1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Why do people want another Civ4?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by templars rule, Oct 11, 2010.

  1. Liquidated

    Liquidated Goofed Up on Cough Syrup!

    Oct 31, 2005
    West Coast Nyquil Labs
    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"

  2. DaveGold

    DaveGold Emperor

    Dec 1, 2009
    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?".
  3. Mesopotamian

    Mesopotamian Warlord

    Sep 30, 2010

    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 Chieftain

    Aug 29, 2002
    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.
  5. Catt_Ironheart

    Catt_Ironheart Chieftain

    Oct 1, 2010
    Where do I subscribe?
  6. Jabarto

    Jabarto Emperor

    May 15, 2007
    Colorado, U.S.
    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.
  7. Thoughtful Thug

    Thoughtful Thug Deity

    Jul 19, 2009
    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.
  8. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    May 19, 2006
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Your faith in me is touching, but not deserved :D
  9. Shafi-is-back

    Shafi-is-back Prince

    Sep 1, 2010
    Sri Lanka
    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.
  10. zonk

    zonk Prince

    Oct 30, 2005
    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.
  11. Misterboy

    Misterboy Modern Major General

    Oct 12, 2010
  12. masterminded

    masterminded Chieftain

    Oct 5, 2010
    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.
  13. DarkSchneider

    DarkSchneider King

    Oct 29, 2001
    Burlington, VT
    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.

Share This Page