Why do people want another Civ4?

[templars rule]

I wanted a new Civ game for ages and finally i have it. It is not what i expected but it is different and challenging (and I don't mean the crashing using DX10/11), and to be honest I would much rather learn to play a new Civ5 than play a Civ4 clone with pretty graphics.

So can we have a seperate forum for "its not Civ4" complaints so issues/ideas can hopefully will improve Civ5 not change it back into Civ4.

 

[THE_COW_IS_OK]

You missed the point.
We don't want another civ4. But we want the countless amount of strategies and options availables in Civ4.
In Civ5 you have a single strategy that is always optimal: War rush.
In Civ5, Tile improvment choice is a no issue. Just mine/Trade post everything
In Civ5, City placement is non issue. Just grab as much lux as possible.
In Civ5, Economy is dumbed down. Food from maritimes, money from Lux trading, hammer from tile improvments
In Civ5, Politics is no issue. Don't settle close to your neighbours at begininig so they don't DOW you. Later on, nothing matters.
In Civ5, money is no issue. Luxuries for 300G and city sale for 1K+?? whats the point of coined tiles?!?

Result: Civ5 gets boring. Same strategies always optimal....

I woudn't want to play another Civ4 after 2-3 years..... I like the new graphics and 1hex and stuff... But Civ5 is NOT the long awaited sequel. It ruined SID intent as strategic gameplay....

 

[Jediron]

If you think CIV5 is challenging, you never a) played another CIV before or b) were never good at it at all. Excuse me for saying this.

I played 1 till 4 and loved them all, more or less. But CIV 5 feels like "a clap in my face"; to say i am disspointed is the least.....

 

[Geddy]

No we don't want another Civ 4 we want a Civ 5 that is worthy of the name. We want a Civ 5 that takes the lessons of the last 4 and improves on them.

For me, I knew it was going to be a disaster when they included the death robot. Juvenile and showing a lack of respect for the game.

 

[CornPlanter]

In Civ5, Politics is no issue. Don't settle close to your neighbours at begininig so they don't DOW you. Later on, nothing matters

You hit it with a needle.

I was happy about getting rid of religions and religiously driven politics, because they looked too dumb for me, too simple, too cartoon. I expected to get something way more interesting and complicated in return. What I got is even simpler, dumber, cartoon politics. And their mechanics are hidden from the player to create some artificial difficulty, which makes all this even worse.

 

[cr0ws]

I don't want another Civ4....I want Civ4BtS+Rise Of Mankind mod in combination of certain elements from Call To Power.

 

[polypheus]

Its not a question of wanting a Civ4.1 or whatever. Its a question of wanting a game that is well design with sensible mechanics that provide an immersive historical experience.

It is right that they tried to shake things up. But they made many wrong design decisions that are deeply flawed and cannot be easily fixed. And they spent way too much effort on 1UPT implementation which is just so fundamentally flawed it can never be fixed.

If Civ5 had implemented a bunch of brand new stuff that made sense and worked, that would have been great. But they took out a bunch of working stuff from Civ4 and replaced it with flawed stuff that cannot be fixed. That is the problem!

 

[dannythefool]

For me, I knew it was going to be a disaster when they included the death robot. Juvenile and showing a lack of respect for the game.

Yes, Civ is serious business... humour has no place in it.

 

[polypheus]

I don't want another Civ4....I want Civ4BtS+Rise Of Mankind mod in combination of certain elements from Call To Power.

That would have been a great Civ5!

 

[Shafi-is-back]

You missed the point.
We don't want another civ4. But we want the countless amount of strategies and options availables in Civ4.
In Civ5 you have a single strategy that is always optimal: War rush.
In Civ5, Tile improvment choice is a no issue. Just mine/Trade post everything
In Civ5, City placement is non issue. Just grab as much lux as possible.
In Civ5, Economy is dumbed down. Food from maritimes, money from Lux trading, hammer from tile improvments
In Civ5, Politics is no issue. Don't settle close to your neighbours at begininig so they don't DOW you. Later on, nothing matters.
In Civ5, money is no issue. Luxuries for 300G and city sale for 1K+?? whats the point of coined tiles?!?

