Why didn't like you civ5?

[sammoraj]

It was just too big of a jump.

Computer power req'd + req'd to join some web-based site just to play MY game = bull.

Wonder how many of us "old timers" would be willing to pay a reasonable amount to have Civ4 polished up & AI smarten up (at least in how they fight) with a few more Civ's & leaders & scenerios kicked in? I certainly would spend $25 or so.

I agree and would of prefered that to Civ 5 which is plane crap. Most mods of civ 4 change alot of things but the underlying software isnt really polished. For me personally a mod like "caveman to cosmos" rebuilt completely from the ground up and the software actually designed for it would be great and I would pay for it. The idea of the mods are great, unfortunately they are just that "mods" and the software doesnt really like them. Also "fall of heaven" would be a good one to rebuild.

 

[sammoraj]

Civ 5
1. Too easy, on deity, provided you can stay into the game until aircraft victory is guarrenteed. (if you have oil)
2. Diplomicy is too simple. I play what I call the "smile and wave". Keep asking for declaration of friendship and ussually your golden.
3. Happiness. Where do i start? The game is geared to only 4-5 cities because on harder difficulties the penelties for pop and number of cities means that capturing a luxury resourse will land you with more unhappiness than if you just stayed home. Sure you can eventually build happiness buildings, but by then your nation state has already died due to unhappiness.
4. Its called nation state because empire is clearly designed out of the game. Try having 20-30 cities and see how long the "empire" is there. What happened to Rome rules the world?
5. One unit per tile? This is a STRATERGY game not tactics. Tactics are for the little guys fighting for you to worry about, I'm an Emperor in charge of millions, not some sergeant with 20 troops. What happened to vast armies? Of course being the Emperor I beat the AI everytime at tactics. The "russian front" a ten year old tactical battefield game is much more challenging then Civ 5 and has more units and factors to consider.
6. The 18 click rule. Every task must have atleast 18 required clicks. Example, ordering galley to explore. Civ 4 - click galley - click explore. Civ 5 - click galley - click more options - click expore - every five turns, click No when asked if you really want to declare war? Seriously? I sent the galley off because I was too lazy to manually explore and now its starting wars for me?
7. Did I mention how slow everything is? Move unit and there is a slight pause everytime. Then as more units enter the game or if its a bigger map the pasue gets longer, eventually you move tank, go have dinner, move worker, watch sipsons, click city, have desert, etc
8. I dont play civ 5 anymore.

 

[reddishrecue]

Civ 5
1. Too easy, on deity, provided you can stay into the game until aircraft victory is guarrenteed. (if you have oil)
2. Diplomicy is too simple. I play what I call the "smile and wave". Keep asking for declaration of friendship and ussually your golden.
3. Happiness. Where do i start? The game is geared to only 4-5 cities because on harder difficulties the penelties for pop and number of cities means that capturing a luxury resourse will land you with more unhappiness than if you just stayed home. Sure you can eventually build happiness buildings, but by then your nation state has already died due to unhappiness.
4. Its called nation state because empire is clearly designed out of the game. Try having 20-30 cities and see how long the "empire" is there. What happened to Rome rules the world?
5. One unit per tile? This is a STRATERGY game not tactics. Tactics are for the little guys fighting for you to worry about, I'm an Emperor in charge of millions, not some sergeant with 20 troops. What happened to vast armies? Of course being the Emperor I beat the AI everytime at tactics. The "russian front" a ten year old tactical battefield game is much more challenging then Civ 5 and has more units and factors to consider.
6. The 18 click rule. Every task must have atleast 18 required clicks. Example, ordering galley to explore. Civ 4 - click galley - click explore. Civ 5 - click click galley - click more options - click expore - every five turns, click No when asked if you really want to declare war? Seriously? I sent the galley off because I was too lazy to manually explore and now its starting wars for me?
7. Did I mention how slow everything is? Move unit and there is a slight pause everytime. Then as more units enter the game or if its a bigger map the pasue gets longer, eventually you move tank, go have dinner, move worker, watch sipsons, click city, have desert, etc
8. I dont play civ 5 anymore.

