Why i'm enjoying civ5 more than all others

[mattavich]

This is just my opinion, it cannot be disputed. I've created this thread because I want to balance the positive/negative threads out.

For the first time in my civ game history, I am playing a large map and not finding city management tedious.

Reason 1:
I loved civ4, but it became the same thing over and over. Select city, build, esc, next city, build, esc. I felt that I didn't have to think much about what I built in Civ4, just build all buildings and some military after i've built the main stuff, over and over, each turn taking 5 mins just to tell all the cities what to build - it made me lose my immersion in the game and just "wish it would hurry up".

I think that one reason alone is a great leap in the right direction.

Reason 2:
No more death stacks. The second annoyance of Civ4 for me is the simple death stack = win. I now have to think with my forces, there are limitations. Again, it immerses me in the game with my decisions and what military I build. Civ 4 = build 2 of best unit in tech, 2-3 death stacks, win.

Reason 3:
Owning a Navy and making cross sea/ocean attacks is actually fun and workable for the first time!

Here is my conclusion:
There are some bugs that need fixing so a new patch will be very welcome. the game is hardly unplayable, i'm having GREAT fun. I've been up all night long playing, I decided at 8am i'll have 3 hours sleep then play for the rest of the day!

I believe once the first expansion is here you'll notice the new Civ style begin to shape into something beautiful, more inline with everyone's liking.

You have to realize, for the Civ5 developers to move the Civ series on from Civ4, it had to change a lot. For some of you, managing every tedious task of the game was what you liked. But there are also others like me, who hated it and think this is a breath of fresh air.

I think Sid probably sat down and realized that he couldn't take the gameplay/idea of Civ4 any further. In order to expand and beat it's limitations the developers had to make tough choices. Otherwise Civ5 would be just another Civ4 remake. I'm glad they tried to push the boundaries and taken the gamble for the good of the series.

 

[Johan de Witt]

The main reason I'm enjoying it more than the others:
I don't obsess over what changed since Civ 4.

Nuff said.

 

[mattavich]

The main reason I'm enjoying it more than the others:
I don't obsess over what changed since Civ 4.

Nuff said.

I just feel bad that it is getting so much negative opinions and wnat to balance it out because I feel differently.

 

[Windsor]

Reason 1:
I loved civ4, but it became the same thing over and over. Select city, build, esc, next city, build, esc.

Uhm, you know you could switch from city to city with the arrow keys? Or simply manage them from the city advisor? And by using queues it didn't take long at all.

 

[nekom]

1 - It's a definite change for sure, with production being limited and maintenance per building, you REALLY have to consider whether or not to build a building in each city. I don't like or dislike this, it's just part of the new game that is ciV.

2 - Best improvement of all! Finally tactics mean something. I have to carefully place my units to strike, considering the strengths and weaknesses of each unit. No more stack units, march, bombard, invade, rinse, repeat.

3 - A navy was fun in 4, but the AI had no clue how to use it. I haven't really gotten into naval combat in 5 yet, but I hope the AI is smart enough to escort its units.

 

[monsterfurby]

Uhm, you know you could switch from city to city with the arrow keys? Or simply manage them from the city advisor? And by using queues it didn't take long at all.

I think you might be missing the point. It's not that it took long, the OP is mainly pointing out the fact that one would just run down the same build list for every city until everything was built. Apparently, this has changed with CiV, where one has to really consider which buildings to construct.

 

[Boshi]

Hey as long as they get rid of the annoyance of trying to pry loose stacks of archers on well-defended hill cities, I'm happy. For both Civ IV and the Total War games I got soured on them after a while since city sieges were both such a pain in the ass that it sucked a lot of fun out of the games.

 

[mattavich]

I think one of my gripes with Civ5 is that the AI needs work HOWEVER i still find it an improvement on civ4 in the realism aspect.

 

[Gorey]

I think you might be missing the point. It's not that it took long, the OP is mainly pointing out the fact that one would just run down the same build list for every city until everything was built. Apparently, this has changed with CiV, where one has to really consider which buildings to construct.

Just because you "could" build all those things in Civ4 didn't mean you "should". Alot of it is wasted hammers if the city is not specialized for it. You should be building more units or wealth/science instead.

 

[CaptainBinky]

I agree with you Mattavich, I've never had so much fun with navy and armies in any other incarnation of Civ than I have with Civ V so far.

Also love how precious money has become that I'm agonising over the decision to build a school / opera house, whatever. In Civ IV I tended to end up with everything built in every city. Perhaps I could have played Civ IV better but Civ V encourages me to make those decisions.

I really love that city placement is so important now. You're freed from the burden of having to build close to your capital because of the distance/happiness link so you can place that city exactly where you want it - either for defence, luxuries, resources, or that you really want a coastal city. Love the land acquisition mechanic - it's very satisfying seeing your borders snake out towards a resource.

I never really bothered much with naval units in earlier Civs because settling on another continent came at such a high cost. Now, naval support is crucial to my game and I love it. Especially love the way that mountains block line of sight.

 

[mattavich]

I agree with you Mattavich, I've never had so much fun with navy and armies in any other incarnation of Civ than I have with Civ V so far.

Also love how precious money has become that I'm agonising over the decision to build a school / opera house, whatever. In Civ IV I tended to end up with everything built in every city. Perhaps I could have played Civ IV better but Civ V encourages me to make those decisions.

I really love that city placement is so important now. You're freed from the burden of having to build close to your capital because of the distance/happiness link so you can place that city exactly where you want it - either for defence, luxuries, resources, or that you really want a coastal city. Love the land acquisition mechanic - it's very satisfying seeing your borders snake out towards a resource.

I never really bothered much with naval units in earlier Civs because settling on another continent came at such a high cost. Now, naval support is crucial to my game and I love it. Especially love the way that mountains block line of sight.

I find it hard to explain but the new economy of happiness and gold has made a much simpler, yet a finer edge of game balance. I can't explain what I mean but I feel like this is the way it should be, rather than the sliders.

That is one thing I wasn't sure of, can I place a city ANY distance and there are no negative effects? That is great, we can make true empires now. It feels like the luxury and strategic resources play a more essential role in city placement, too.

One more question, if you know. How do you go about reaching a resource/luxury which is too far outside city borders but is also in the middle of a desert where it would be foolish to found a city?