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 I Love CiV

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Doberman49, Jun 7, 2011.

  1. Doberman49

    Doberman49 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Messages:
    5
    Unlike some of the strategy gamers here, I find CiV to be the proverbial breath of fresh air in the Civ series. I have enjoyed myself immensely after I hesitatingly bought this title.

    Here's why -

    1. One Unit Per Hex - I love this feature. No more silly stacks of doom to manage or contend with.

    2. City States - Very neat how they are incoprated. Instead of demanding or conquering Elizabeth for that only Oil reserve near me - I can ally with a CS who will offer me a share of their resources.

    3. Cities Defend Themselves Great feature as well. Again - no more building 40 units and planting them in your city.

    4. Resources I no longer feel like my game is solely determined by where the strategic resources spawn.

    5. Embarking Makes getting your units off that island less of a chore.



    Yes the game is simplified compared to CIV - but I'm enjoying it's streamlined approach. I certainly have the one-more-turn fever back.
     
  2. arioch99

    arioch99 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2003
    Messages:
    77
    I'm agree with you, I play civ 1 to 5 and I think all of them bring some fresh thing to TBS game.

    But One unit per hex and embarking are some change what I wished without knowing it. Now that the change was implemented I really like it. In the previous civ, I did'nt play archipelago, because the production of transport to move my army on ocean bored me.

    Have Nice CIV5 playing time!
     
  3. M_Sparkle

    M_Sparkle Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Belfast
    I started with cIV, took me months to get it there was so much micro to play even a basic game. ciV you don't need to micro from the first game and the empire management unveils to a new player easily.
    I hated stacks of doom... gal civ did a good job with stacking fleets but otherwise the 1upt is so much better.
    On release the game did have balance issues,bugs and crashes but the idea and macro gameplay was brill. Great ideas wish it'd spent more time in beta to tie down the issues bit still my favourite civ title, can't wait to c what expansions come out in the future and what they do with it :)
     
  4. Karl_Rove

    Karl_Rove Pleb

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    89
    My most favorite change in the series was getting rid of 4's arty/air force mechanics, especially the arty stuff. WTH was with that anyways? I always thought that it was funny imagining some battle like Austerlitz beginning with Napoleon commanding his cannons to make a suicide charge at the enemy.

    That said, I thought that 4 handled specialists better, and the U.N. was infinitely more interesting.
     
  5. JaGarLo

    JaGarLo Settler

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    261
    Location:
    There (points with his finger)
    1. 100% agree. Wars were pretty boring at Civ4. Just move your 40 stacked units close to the city and attack, without forgetting that kamikaze siege weapons go first.

    2. Agreed. But I think that you must bribe then with more money to become alies (so the Diplomatic Victory doesn't turn into a Economical Victory)

    3. Agreed. No more BS at 3500 BC with that random barbarian which destroys your city.

    4. Well, I'm not sure here. The place where the resources lie wasn't a gamebreaker for me in Civ4.

    5. I agree. It's easier to move units around the seas. But they should get a little defense on the late game (so my embarked tanks don't get owned by a galley or something).

    So yes, I prefer Civ5 over Civ4. Also, Civ4 was too complicated for me. Civ5 is more simple, and you can actually understand everything without having to be a seasoned veteran.
     
  6. Further Ado

    Further Ado Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Messages:
    4
    Totally agree. Each patch has brought game play/balance improvements, and I feel like I'm now happier with Civ5 than Civ4 BTS. And I'm certain it will get better yet.

    Sometimes all the negativity around here can get wearying.

    I also like how they implimented policies. I prefer it to the government types from Civ 4. I tended to settle into a governement and never change in Civ4, whereas always having to consider new policy choices is more interesting.
     
  7. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,067
    Location:
    Toronto
    There's definitely some good with 5. I've been going back and forth a bit between 4 and 5 recently. The big things for me:

    -Hexes and terrain. Playing 4, the terrain just feels so square. Units just seem to flow better in 5. I also really like how rivers are handled in 5. They are a real natural barrier.

    -Slow border growth/culture. So much more natural than the border pop in 4. In civ4, pretty much once my city's borders have grown once, I really don't care about culture in that city anymore, unless if I'm battling for land.

    -1upt. Definitely much nicer than having a pile of axemen charge head-first into a city. Throw in ranged attack with this (for a much more natural bombardment of cities), and it's all good.

    -City-states. They need re-work to not just be about bribing (it'd be nice to have a couple other early quests to help be friends or allies early with them), but the theory of having a separate battle for them is good. They still need more personality (I'd like to see them actually declare war on players, and fight for themselves, and such), but there's a good base there.

    All that makes for a great base. There are still issues:
    -I still find there's balance issues in the map. Resources are still fairly clumped. In that, in the games I've played, I either have like 10X the iron I need, or I don't find any. I'd like to see more 1-iron or 2-iron tiles scattered around, and less 6-iron tiles. I can also survive on a pretty tiny army overall - to take a city, I don't tend to need more than maybe 4-5 units, meaning as a nation I can go on a conquering spree with less than 10 units total. I'd like to see that change. Maybe even so far as having units not heal at all unless if they're 1. in a city or 2. next to a medic. Then, I either need to use weak units, spend time for them to rest, or have replacements.

    -The AI is still lacking. I can have an army that's less than half their size and still take them out. They're getting better - in the latest patch I do see them concentrate their fire on my units and actually defeat them. But they're still not as effective as they should be.

    -In some ways, I miss the animals/barbs from civ4. I don't mind the encampment system in 5, but there's almost never any risk in sending your settlers out to the wilderness. Honestly, in 4 it felt like anytime my settler went to where a barb might possibly randomly happen to be, they were there. In 5, I can always wander around with very little barb issues.