So you have civ 5 and no longer use it because you know of other better games then. For me, civ 5 I just couldnt get still because of the $$. Or can you download it from somewhere for free?

 

[Qgqqqqq]

If the AI is broken, it would be best if they closed their shop and sold rugs instead.

Eh, a game can last if it has a horrible AI (see for example FFH2), but then it needs to either be open-ended enough (read: plays different;y each time) or have a strong MP basis so that the AI isn't nessecary to enjoy.
From what I understand, Civ 5 managed neither.

 

[mourndraken]

Eh, a game can last if it has a horrible AI (see for example FFH2), but then it needs to either be open-ended enough (read: plays different;y each time) or have a strong MP basis so that the AI isn't nessecary to enjoy.
From what I understand, Civ 5 managed neither.

V came out to wipe out a supportive and rabid fanbase and brought together a development team that apparently hated CIV. Every aspect that was well liked and fun in previous civilization games was Nerfed in favor or new systems that were designed to frustrate fans of their older games. So from their design perspective, they succeeded.

I didn't intend to throw sand at any hard working rug people.

 

[Qgqqqqq]

I'm not sure how that was a response to me, but eh well....

 

[Jeros]

V came out to wipe out a supportive and rabid fanbase and brought together a development team that apparently hated CIV. Every aspect that was well liked and fun in previous civilization games was Nerfed in favor or new systems that were designed to frustrate fans of their older games. So from their design perspective, they succeeded.

I didn't intend to throw sand at any hard working rug people.

They wanted Civ to appeal to a larger fan base and it worked and they made a ton more money than they would have otherwise.

I think for SOME older Civ players like myself, some of the features in CivIV felt pointless and annoying, more complexity does not always equal better. In my opinion the stacks of doom in CivIV were a bit of a game breaker, especially when other Civ games/AC did them SO much better.

Also the apparent massive randomness of the combat in CivIV was annoying. I lost many battles due to poor dice rolls, the chances of me losing some of them were ridiculous if you do the math.

At least in Gods and Kings in CiV (due to the reworking of the hit points system) an archer will only do 1 damage to a modern tank, leaving it with 79hp and not maybe killing it like in previous Civ games.

That said, I do have many many hours invested in CivIV, I might revisit it again soon.


One nice feature I like the look of in the upcoming expansion is the ability to send food and production via transport from one city to another, something I always wondered why was never in Civ games before (food at least). Also you can send archaeologists to sites of you old battles with the appropriate tech which is quite cool.

They are revamping the culture victory with tourism and the ability to have a greater sway over another culture with your own and cause unhappiness, but I don't play culture victory games myself.

And finality its coming, SANCTIONS! The UN can ban strategic resources (EG: uranium) and impose economic sanctions.

Sorry buddy!



Civ 2 is till my favorite tho

Same thing for me too basically. After I found out it required Steam I dragged my heels on buying it when it when the game first out. Then after reading up on the comments being made about it, I realized that I probably wasn't going to like it anyway. So I'm still playing Civ 4.

Wait, so you have never actually played it?

 

[Lord Silverkey]

Well I could type pages and pages of reasons why I prefer Civ 4 to Civ 5, but the one that bugged me the most was roads costing upkeep.

Everything else they did in the game "dumbed it down", making it easier to play with less things to focus on (which I completely disagreed with, I like to have game mechanics that I can "chew on") then they throw in one thing where you have to think more. You used to always build a road with your worker/settler, now you have to decide whether it's financially worth your time.

 

[Lord Silverkey]

more complexity does not always equal better.

True, but some people like in depth play so long as it doesn't make a game unnecessarily difficult to control. Civ 5 is easier to get into then Civ 4, but in my opinion Civ 4 is more rewarding once you figure out the game.

In my opinion the stacks of doom in CivIV were a bit of a game breaker, especially when other Civ games/AC did them SO much better.

I hear a lot of people complain about the 'ol "Stack of Doom" but this problem never bothered me. You just have to figure out how they work. You need to always have units that can counter attacking units for defense. (for example: early game you must have AT LEAST 1 spearman for horses, 1 axeman for melee units or you'll die on defence) and in Beyond the Sword you need to open your attacks with disposable siege weapons which deal splash, letting you break through enemy lines. Also, attack with disposable low xp units first to preserve your highly promoted ones.

