Why Civ V is more complex than Civ IV

[Jediron]

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.

I am not suprised when a average player do the same as a veteran, also. Civ 5 is much easier, since the advisors are telling you much more what to do and when to do it. If you know a little how to manouvre your units in good positions; your half way there.

Cities come with instant defence, barbarian crushing your precious city is impossible now. Again: simplicity and less dangerous in CIV 5. You must also be very stupid to loose ONE single unit to the barbs (beside scouts and settlers), while you get EXACT notice what damage is done and recieved; it is quite aqurate also. Again: dumbed down.

What really makes me sick is that te AI is just as stupid as 10 years back, SOD or no SOD; it makes no difference. In offence, the AI sucks and actually; in defence too: it the AI is very predictable in his actions. Atleast; with SOD you could run into some suprises. Not with 1upt CIV 5. Anyway, i was hoping to see some progression in the AI's behavior and seeing it ain't any better then 10 years ago, makes me sad. It's just disquised in another jacket.

 

[Roxlimn]

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.

From what I've read of the Immortal and Diety series, it seemed to me that sticking to a plan was more or less necessary the higher up you go. At Monarch or lower, you could keep your options open nearly all the time, and win with any choice you wanted, all the time.

At the higher levels, you have to formulate a plan based on the hand dealt to you and stick with it, or you would lose horribly.

Civ V is easier than that, from what I can tell. You don't need to stick to a plan at all. I started off in Civ 4 on Prince and I had difficulty. Now, I play Civ V on King and I don't even choose a victory plan until after the 1900s! And I win.

It's not as hard as you're making it out to be.

 

[falconne]

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.

Well with all due respect, I think being able to beat the game on Immortal against 12 AIs on just my second game says to me I understand it well enough.

I wasn't talking about advisors, I rarely even go that screen. I didn't mean the game literally tells you what to do, but it makes it so obvious, if you look at the numbers, what choices are best in any given situation. You don't really need months of experience to work it out.

As for expansion, sure you can expand all you like, but doing so beyond a point will only delay your victory. The developers have balanced this game for 6-12 cities. It takes a lot of resources to grow your cities but they become much more useful when they are large. A few large cities are better for your empire then diverting resources from core cities to build up new ones. No one is saying you can't expand, but people playing to win can see it's counterproductive after a point.

As for saying this is the "most expansive civ"... I'm not sure what your basing that on. In Civ 4 you pretty much had to expand to win, it was the only way to out produce the AI. If you try it in this version (at least once the AI is improved), you'd be destroyed by a leaner, more efficient AI.

 

[Roxlimn]

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.*

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.

 

[falconne]

From what I've read of the Immortal and Diety series, it seemed to me that sticking to a plan was more or less necessary the higher up you go. At Monarch or lower, you could keep your options open nearly all the time, and win with any choice you wanted, all the time.

At the higher levels, you have to formulate a plan based on the hand dealt to you and stick with it, or you would lose horribly.

Civ V is easier than that, from what I can tell. You don't need to stick to a plan at all. I started off in Civ 4 on Prince and I had difficulty. Now, I play Civ V on King and I don't even choose a victory plan until after the 1900s! And I win.

It's not as hard as you're making it out to be.

I don't think you got the point of the post. I'm not saying Civ 5 is hard because you have to stick to a plan. Even if you don't it's easy to win. What I'm saying is, if you play to win, it's pretty easy to see there is a set path you should follow if you want the fastest win. This for many of us is not enjoyable enough - it should be much harder to find a clear line to victory than that.

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.

If you go with that theory, I think you're going to find Deity Civ 5 a bit difficult.

 

[Roxlimn]

Well with all due respect, I think being able to beat the game on Immortal against 12 AIs on just my second game says to me I understand it well enough.

I wasn't talking about advisors, I rarely even go that screen. I didn't mean the game literally tells you what to do, but it makes it so obvious, if you look at the numbers, what choices are best in any given situation. You don't really need months of experience to work it out.

As for expansion, sure you can expand all you like, but doing so beyond a point will only delay your victory. The developers have balanced this game for 6-12 cities. It takes a lot of resources to grow your cities but they become much more useful when they are large. A few large cities are better for your empire then diverting resources from core cities to build up new ones. No one is saying you can't expand, but people playing to win can see it's counterproductive after a point.

As for saying this is the "most expansive civ"... I'm not sure what your basing that on. In Civ 4 you pretty much had to expand to win, it was the only way to out produce the AI. If you try it in this version (at least once the AI is improved), you'd be destroyed by a leaner, more efficient AI.

Again, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

Winning the game at Diety can be done with virtually any number of AI Civs if you do Horsemen, and that strategy is simple enough and easy enough that anyone can do it. Such wins don't teach you anything about the game.

Expanding beyond a certain point does NOT constrain your victory. This is what I was talking about. You think you know, but you don't. Some of the fastest wins I've seen on Cultural were with massive, massive Civs. Dominations are easily larger than that, but Diplomacy can also be won quicker, or at least as quick.

Dude, you can plop down a ridiculous 60 cities in Civ V and have it all be helpful to a Science victory. I mean, what do you even mean by "large?" What's your largest city? At 6 cities, it better be huge if you're going for Science.

