Why do people want another Civ4?

[Liquidated]

1. The cow hit the nail on the head.

2. The thread title needs to be Changed to "Why do I think people want another Civ4?

3. Listen to whatever rolo says, lest he magically summons troy to destroy us all with Attacko's special brand of "logic"

Cheers!
-Liq

 

[DaveGold]

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.

Unfortunately if we ask for a feature that will clearly improve game play such as "automated workers leave existing improvements" then we will always have people such as yourself saying "Why do you just want a repeat of CIV4?".

 

[Mesopotamian]

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 one game i was warmongering and almost every other AI warned me that this is bad, after i conquered two Civs and annexed their cities i was like starting to dominate but suddenly and just in a few turns almost everyone declared war on me they smashed me, it's not war all the time, also you can't just invade everyone else there is happiness you know

In Civ5, Tile improvment choice is a no issue. Just mine/Trade post everything
in civ 4 it was almost the same .. mine cottage everything
i do use all sorts of improvements on my lands it depends on what i want .. also there is a good mod that slightly powers other improvements which really makes you consider using them

In Civ5, City placement is non issue. Just grab as much lux as possible.
sometimes you need to settle near a chock point (security reasons) or near a mountain or on a flat land or a hill (to be able to build some buildings) and other stuff + in Civ 4 it's the same you settle near good stuff, that also applies to real world, people settle in good spots no one will found a city in the middle of nowhere

In Civ5, Economy is dumbed down. Food from maritimes, money from Lux trading, hammer from tile improvments
(dumbed) what do you mean, please can you explain to me what was so (complicated) in Civ 4 economy that it is now (dumped down) and city states sometimes are allied with other civs, i once paid almost 2500 golds to win a city state as an ally from the Greeks for strategic reasons
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.
i do agree here, but that is better i think it's like they want to win at any cost and any common benefits between you and them is temporary, in civ 4 it's like if you give him a free unit and 15 gold and you share the same religion he loves you all the way to the end
i love how they think about their own good, i had a war with someone north of me and i was friendly with the civ south of me, i deployed all my units north but then noticed that he started ending all the packs between me and him also some of his military units moved closer to me, so i retreated some of my units to defend, he DW on me cos he thought i'm weak fighting the best civ on the map and he might be able to grab a piece of me, luckily i had a policy which increases the strength when i fight inside my boarders so i was able to defeat his attacking force and move south to threaten his cities (with me at the same time fighting a war north with a very advanced civ) he was freaked out and agreed to make peace for a huge price, i used the advantages gained from him to hold on in my second war
it was such an epic game i had never experienced such a thing in civ 4
but they should add vessel states back that will make it more fun

In Civ5, money is no issue. Luxuries for 300G and city sale for 1K+?? whats the point of coined tiles?!?
even when selling cities i consider who is buying them .. like i occupy a city and sell it for a 90 turn of some lux or some gold, or even free just to make someone stronger cos he hates someone else and so they can have an everlasting war that holds them both back while i advance, i even give out military units to balance the power, i judge depending on the situation of the AI's

it is not as bad as you sound, needs some tweaks and it should be all right


there is always new stuff to find out in civ 5 like i am playing a map now and i am positioned on the cost just behind a city state, they are my allies and i give them powerful military units all the time that way i don't have a very big army and costly upkeep so i have lots of gold in my Treasury & anyone who will try to invade me has to face them first

 

[THE_COW_IS_OK]

Whats the point of working tiles when you get way better yields from Maritimes bonus and AI trades? They just throwed micromanagment out of the window for luck.
Whats the pointing of city placement when a city can work a radius of 3 tiles and pop hardly gets over 12!
Whats the point of working diplomacy when they will DOW you anyways?
Whats the point of producing science building if science comes fastest from conquered pop?
What the point on building units when upgrades are so cheap?
Whats the point of building anything when money is so easy to come by (again from trades or city sales) and you can purchase it and hammers are scarce.
Whats the point of making wonders when only 1-2 are worth making?
Whats the point of 90% of military units when upgraded promoted warriors/horses will win you the game.
Whats the point of Great engineer(so hard to come by) or Great merchant (450Gold u kidding me?) when GS can get you any tech you like.

Fixing games balance is a good step forward. Maybe some buttoms will be usefull again but then again, they will need to ADD much more layers to get the variabiltiy of Civ4.

 

[Catt_Ironheart]

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.

