Well, I dont know for you. But for me in each game I start I know what I need to do for win in a diplomatic, cultural o domination way. It is very linial, you can experiment what can happen if you build one thing before or after another (lol) but that changes nothing, the path is established from the first turn. The game will not change because of the few variables that we have, there will not be an unexpected turn as could happen in civ4.
Why Civ V is more complex than Civ IV
- Thread starter Stefanskantine
- Start date
Well, I dont know for you. But for me in each game I start I know what I need to do for win in a diplomatic, cultural o domination way. It is very linial, you can experiment what can happen if you build one thing before or after another (lol) but that changes nothing, the path is established from the first turn. The game will not change because of the few variables that we have, there will not be an unexpected turn as could happen in civ4.
charon2112
King
Oh I understand, but you also know exactly what to do win in Civ IV. Knowing how to meet victory conditions isn't some fault of V.
falconne
meep
Well I explained in the post what makes a game fun and playable for the sake of playing it for me and I suspect for others who are disappointed too.
Maybe if I'd never played Euro board games before I may have been impressed by the concept when seeing it in Civ 5, of how a mathematical game can have elegant strategy. But I already get my fix from them. They are great for playing with friends, but I don't want to play one on a computer against an AI. I want empire sims on computers.
charon2112
King
This latest thing about "board game vs god game" is just smoke, and I'm not going to comment further on it.
Well, I think that you dont understood me. I don't "know exactly what to do" in Civ4 because Civ4 have a lot more variables that Civ5 and the path can change completely each turn.
You can start in the Civ4 trying to do something, but the next turn, everything can change, this does not happen Civ5
charon2112
King
What kinds of variables exist in IV and not in V? And I don't mean removed features like religion or espionage, I mean core things.
Do you have an example?
falconne
meep
I doubt you could have played much Civ 4 if you think this is equivalent. For one thing, it took months to come up with these kind of strategies - it takes about 2 games in Civ 5. For another, Civ 4 with BTS had so much going on it was virtually impossible to come up with a linear strategies that worked every time. That's the beauty of multiple interconnected mechanics producing emergent complexity. Whilst learning Civ 5 tells you exactly how to win, learning Civ 4 gives you an idea of different techniques you can use to deal with various situations. It felt more "real", in that there was no linear path, you learnt how to adapt to changing conditions and stay ahead of the game.
Yeah, in Civ4 you dont have a "social" tree as Civ5 when in the first turn you know that you need to choice first X, second B and later C because in civ4 you have someting more complex that you can change as events occur and this will change completely ur income, ur scince or ur culture.
And even if you do not want the religion or the espionage play a great role in this way too. You can start in a pacific way but the next turn you can find a huge coalition that force you to stop producing libraries and have to build barracks. This in Civ5 dosnt happen either cause the AIs are a lot more independent of each other and a lot more idiotics too.
Too in Civ4 you can meet very friendly AI or too hostile. In the first case the AI can gift you or trade technologies or something that will change your path. This dosnt happen either in Civ5 cause they are totally random and there are not a "friendly" factor like was in Civ4
these are just 3 examples, but there are a lot more.
About the espionage, well... I rembember one game that I was playing against a AI with a lot of spies but with a small army destroying my goods
This caused an enormous amount of unhappiness that forced me to abandon the scientific way and having to train an army in order to prosper. Another example.
charon2112
King
But still your telling what you think is wrong, but not saying why. The fact is, in Civ V you are presented with literally more choices as you progress through the game. You don't have to take any particular path. The difference between civics and policies seems to mostly be personal preference.
Not everyone shares that view. Anyone who plays PIG Mod doesn't necessarily believe in "more is better".
If "more" is so important, then why aren't mods more popular? (btw, that's not meant to be a play on words - it just ended up that way) Mods are still orders of magnitude less popular than the base game itself. Especially people who stick to S&T, they tend to play the unmodded game or at least mods that don't affect the gameplay but only the UI (aka Unaltered Gameplay or UG mods).
There are also a large number of people who only use UI mods and AI mods e.g. Better AI. These don't add content of the sort you are talking about.
Anyone can put a bunch of words together with equality signs between them.
Here let me try.
More parameters = More numbers = More Confusion = More headaches!
How about:
More parameters = More AI logic required = More likely for AI to end up in a less-than-finished state at release = Bad AI.
More parameters = Bigger Game Files and AI algorithms = Slower Load Times and Longer Turn Times
Note: These are not serious arguments I'm trying to make. I just hate when people use a mathematical symbol (usually =) in a way that doesn't make any sense.
So you ignore the 4 paragraphs which try to explain the logic behind my punchline / point... you then post random non serious nonsense as you yourself admitted.
Why bother replying when it's obvious that even if i had used the words "leads to" instead of = your reply would have been the same?
As for which mods are popular... you can easily view which ones are most downloaded instead of posting incorrect stuff about mod components like BUG and Better AI being more popular than Modpacks like RevolutionsDCM , RoM, FfHV, etc etc etc.
And the reason that the majority of civ users play unmodded is 1) MP so people can easily find games, and 2) because the majority of civ users don't know of CIV fan sites, up until now there was no option to view available mods from within the game (a good thing in civ 5 btw).
And honestly if you can't answer serious... i don't care if you wanna be sarcastic or pedantic or whatever... i am a grown up man i don't mind... but don't insult me by posting random stuff simply because you got pissed off by some = signs.