    There's a few other things I miss from civ4. But I think the ones that matter most are just dealing with the AI. The bonuses they gave in 4 just seem to be less game-changing. They would help them, sure, but you still felt like they were playing the same game. In civ5, when I see the AI running at +50 happiness with 6000 extra gold, it just feels wrong.
     
  8. bronzeager

    bronzeager Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    89
    Location:
    WA
    Civ V is definitely everything I had hoped for from when I saw the pre-release screenshots. Just about everything I disliked about III and IV they have fixed. War is better in V than any previous Civ game. Unfortunately, they took some of the complexity out of empire building/management, but I think the overall result is a great installment of the series.

    Excited to see what future patches/expansions have to add too. (not so much for DLC)
     
  9. bronzeager

    bronzeager Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    89
    Location:
    WA
    really? i'll admit barbs are a bit easier to ignore, but I never send my settlers out alone, unless I'm totally sure there's no camp anywhere nearby. Especially with units moving 2 tiles in the open now, it seems like undefended settlers/workers get taken with little warning. At least you can get them back now.
     
  10. Save_Ferris

    Save_Ferris Admiring Myself

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,138
    Location:
    Straight Outa Ponyville
    Couldn't agree with the OP any more.
     
  11. crashcrush

    crashcrush Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    34
    I think the "Resources Cap" that was implemented in CiV is one of the best, and most overlooked, changes made. Rather then needing just one source of iron/horses/oil and pumping out unlimited swordsman/knights/tanks you have to really think about what you're producing. It also makes the struggle for resources feel more real and makes me more inclined to go to war over a resource even if I have one (e.g. I have horses that are producing 2 - Alex has horses that are producing 5 - I'm much more inclined to go after Alex's horses in CiV then in CivIV).
     
  12. Tabarnak

    Tabarnak R.I.P.

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,949
    Location:
    Québec
    The point is you don't need to micro at emperor or below. AI really sucks when he's at war and will buy any luxuries you want, making the game easier for the human.

    In multiplayer, micro is important to get an edge somewhere, same for immortal-deity level, especially with the multi-bulb specialists feature, the RA blocking feature, and to control happiness.

    Just to say that this game is enjoyable for everyone. Casual players can actually win at emperor and it's ok like that. If some people want this game harder, they just have to play with self-restrictive rules, use MODs or play against me in a multiplayer game! :lol:

    I also hate stack of doom...
     
  13. He-Who-Hunts

    He-Who-Hunts 2nd Legionary Cohort

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    265
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Earth
    Do Multiplayer games make it very far tech wise? Or do they generally end before gunpowder units (as was the case in a lot of open MP games in Civ4)
     
  14. Tabarnak

    Tabarnak R.I.P.

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,949
    Location:
    Québec
    For a full domination win on a small map with 6 players on a pangea you can easily reach industrial era. Player first to artillery can do a lot of damage. Industrial to modern can take a lot of time, principally because RAs are pretty scarce. For tiny maps, with a good start you can spam LS and kill everyone before they reach Rifles.
     
  15. ColinTH

    ColinTH Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    441
    Location:
    Bedford
    Numbers 1-4, I totally agree.
    Number 5 - As others have said, embarked movement of two hexes and unprotected against a Barb galley?
    Polynesia - More sight when embarked, and can sail the deep oceans - very nice.
    England - Embarked units have four movement - pretty good.
    Askia - Embarked units can defend - IMO the way it should be.

    Personally I never minded transporting my troops, it had a nice feel, very realistic.
     
  16. AznWarlord

    AznWarlord Monarch

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    397
    Location:
    Virginia
    Civ3 - Park an Infantry Stack on Doom on top of a mountain. Watch as AI hilariously decimates their own army.

    Although I love the hilarity of exploiting the stack, I love 1upt so much more, although I'd love to be able to stack 1 ranged unit/artillery under 1 melee unit.
     
  17. Montov

    Montov King

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    707
    Good topic. Reminds me of the little things I tend to forget, like the ranged attacks, the default 2 movement for units, the resource-cap, etc.

    No, that would be terrible. Now you have to think about positioning. The 2 unit types have their advantages and disadvantages, so it is balanced. Ranged units can deal damage from a distance without risking their own health, but are weak on defense. Melee are strong, but need close combat and risk dying. To put those two together on 1 tile would kill 75% of combat tactics, would add micromanaging (1 unit would be suboptimal, soyou would always need to combine 2 units and keep them together).
     
  18. TImithius

    TImithius Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    92
    I personally think Civ5 is better. I am a a history buff so I love to see the leaders in full animation and I like it how they talk to me. I also think that warfare is better in this game, the cities can defend themselves and I like how they got rid of stacks of doom. I used to get so angry in civ4 when my rifleman was beaten by an ax man, it was not realistic at all. Civ5 is better this way
     
  19. strhopper

    strhopper Okie

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    406
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Agreed civ 5 is better, loved civ 3(first real experience with civ) lost me with civ4 now I'm back and loving civ 5
     
  20. civnoob13

    civnoob13 King

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    713
    Location:
    Nottingham
    I agree with all the above, I'll ignore the negatives for this thread, so other additions I like:

    1 cultural tile expansion. This feels so much more natural than in civ4 and really aids in a feeling of progression in the game, as well as the need for more cultural buildings

    UA's. Unique abilities I think add more depth and individuality to the game than simple traits

    Social Policies- they are so much more in depth than civics in civ 4.

    Denouncments - despite the disadvantages, it is nice to now declare to the world who you hate!
     

Share This Page