Also the apparent massive randomness of the combat in CivIV was annoying. I lost many battles due to poor dice rolls, the chances of me losing some of them were ridiculous if you do the math.

Yes, this I agree this happens sometimes but Civ 4 is a strategy game, not a tactical game. It's not about 1 unit vs 1 unit, its about 2 empires with cities pumping out units against each other. Those nasty die rolls even out over enough battles and sometimes happen in your favour. But all that being said I wouldn't be against having the unit strength stats more spread out.

At least in Gods and Kings in CiV (due to the reworking of the hit points system) an archer will only do 1 damage to a modern tank, leaving it with 79hp and not maybe killing it like in previous Civ games.

Ah, but an archer can bombard two spaces away while a tank cannot bombard at all. The ridiculousness of the combat systems work both ways you see.

One nice feature I like the look of in the upcoming expansion is the ability to send food and production via transport from one city to another, something I always wondered why was never in Civ games before (food at least).

Now this is the reason that I quoted you in the first place, but got carried away with the other comments. Have you never played Civ 2? You can set up food trade routes with other cities or send "shields" (production) to other cities building wonders with trade caravan units.

Hope I don't come across as negative, if so please don't take it that way.

 

[Willem]

Well I could type pages and pages of reasons why I prefer Civ 4 to Civ 5, but the one that bugged me the most was roads costing upkeep.

Yes, that's one thing I didn't get at all. I thought the city maintenance mechanic worked quite well in Civ 4, I couldn't understand why they felt the need to transfer the cost of running an empire to roads instead. I like to have them everywhere so my troops have good potential for movement, and having to decide where they'd be most cost effective seems like too much micromanagement.

 

[Qgqqqqq]

Oh yah, yet another "the rng is rigged complaint" (and if this isn't what you're trying to say then I don't get your point at all - in a proper rng there will occasionally be low odds results, and this is more realistic then them not occurring at all which ignores realistic (but unlikely) scenarios where such a result would occur. And remember, humans rarely take low odds attacks and so are unlikely to feel the opposite side of this, and we are conditioned to remember the times when such a bad luck occurs and thus be predjudiced too it.
Plus of course the fact that Civ is strategy).

As for complexity, this came up recently at rb so I'll quote some of that: (spoilered for nested quote length)

Spoiler :

@Ichabod:
I think there are different kinds of casual players. First the ones who play it like a sim. For those chieftain-difficulty and making anything automatic does work fine . They have little interst in higher difficulties and are happy playing it that way. But the second group of casual has a more sporting attitude. While they don't want to elve into complex-systems they do want to have some sort of progress. They do want to leave chieftain andmove up the rangs. But those run into a hard wall in Civ 4. If you want to have success in the higher difficulties you have to delve deep. you have to do a lot of micromanaging. If you do play Civ 4 casual Monarch becomes a heavy struggle.

And a huge part of that was stack-combat. From Monarch up the AI with its boni will have a lot more units and will simple kill your stack and empire. So for the second type of casuals Civ 4 was frustrating. A small empire with a small Army had no chance to withstand the big guy. No battle of the Thermophyle here.

Civ 5 with the 1upt makes it possible that even small empires with a small army can hold up the big guy. Since the sliders got removed you don't have to bother with all the hassle you have with them. With the huge abstraction you don't need to delve deep into systems etc. With no whip you don't have to micro growth/whipping/overflow etc. So Civ 5 had the eye-candy for the casuals of type 1 and eased alot of the micromanaging for casual type2.
The prize was that it lost alot of the depth Civ4 had. I really doubt that firaxis will return to a more complex game with civ 6.

In particular I think ichabod raises a good point about the ways people can play Civ simply - I have some friends like that, and I definitely think that Civ4 manages to strike a good balance between allowing these systems to be easily available - automating workers is not optimal, but it works good enough if you're not trying for high level play - while still allowing great complexity and depth in the systems.

Ive also heard that the Civ5 system is pretty opaque, at least at release.