 

[civnoob13]

Um...it isn't simpler. There were a ton of buildings, and you had to choose them carefully. Rather then get slapped with an absurd cost for the building, the punishment for making useless stuff was the time wasted. If you spent 20 turns building a market in a city that had no gold production, you it could hurt you. Enough mistakes like that could cost you a lot. It wasn't simpler in 4.

You have to choose buildings even more carefully for 5. Buildings take longer to make, hence choosing the wrong one is worse. how does your refutation not apply to civ 5?

As opposed to 5, where you just buy 4 horsemen, point them at cities, and watch the opponents crumble.
At least in 4, you had to have a lot of strategy leading up to wars-am I at a tech lead? Do I have enough units? If I wait, will they get super-defenders?

That is not true at all. All you had to do in 4 was have a few siege and then some other units and then you're home free. You could take over a city easily in one turn.

In 5, every unit matters far more, and it usually takes multiple turns to destroy a city.

And you still need to have a tech-lead have enough units and have good timing. Yes, you might get an early take-over, but the AI usually does not let you end then.

Their warring does have to be imrpoved though. But civ 4 was so less complex. All it was was move a sack of doom. Done.

You try to get 20 cities by 1000 BC (I guess if you didn't build workers or non-military units, you could do it) and see if that's an advisable strategy

Obviously, but extra cities add far more of a penalty than in 4.

Seriously, I preferred the old system, as it was more realistic.

Stack of doom? Realistic? Buildings costing no matinence? Realistic?

 

[falconne]

Again, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

Winning the game at Diety can be done with virtually any number of AI Civs if you do Horsemen, and that strategy is simple enough and easy enough that anyone can do it. Such wins don't teach you anything about the game.

Expanding beyond a certain point does NOT constrain your victory. This is what I was talking about. You think you know, but you don't. Some of the fastest wins I've seen on Cultural were with massive, massive Civs. Dominations are easily larger than that, but Diplomacy can also be won quicker, or at least as quick.

Dude, you can plop down a ridiculous 60 cities in Civ V and have it all be helpful to a Science victory. I mean, what do you even mean by "large?" What's your largest city? At 6 cities, it better be huge if you're going for Science.

Well sure, when I actually go for the win I start expanding, since I usually go for domination, starting from the industrial era. But only because at that point I don't care about unhappiness... I just annex every city, don't bother to build courthouses. It doesn't matter that my cities aren't growing due to unhappiness, because all the gold from TPs lets me buy what I need and I get a huge amount of science from population. Leaving the AI to build up the cities for you like that I find is the best plan.

But that's the end game. I find that, until I build up to the point of steam rolling, it's better to have about 10 cities and make them big.

What difficulty do you play at?

 

[Roxlimn]

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.

 

[charon2112]

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.

Both games have set systems to follow for certain victories.

In IV, there is a set path you should follow if you want a certain victory. If you want to win culturally, for instance, you'll start right at the beginning. Researching techs that allow you to found religions, you'll build religious buildings, cultural wonders...you'll set up specialists so you're making great artists. If you don't do this, you probably won't achieve your goal.

So, both games have systems for achieving wins, the difference is one system you personally like, and one system you personally dislike. That's totally fine, it's ok to not like something, but at least admit that what we're talking about here is personal preference.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

Both games have set systems to follow for certain victories.

In IV, there is a set path you should follow if you want a certain victory. If you want to win culturally, for instance, you'll start right at the beginning. Researching techs that allow you to found religions, you'll build religious buildings, cultural wonders...you'll set up specialists so you're making great artists. If you don't do this, you probably won't achieve your goal.

Sharon2112, I understand you like Civ 5 and it's ok. Just don't try to explain strategies for Civ 4 unless you're willing to make an effort to learn how to play it properly.

 

[Venereus]

Again, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

Winning the game at Diety can be done with virtually any number of AI Civs if you do Horsemen, and that strategy is simple enough and easy enough that anyone can do it. Such wins don't teach you anything about the game.

Expanding beyond a certain point does NOT constrain your victory. This is what I was talking about. You think you know, but you don't. Some of the fastest wins I've seen on Cultural were with massive, massive Civs. Dominations are easily larger than that, but Diplomacy can also be won quicker, or at least as quick.

Dude, you can plop down a ridiculous 60 cities in Civ V and have it all be helpful to a Science victory. I mean, what do you even mean by "large?" What's your largest city? At 6 cities, it better be huge if you're going for Science.

OCC with Siam, quick speed, tiny islands small map. I got the Time Victory a few turns before completing the Utopia project.

Normal game with Arabia, standard speed, continents large map. I started alone in a small continent. Covered it with 7 cities plus one in a nearby island. Policies came really slow, and since I didn't get attacked I ended up with a Science Victory. This game was a lot of boring next turns.

If you go for domination, and go for it early, you don't need many cities either. And you should raze everything anyway.

You over expand in Civ IV, you're in trouble for a while; you over expand in Civ V, you're screwed for the whole game.