Actually he hasn't played it at all.
charon2112
King
This simply means that you have become a good civ player, and you know what it takes to develop good strategies quickly to win Civ. V is not so much different than IV that you would have to start completely fresh developing strategies. In order for this to be true, V would have to be 100% different in every single way from IV, and it's not. I'm not surprised it took civ veterans not very long to learn the best way to win.
Moderator Action: *snip* no trolling here.
In Civ5 you have a inamovible thing that say "Choice me if you wanna win in a cultural way" and you can not change the social police if you choice this, against something more vague, which has not just one only purpose and can be exploited in many ways besides changed over the years.
I think that its obvious
It's not just a question of the number of choices but whether there are enough valid and meaningful choices. Superficially, Civ5 may have a lot of "choices" but by far only very few choices make sense and only very particular paths make sense. If you are presented with a ton of "choices" but there is clearly only one real choice that makes sense, then you effectively have no choices any all. If there were one billion paths but you could take but only ONE path that makes sense, then you have only ONE choice in effect.
But having said that, I do think that Social Policies CAN be fixed if in mods or future expansions it is not so linear and multiple VALID paths to the same goal (and also a reasonably quick way to switch paths) exist. In that case, social policies might be okay. It can be fixed if done right I think.
charon2112
King
It was no different in IV. If you want to win a cultural victory you need to do certain things, research certain techs, build certain buildings, build certain wonders. And if you don't do those things, you'll never meet your goal of a cultural win.
There's no difference.
charon2112
King
But when it strengthens your arguments against Civ V, suddenly the number of choices IS important, as it's been mentioned a few times that this is a failing of V.
falconne
meep
I think you are confusing "taking the next step in the ladder you have already chosen" and having a "choices to make".
You said it yourself, then game forces you to "think ahead". I prefer to call it "guess ahead". Because the best way to win this game is to decide your victory condition at the start then go directly at it. You don't even need to think, the game makes it perfectly clear what social policies and buildings you should be choosing based on your chosen victory condition. You can argue that one doesn't have to follow the set path, but the game wasn't designed to sandbox - it's been designed as one which everyone, including the AI, plays to win.
You can try following set paths in Civ 4 and you'd most definitely lose - if you think otherwise you're playing Monarch or lower. In Civ 4, the conditions in the world change all the time and you must adjust. The conditions in Civ 5 don't change unless you force them to. Civ 4 rewards the most adaptable player. Civ 5 rewards those who stick to one plan.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
The same tactics always work. The AI never attacks across an ocean and can always be dispensed with if you use a handful of the same units early in the game. It will attack you if you are too large (or, God forbid, ever raze a city - even though the game punishes you harshly for keeping them.) So a strategy of clearing the local AIs out and ignoring the ones over the ocean will, predictably, be optimal as a way of winning the game peacefully; domination differs only in terms of how quickly you can move those pieces. (At Deity you need other tactics to deal with the Blanket of Doom, but that's only a matter of needing more pieces and decapitating the capital(s).)
Civ 4 didn't have the same predictability and poverty of outcomes; rush tactics did not always work and, more to the point, they weren't always *needed.*
Civ 4 didn't have the same predictability and poverty of outcomes; rush tactics did not always work and, more to the point, they weren't always *needed.*
falconne:
Not to be unpleasant or anything, but I don't think you know enough about the game to say that experimentation will get you nothing. It's true that the advisors hit you over the head with everything, there's a lot of automation, and there are tooltips everywhere. They give you the impression that they're all informing you all about the game's mechanics.
They're not. There's a bunch of things they're not telling you, and you won't know because you don't experiment. For instance, there was this prevailing notion that you can't expand much in Civ V. Totally untrue. Civ V is the freest Civ in terms of expansion. It's almost like Civ 1 in that respect. In fact, it's better in some ways. You really can cover the world in your cities if you want to. Want 60 cities? No problem. You can do that.
IF you know how.
You don't have to run the game on three cities. You can still win Cultural with 15 cities. The advisors won't tell you that, and the help menu won't either. You have to experiment to find out how.
Jediron:
So your unit of Archer died when they tried to take on siege weaponry. How is this a problem?
Not to be unpleasant or anything, but I don't think you know enough about the game to say that experimentation will get you nothing. It's true that the advisors hit you over the head with everything, there's a lot of automation, and there are tooltips everywhere. They give you the impression that they're all informing you all about the game's mechanics.
They're not. There's a bunch of things they're not telling you, and you won't know because you don't experiment. For instance, there was this prevailing notion that you can't expand much in Civ V. Totally untrue. Civ V is the freest Civ in terms of expansion. It's almost like Civ 1 in that respect. In fact, it's better in some ways. You really can cover the world in your cities if you want to. Want 60 cities? No problem. You can do that.
IF you know how.
You don't have to run the game on three cities. You can still win Cultural with 15 cities. The advisors won't tell you that, and the help menu won't either. You have to experiment to find out how.
Jediron:
So your unit of Archer died when they tried to take on siege weaponry. How is this a problem?
Yeah, you need "certain things, cerains techs and certain buildings", but man, you're forgetting again a lot of things that will make change this path and you are forgetting again the vague civics that can be choosen for one propouse and changed later if you meet with certain troubles that dosnt exists any more in Civ5, changing again... your established path.
I give you an advice, if I may: Play Civ4 just one time.