 

[Qgqqqqq]

I also don't get the SoD hate - this issue comes up frequently but I really don't see the problem with the system - sod are only effective in Civ4 if your behind on tech or haven't built enough of a standing army ad defence is favored strongly.
As is stated Civ4 is a strategy game, and the tactics of stacks are actually quite intense versus a competent opponent.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Because of this thread I decided, after a year of ignoring it, to fire up a game of Civ5. I picked up Gods and Kings and a bunch of DLC for twenty dollars on Steam and thought I might give it a go. I had heard that G&K makes the game so much better, so I'm trying the game again, approaching it with an open mind. Sort of a psychological experiment, if you will.

My initial observation is that it seems to be improved by patches (and probably G&K), but there is still far too much clicking necessary.

As I play, I'll try to post a little review now and then. I want to see if I really hate it as much as I did when it was launched.

 

[Lord Silverkey]

Good stuff, lemon merchant. Keep us posted, I for one am interested to hear what you think of it.

 

[vincentz]

Because of this thread I decided, after a year of ignoring it, to fire up a game of Civ5. I picked up Gods and Kings and a bunch of DLC for twenty dollars on Steam and thought I might give it a go. I had heard that G&K makes the game so much better, so I'm trying the game again, approaching it with an open mind. Sort of a psychological experiment, if you will.

My initial observation is that it seems to be improved by patches (and probably G&K), but there is still far too much clicking necessary.

As I play, I'll try to post a little review now and then. I want to see if I really hate it as much as I did when it was launched.

You know lemon, I thought about the same thing many times. Then I go into the civ 5 forum and read a couple of threads, and by that alone im turned off

 

[Thain Esh Kelch]

One nice feature I like the look of in the upcoming expansion is the ability to send food and production via transport from one city to another, something I always wondered why was never in Civ games before (food at least).

Too easily exploited. You can have your über production city just pump out caravans (Or whatever), and give instant city boom or wonder building in other cities.

 

[Camikaze]

Too easily exploited. You can have your über production city just pump out caravans (Or whatever), and give instant city boom or wonder building in other cities.

It's almost as if that sounds like something they'd think of balancing. One thing we know so far about trade routes is that you have a limited number. So using caravans for production means forgoing gold. It doesn't sound like it's just going be the situation you describe above.

@Lemon Merchant - I hope you enjoy it, but to be honest, I wouldn't hold my breath, because underlying systems are still the same. G&K improved Civ5 a lot, but it didn't change the building blocks of the game, just vastly improved on what was there for those who were happy enough with those building blocks.

 

[Ghpstage]

It's almost as if that sounds like something they'd think of balancing. One thing we know so far about trade routes is that you have a limited number. So using caravans for production means forgoing gold. It doesn't sound like it's just going be the situation you describe above.

Unfortunately what was described was exactly how it worked in civ 2, where caravans were routinely used by players to instabuild wonders .
Although we don't know what exactly they have in store, we do know that civ doesn't have a great record on balance (especially in civ 5!). Just look at the way seige units worked in 3, or how aircraft worked in the second expansion, or how seige worked in vanilla civ 4, or the AP in BTS.
Or of course how pretty much everything works in civ 5....

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's almost as if that sounds like something they'd think of balancing. One thing we know so far about trade routes is that you have a limited number. So using caravans for production means forgoing gold. It doesn't sound like it's just going be the situation you describe above.

Firaxis has a long history of demonstrating little understanding of balance, and little incentive to care about its existence.

For evidence, just look at the relative involvement + MP likelihood of each victory condition in each game, or at the value-over-base of a strong early game unit vs a mediocre late one.

Or of course how pretty much everything works in civ 5....

Particularly air power. 1 unit/hex? Hahahahahaha! Not anymore! Dat SPAAM.

 

[Lord Silverkey]

Unfortunately what was described was exactly how it worked in civ 2, where caravans were routinely used by players to instabuild wonders .

This would be pretty easy to partially balance by making you only be able to use 1 caravan per turn in any given city.

Also, I just thought of a way to balance it more... limit of 1 caravan increasing production per wonder. That would remove this completely, while still making caravans useful, but might be a little heavy handed.