 

[charon2112]

Sharon2112, I understand you like Civ 5 and it's ok. Just don't try to explain strategies for Civ 4 unless you're willing to make an effort to learn how to play it properly.

It would be more helpful if, instead of just telling me that I don't know how to play, you explain in detail how I'm wrong.

 

[polypheus]

Both games have set systems to follow for certain victories.

In IV, there is a set path you should follow if you want a certain victory. If you want to win culturally, for instance, you'll start right at the beginning. Researching techs that allow you to found religions, you'll build religious buildings, cultural wonders...you'll set up specialists so you're making great artists. If you don't do this, you probably won't achieve your goal.

So, both games have systems for achieving wins, the difference is one system you personally like, and one system you personally dislike. That's totally fine, it's ok to not like something, but at least admit that what we're talking about here is personal preference.

Not quite. The best analogy is to compare getting from point A to point B on one fixed track vs on a road system. Civ5 would be where you have one fixed railroad track and you only need to propel the train along this fixed track to get from A to B. Civ4 would be where you are going from A to B but where there are multiple roads and detours to get there. Yes there is a general path to get there but depending on dynamic game situations you may take detours and alternate roads to get from A to B.

That is the crucial difference. Civ4 actually allows you to take slightly different paths and detours as game dynamics change. Civ5 is not designed this way. There is one very rigid path to take that is pretty much spelled out for you every time and for every game.

 

[Roxlimn]

Venereus:

What?!? That's totally ludicrous. Simple math shows this not to be the case! I just finished a Science Victory as Songhai on a Standard Contients map with 13 cities, 11 of which were mine or annexed, all size 15 and higher. In fact, 5 were over size 24. I still had positive happiness.

A civ with as few as 7 cities should be getting policies at once every 20 turns conservatively, once every 10 turns for quite a while if you're aggressive about culture.

 

[charon2112]

Not quite. The best analogy is to compare getting from point A to point B on one fixed track vs on a road system. Civ5 would be where you have one fixed railroad track and you only need to propel the train along this fixed track to get from A to B. Civ4 would be where you are going from A to B but where there are multiple roads and detours to get there. Yes there is a general path to get there but depending on dynamic game situations you may take detours and alternate roads to get from A to B.

That is the crucial difference. Civ4 actually allows you to take slightly different paths and detours as game dynamics change. Civ5 is not designed this way. There is one very rigid path to take that is pretty much spelled out for you every time and for every game.

This isn't true, neither game forces any path on you at all, but in both games in behooves you to follow certain path if you want a certain victory.

 

[Roxlimn]

polypheus:

Sure, if you always take the advice the advisors give you, but who the hell does that anyway? I mean, what self-respecting Civ IV veteran would allow himself to be coddled that way?

 

[JLoZeppeli]

(emphasis added)
Honestly, that is almost spot on. A friend of mine who plays who plays civ4 never used a mod. When I was talking to him way back before BtS patch 3.19 was released, about the unofficial patch and how it fixed lots of major bugs, he didn't seem at all interested. That was a mod that only fixed bugs, and the guy plays civ4 a lot.

The most popular mods have tended to achieve download numbers in the tens of thousands. Of course, many of those are repeat downloads so it's hard to make a good estimate of how many people try those mods, and even harder again to estimate how many people actually like those mods or continue to use them. Maybe I should be ashamed to say, but of all the mods I've downloaded, I've probably played fewer than 10% of them for any more than 10 minutes.

Modding is something that a lot of passionate fans get involved in, whether playing them, creating them or discussing them, but I believe it is not an activity that the majority of players participate in. Even of just the civfanatics population, there is probably barely a majority who use mods.


Well I appreciate the feedback but it'd be nice if you could elaborate on why, otherwise it is not much use to be telling me this, no?

I'll always have more interest in advocating for the members of civfanatics than the interests of 2K or, to a lesser extent, Firaxis. You might like to note the Babylon mod I have released for a quick demonstration of that.

Dude so i was right, you really think that modding is a matter of nerds.... Due, ALL my friends use ROM, and so my coworkers... I'm speaking of about 30 persons.... ALL the people i know (not on forum) that play Civlization IV use mods, the most ROM...

Dude you, as i was thinking, understimate mods... By the way, often mods gone commercial due to success, remember Magna Mundi for Europa UNiversaliis? But i can only tell one name to remeber what mean modding: COUNTER STRIKE.....

Cheers

PS if you are speaking of low modding like yorr addition, i can understand, but if you speak of HUGE MODS as Stainless Steel for Medieval 2 or ROM and FFH, you are totally out of the way....

 

[polypheus]

This isn't true, neither game forces any path on you at all, but in both games in behooves you to follow certain path if you want a certain victory.

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.

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.

 

[polypheus]

polypheus:

Sure, if you always take the advice the advisors give you, but who the hell does that anyway? I mean, what self-respecting Civ IV veteran would allow himself to be coddled that way?

I am not talking about advisors, I am talking about the social policy choices. In Civ4, your particular sequence of civics depends on dynamic game situation. In Civ5, it is a linearly progressive rigid track system.

Are you and charon2112 actually trying to say that social policy system ISN'T like this???