Result: Civ5 gets boring. Same strategies always optimal....

I woudn't want to play another Civ4 after 2-3 years..... I like the new graphics and 1hex and stuff... But Civ5 is NOT the long awaited sequel. It ruined SID intent as strategic gameplay....

This sums everything i want to say, and i do all of the above every game .

None of us want civ IV, i stopped playing civ IV about 6 months back, i am bored of it. But i want a fun and challenging game thats not all about war. Civ V unfortunately is in its present state a big let down. lets hope it gets fixed.

 

[lschnarch]

So can we have a seperate forum for "its not Civ4" complaints so issues/ideas can hopefully will improve Civ5 not change it back into Civ4.

I have every kind of understanding for people who shy away from an immersive game rich on features, leaving room for different kind of strategies, allowing to adjust to the current circumstances and even reversing decisions which due to the circumstances turned out to be false.

You, dear Sir, seem to be a good example for these people.

Yet, most of the people who complain, don't want Civ4 with better graphics. As many posters already have pointed out, we want to have a rich Civilization game.
One, that allows us to sink into it, to get the impression of creating an unique civilization which we guide through all kind of dangers to final success and glory.

Yes, Civ is serious business... humour has no place in it.

A little magician riding in the air on a red ball would be "humourous" too, as I assume?
May I furthermore assume that you "loled" the hell out of you over "Cesar's Salad" in Civ4?

That would have been a great Civ5!

Actually, ROM/AND could have served as design guideline (or better: inspiration) for Civ5.
Much improved religions (as far as the core engine allowed), revolutions, support fire...

But what have we got? Civ V.

 

[Hadan]

I don't want another Civ4....I want Civ4BtS+Rise Of Mankind mod in combination of certain elements from Call To Power.

I´ll take the Terraforming and Weather from Alpha Centauri too
Apart from that, I agree with your Post.
Civ4 with RoM was HUGE, maybe it would have been to much for someone new to Civ but it gave you endless Possibilities and there was always a way to do things differently.

When i play Civ5 i get the same thoughts a got when i played Spore:
The conscious part of my brain thinks: "Yeah, nice game" but in the back of my head my subconsciousnes wispers: "thats all there is to it, you have seen it all".
What I´m trying to say: All the different Stages of Spore were Fun, but you just knew that it would be 100% the same the second time you played it or the 3rd and so on.
I stopped playning Spore after 3 days. Civ5 will last longer (and i will be coming back when the big Mods hit), but i don´t see me playing it for as long is a hve played Civ4, Civ3, AC, CtP or the other usual suspects...

greetings
Hadan

 

[Tridus]

Actually, what we want is something better then Civ 4. Civ 5 is a downgrade in a lot of areas.

 

[cr0ws]

I´ll take the Terraforming and Weather from Alpha Centauri too
Apart from that, I agree with your Post.
Civ4 with RoM was HUGE, maybe it would have been to much for someone new to Civ but it gave you endless Possibilities and there was always a way to do things differently.

When i play Civ5 i get the same thoughts a got when i played Spore:
The conscious part of my brain thinks: "Yeah, nice game" but in the back of my head my subconsciousnes wispers: "thats all there is to it, you have seen it all".
What I´m trying to say: All the different Stages of Spore were Fun, but you just knew that it would be 100% the same the second time you played it or the 3rd and so on.
I stopped playning Spore after 3 days. Civ5 will last longer (and i will be coming back when the big Mods hit), but i don´t see me playing it for as long is a hve played Civ4, Civ3, AC, CtP or the other usual suspects...

greetings
Hadan

I had the same feelings about Spore,except I rid of it after the first day. It started off interesting but then it was like...WTH is this? What the heck is this game trying to teach me? Whatever it is it makes me feel violated and uncomfortable. After that it was sent into oblivion never heard from again.