Where do I subscribe?

 

[Jabarto]

I really wonder why people say that rushing is necessary in Civ 5 when it was Civ 4 that was literally impossible to win on the higher difficulties without rushing - does the term "Axe Rush" ring any bells? It should, because it was a product of Civ 4.

With the cultural bonuses to small empires and the reduced importance of strategic resources, it's probably easier to play peacefully in Civ 5 than in any other game in the series.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

A lot of people that loved cIV wanted an advancement of the game, instead of the other way where we received less of what cIV was.

 

[r_rolo1]

3. Listen to whatever rolo says, lest he magically summons troy to destroy us all with Attacko's special brand of "logic"

Your faith in me is touching, but not deserved

 

[Shafi-is-back]

I really wonder why people say that rushing is necessary in Civ 5 when it was Civ 4 that was literally impossible to win on the higher difficulties without rushing - does the term "Axe Rush" ring any bells? It should, because it was a product of Civ 4.

With the cultural bonuses to small empires and the reduced importance of strategic resources, it's probably easier to play peacefully in Civ 5 than in any other game in the series.

In civ IV "a rush" was exactly that. you had to commit very very early in the game to the rush, you had to chop & whip at least 8 axes and your opponent had to be close, also need quick acsess to copper, if not it would not work not on the level i played anyway. (emperor) i would only use a rush once every 3 or 4 games and i could still win. so no need to rush every game, thats a ridicoulos assesment. I cant comment on emperor +.

On civ V i wont even call it a rush, its a stroll. you just take your time setting up the first couple of cities, pretty much do as you please and oh, when you build maybe 4 horsemen and 2 swords, consider visiting the neighborhood psychotic AI. All you need is 6 units, and u dont even need to rush them out, take your time put together 6 - 8 units, the AI doesnt stand a chance.

Finally there was much better chance of playing peacefully in civ IV, now all the AI are blood thirsty psychos and its just a matter of time before they doW you.

So either you havent played Civ V long enough or you dont know much about civ IV.

 

[zonk]

I really wonder why people say that rushing is necessary in Civ 5 when it was Civ 4 that was literally impossible to win on the higher difficulties without rushing - does the term "Axe Rush" ring any bells? It should, because it was a product of Civ 4.

With the cultural bonuses to small empires and the reduced importance of strategic resources, it's probably easier to play peacefully in Civ 5 than in any other game in the series.

It definitely is -- but the problem is that it's eye-gougingly boring.

I could never beat IV at higher levels -- Prince was about as far as I could go and win regularly in IV. This is because I was a builder - I broke the cardinal rule, I beelined for Wonders and loved building them. I neglected my military to the point that I either had to: A) kiss serious AI butt to keep enough powerful allies to have the others leave me alone, or B) cower before demands.

On V? You bet it's easier... and allies are worthless while, so long as I buy off a military CS, I don't even have to cower.

But it's boring...

If you're a peaceful player/builder - the game is nothing but "next turns" - 20 to 25 turns where you rotely select a Social Policy sprinkled in, autopath techs every now and again.

If you let me queue up Social Policies -- including those I don't have access to, but just let me select 25 SPs -- let me queue up research... Expand the city build queue beyond 6.... I could almost player an entire game as dove without doing anything but hit next turn. Maybe the occasional adjustment if someone snatches a wonder before me, but that's about it.

It's the worst of both worlds -- they removed the challenge of my preferred style of play from IV and removed the fun of my style of play.

 

[Misterboy]

It's the worst of both worlds -- they removed the challenge of my preferred style of play from IV and removed the fun of my style of play.

Ouch.

 

[masterminded]

If I had wanted to play Civ IV, I would have not purchased Civ V. As a veteran who has played every Civ since the second game, Revolutions excluded, I welcomed each successive game. While I suppose I had my misgivings with each version, subsequent entries improved upon the series.

My argument and the argument of many others is that this game represents a regressive step. It has poorly designed mechanics. There are a dozen threads highlighting these contentions, yet, for some reason, numerous proponents of the game feel the need to attribute motives to the critics, which are unfounded and unfair.

 

[DarkSchneider]

I certainly would have preferred Civ 4.5 now that I know how Civ 5 turned out. But if they can complete everything they have listed in the next patch I will give Civ V another shot. They are addressing the two game breaking bugs I have trouble with (courrupted save files, neverending treaties) and say they are addressing the AI.