Why I probably won't buy Civ V.

[Married2099]

No offense intended by this thread. I'm sure Civ V will be a great game, will sell a million copies in its first month, then expansions will follow along with Civ VI. For me, there is nothing I find in Civ IV that warrants a switch.

Some things in Civ III (which I also loved) that I couldn't stand:
1. Minimum research of 4 turns.
2. Losing research of an unfinished tech when switching techs to research.
3. Useless corruption filled cities. (What's the point of expanding if your city is useless?)

All of these were fixed or changed in Civ IV, making the game so much better.

Civ IV skeptical changes which grew on me.

1. Customized governments. (I liked the preset governments from Civ III but grew to like the choices in government aspects in Civ IV.)
2. Attack/Defense numbers in Civ III removed. (Unit promotion made this an easy aspect to accept.)

Civ IV major changes that I love.

1. Religion (Didn't do much but don't take it away.)
2. Espionage (Didn't use it much but glad it's there. Same for Spies.)
3. Multiple Tile improves. (Much better than just Farm or Mine.)
4. Superfluous resources. (Hey, I like meticulous details.)
5. Unit promotions. (One swordsman can be different from the next.)

As for graphics/sound and eye candy, if it doesn't change the way the game is played then what's the point.

Conclusion: Civ IV had everything I want in a TBS game. Everything was fixed that I hated in Civ III and improved in Civ IV. There is actually nothing about Civ IV that I do not like. Taking anything from a game other than something that made the game less fun is a big no, no for me. (Like when the last patch of Civ III removed the radio tech. Why? What's the point?) Removing corruption: Good. Removing religion or another added aspect of the game which made not difference: Bad. As I said, I like meticulous details.

Good luck to Civ V and hope it is a huge success. As for me. I am perfectly content with Civ IV.

 

[Danielos]

I think Civ 4 BtS is excellent as well, but there is always room for improvement. I´m glad Civ 5 finally tries to do something about the tired, unrealistic and utterly tedious combat system of the earlier versions. No more ridiculous huge stacks fighting each other inside a city. Real frontlines, real tactics...YES!!

 

[NYHunter]

\
Conclusion: Civ IV had everything I want in a TBS game. Everything was fixed that I hated in Civ III and improved in Civ IV. There is actually nothing about Civ IV that I do not like.

Well thats actually a good reason.

 

[Danielos]

Well thats actually a good reason.

I think it will take several patches and a couple of expansion packs for Civ 5 to surpass the brilliance of Civilization 4 BtS. But I suppose it will...

 

[Ahriman]

As you say though, there were several changes in Civ4 that grew on you over time. You might find that something similar happens with Civ5; it has features you didn't know you were missing.

 

[Cashew]

I'm not going to buy it either, I'm pirating it. But I don't think that deserves a thread.

Moderator Action: We have zero tolerance for software piracy
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[NBAfan]

I am looking forward to how the new combat system works.

 

[Danielos]

I'm not going to buy it either, I'm pirating it. But I don't think that deserves a thread.

In Civ-terms I would look upon you as a primitive, selfish barbarian...

Moderator Action: Flaming - warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Sherlock]

I often wait for the 'gold edition' before buying a game. I find release versions pretty 'unfinished'. For example, I just bought the gold version of 'Dawn of War II' and I'm glad I waited.

I doubt I'll have the self-control to do that with CIV V, though!

 

[Mesodius]

Fair enough, OP, and it'll save you some money and time working through bugs.

As for me, there are things I did not like about Civ 4, and from the reviews thus far it seems like they are making improvements in these fields, so I am looking forward to it.

 

[Ataxerxes]

You're probably right, OP. I think there will be a significant number of people who will try CivV and find that they preferred BTS. After all, the Civ3 forums are still fairly active and discussing strategies years after BTS. So I'm sure you won't be alone. I play both, but prefer CivIV. My biggest aggravation with 3 wasn't corruption, though, it was pollution.

An alternative possibility would be to see what the people who buy it immediately say in the forums, and then reconsider. A lot of people are excited enough about it that they'll be buying it the first day it's out.

 

[Mesodius]

You're probably right, OP. I think there will be a significant number of people who will try CivV and find that they preferred BTS. After all, the Civ3 forums are still fairly active and discussing strategies years after BTS. So I'm sure you won't be alone. I play both, but prefer CivIV. My biggest aggravation with 3 wasn't corruption, though, it was pollution.

I still play Civ 3 more than Civ 4, so yeah...

And ah come on, the pollution isn't so bad, you just have to have 100 workers standing by so you can move them every turn on to the pollution squares and clean it up ASAP.

 

[Gamemaster77]

I definitly like civ3 better than 4.

 

[Deathstar]

Only positive aspect I see in Civ5 are the improved graphics. Not too convinced with all of the other changes. Then again, Civ4 is still addicting so I'll stick with it even when Civ5 comes out.

 

[Mesodius]

Only positive aspect I see in Civ5 are the improved graphics.

The graphics are the absolute least of my concerns. Id rather have the game run smoothly, and not have to rush out and buy a new computer to even play the game, than have shiny new graphics. Gameplay has been and always will be more important to me.

 

[Ataxerxes]

The graphics are the absolute least of my concerns. Id rather have the game run smoothly, and not have to rush out and buy a new computer to even play the game, than have shiny new graphics. Gameplay has been and always will be more important to me.

I agree. I'm very concerned that my older computer won't be able to handle CivV. When I first got BTS, I had an obsolete computer and it ran weird. When the other leaders showed up, you saw their clothes and background and a blank space for their faces. And it ran pretty slow. The cost of a game I might not play that much I'm willing to chance. A new computer costs a little more.

Same for the graphics. The strategy and gameplay is much more important to me also.

 

[Janig]

I will buy Civ5 if there is room for playing computer games in my life. If I have room for games I wont be playing Civ4 when 5 is released because the developers are obviously being proactive in making it a good game.

 

[mechaerik]

I´m glad Civ 5 finally tries to do something about the tired, unrealistic and utterly tedious combat system of the earlier versions.

Emphasis mine.

This argument really gets my goat. Until recently in the world, SoDs were realistic.

 

[Danielos]

Emphasis mine.

This argument really gets my goat. Until recently in the world, SoDs were realistic.

As I see it, the one unit per hex-rule is just a more tactical and realistic display of your unit placement. Even in a "stack of doom" your units would have to be tactically organised on a battlefield with melee units in front, cavalry at the rear and archers behind the lines. This is what the new system does, it zooms down on the battlefield and give players an option for actual battle tactics instead of the tired, unrealistic slogging of huge stacks against cities.

 

[mechaerik]

I'm honestly on the fence about 1u/t. I originally hated it, but now i'm more neutral. Its just arguments like that that kind of get to me.

Besides, if you want to get about how "realistic" unit deployment is, think about how much area each tile covers.