 

[Mikkeman]

Civ V did many things great but at the same time they took many small fun things away. The small things create variation and thus give the game longevity. Good things in Civ V are sadly minor to the things that are missing

Sad fact that there is not much replay potential in Civ V at the moment. I don't use cheesy tactics wich are too easy to pull in Civ V and still after few games it feels that the game has been cracked. I do things differently in each game and try different tactics (sadly strategies are not so much needed anymore) and still I find that AI just cant use the tools given. Things that happen in every game:
- Your best friend AI will at one point attack you regardless what ever you do (I have given money, luxuries, traded, helped etc for thousand years and then they still attack).
- When you have your first 6 unit army (ranged, melee mixed) you will steamroll any opposition, just matter of time.
- One or two AI civilizations dominate all other AI. I usually try to keep other AIs around and help them but still they hate me. Even when I liberate them and give them money to rebuild they hate me.

Civ V succeeded in things like strategic resources, combat concept (just AI is lacking), money matters etc.
Civ V failed in things like goverment system, fluff ( no top 5 cities, proper demographics, no end videos or replay etc.), happiness (interesting concept but needs more meat around the bones), tile improvement (natural terrain just does not have enough impact on the city build there), diplomacy (AI is very very WAR oriented and then fails in it), too easy to get luxuries (no road connection, harbor connection required), all the civilizations feel the same (small bonuses are nice and buildings but the character is missing) etc.

Most of us don't want a new Civ IV but we want the tradition of the civilization games to continue. Civ V offers as a great structure to work with, now we just need talented mod makers to make something great out of it. Sadly it was released in a very bad and simple state I expected more from Civ series

 

[Jediron]

The combat concept looks nice on paper, but as you pointed out: the AI is lacking.
War cannot work well, when either one of those two is lacking.

I say: the combat concept is lacking, While the AI is lacking.
The AI is lacking for 20 years, since the day CIV came out. They are never, ever gonna fix that; atleast not in CIV 5. The only reason why it shows more lacking now then ever; is the combat concept
In previous CIV's, the poor AI was consempated soly by not only "handicap" on higher levels; but more importantly by sheer numbers. That AI on Deity is as dumb as it is on Chieftan. That was then, and that is now.

The only way to overcome the AI's foolishness, is giving him even more "handicaps" (i prefer to call it AI-Bonusses). There are two options: make units even cheaper for the AI or give the AI-units more strenght vs the player-units. Because you can forget the AI can be fixed and "think more tactical"; more then > go to that bush or hill and stay there; that's pretty ALL the AI can do.
Not why, should it go behind the city or in front, what if....nonono. Ai -behavior is straightforward and will be straightforward. But don't take my word for it, we speak again on this next year, same time. oke ?

 

[Peng Qi]

Yes, Civ is serious business... humour has no place in it.

These words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!

 

[r_rolo1]

I would like that someone showed me one example of a poster saying that it wanted another civ IV I already heard that so many times that I think that it would be easy to see someone saying it, but so far i haven't

 

[Mikkeman]

The combat concept looks nice on paper, but as you pointed out: the AI is lacking.
War cannot work well, when either one of those two is lacking.

I say: the combat concept is lacking, While the AI is lacking.
The AI is lacking for 20 years, since the day CIV came out. They are never, ever gonna fix that; atleast not in CIV 5. The only reason why it shows more lacking now then ever; is the combat concept
In previous CIV's, the poor AI was consempated soly by not only "handicap" on higher levels; but more importantly by sheer numbers. That AI on Deity is as dumb as it is on Chieftan. That was then, and that is now.

The only way to overcome the AI's foolishness, is giving him even more "handicaps" (i prefer to call it AI-Bonusses). There are two options: make units even cheaper for the AI or give the AI-units more strenght vs the player-units. Because you can forget the AI can be fixed and "think more tactical"; more then > go to that bush or hill and stay there; that's pretty ALL the AI can do.
Not why, should it go behind the city or in front, what if....nonono. Ai -behavior is straightforward and will be straightforward. But don't take my word for it, we speak again on this next year, same time. oke ?

Yeah you are right. The combat concept is great but because of the lacking AI it fails. In previous Civs it could brute force you but in Civ V it is really rare. If you have 6 experienced units the huge AI armies will burn. Then after the waves have been destroyed it will take time for them to rebuild the army and instead of assembling a force wich could destroy your force when you attack their cities they bring the units in dribbles wich get destroyed easily. They need to change AI or give it bonuses like you say.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Yes, Civ is serious business... humour has no place in it.

I disagree sire.