complexity" of the game has you clam it come mostly from YOU making the game harder for yourself, and attributing the "deepness" of complexity to the game.

    I'm at best a monarch player at CIV IV and now I can beat the game at emperor without a sweat while not exploiting those military unbalanced feature... which is basicly making all kind of war althougether...

    Since the game is completely unbalanced all over, not to exploit it basicly means opening un CIV IV and start a game there... cause CS are exploitable... City placement doesnt really mean anything, once I decided PRE GAME what victory I go for.. it only a matter of executing the game plan...

    Basicly... its Civilisation for dumb people v.1.0...

    If they dont refurbish it completly... the will effectively KILL the franchise for good.

    At this point, they might just well start working on CIV 6 and put all this non sense behind them right away... its absolutly horrible!!!!
  18. thbrown81

    thbrown81 Warlord

    May 15, 2009
    Lexington, KY
    This may have been addressed earlier in this thread, but I didn't check all nine pages.

    I want to address the misconception that building maintainence in Civ V makes the game more complex. I think that those making this argument are overlooking the idea of opportunity cost in Civ IV. Building maintainence existed in previous iterations of the franchise, and I for one was happy to see it go. Trolling through my cities to sell all my walls was not fun, it was distracting (and apparently not even possible in V). There was always a price to be paid in Civ IV for building an unnecessary building: you wasted hammers that you could have used building something else. Learning which buildings not to build was a significant aspect of improving my gameplay. Could you spam every possible building in every city without a direct penalty. Yes, you could. However, at higher difficulties this would get you annihilated because while you were spamming libraries the AI was spamming the rifles that are now burning down your libraries. Solid gameplay in Civ IV was deciding "I don't need a library in this city because it only has two grassland tiles and will function much better as a hammer city". It appears that the decision in Civ V is now "Well, I can't build that library, it is too expensive". It appears that the decision has been taken out of my hands. I find that to actually be less complex.
  19. Doctor Phibes

    Doctor Phibes Prince

    Oct 2, 2010
    Crikey, I never even did that, a bit underhand if you ask me. Surely, the espionage thing was about adjusting the priorities according to who you saw as the most important threat, and that was a dynamic, the threats were moveable. So, with enough espionage points you could see a fair bit. It also depended on how much they were focusing their espionage on you too. Wonderful sub-game - it should have been developed further, not abandoned.

    And if you got a Great Spy, you got to build Scotland Yard. Which often as not got you a skyscraper in 1100BC. Cool.
  20. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Jan 15, 2006
    You and other posters are apparently getting tired of that argument. You seem very strong in the opinion that Civ4 + expansions + patches should be comparable to civ5. That's fair enough. However you make the choice (as well as pretty much every person complaining about the game) to call all the features that are absent in civ5 *removed*. Technically, none of these things were ever removed, unless you were aware of some parts of the development that everyone else isn't. They're all things that were never *added* to civ5, for whatever design decisions those may be.

    People forget that this is a new game. It was built from scratch. Yes it would have been nice if it had everything that civ4 and its expansions had, but consider whether that is realistic with Firaxis having already been under pressure to rush this game to release. Would you have preferred an even more feature-rich game that was even less playable due to game-breaking bugs and AI deficiencies?

    I'm not trying to defend civ5 all that much really, but my point is that not everything in civ4 necessarily had to be a part of the civ franchise forever. And disappointing as it may sound, the planned approach this time round might be one that has even more emphasis on "content added after release". It can't be denied that civ4 had a lot of things added to it in its expansions; things that affected the game deeply. It's entirely possible the same will happen with civ5.

    People get so riled up and offended to the core at the thought of something of their beloved game not appearing in another game.

    I think most people are disappointed with how civ5 presents as a stand-alone game, with bugs and the rather graphics-demanding laggy gameplay, questionable AI and poor balance, and mistakenly attribute a lot of their disappointments to what civ4 had that civ5 doesn't. In design civ5 can work without things like health, vassal states, religions, corporations etc. The problem with civ5 is that with what features it does have the game doesn't work very well overall.

    It's not because of what it doesn't have, but how it uses what it does have that Civ5 is a disappointment to most. Complaints about differences from previous games were inevitable regardless of what direction civ5 took, and are for the most part red herrings - missing the real problem.

Share This Page