1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Would you recommend Civ5 to someone who loved Civ3 but hated Civ4?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by SG-17, Mar 11, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lord Chambers

    Lord Chambers Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2001
    Messages:
    988
    Make sure to ask this question in the civ 4 forum. You will get different answers.
     
  2. Tiber4321

    Tiber4321 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    350
    @ Lord LOL, no doubt. To each his/her own. I probably never gave Civ 4 a real chance, at the tiime it came out, I was really disappointed with the graphics, etc and I didn't have the time to immerse myself into it. I'm sure for those who play Civ 4 religiously, Civ 4 is the greatest. Civ 5 is far from prefect, a lot of the victory methods and strategies seem counter intuitive to me. I don't know how much longer I'll stick with it. Civ 3 was the perfect game. I'll never better my greatest games on Civ 3, frankly because I don't have the time. These games involve major time suckage if you want to reach a top level of play.
     
  3. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,120
    Since that's a fairly unusual situation, it would probably help if you clarified what you preferred about Civ 3 to Civ 4, so that people can tell you how those particular elements compare in Civ V.

    Mostly, the people who don't like Civ 5 are Civ 4 players, and the things they dislike about Civ V are things that have changed from both Civ 3 and Civ 4.

    I've just got back into playing Civ 4 quite a lot, since one of the people in the group I'm playing with doesn't have Civ V - going back to the older game, I dislike stacks and for some reason I find barbarians a lot more annoying in Civ 4 than Civ V, but otherwise the two games play very similarly, despite the claims of nostalgia fans on one side and Civ V fanboys on the other. There are a number of tweaks I think one game or the other does better:

    I prefer Civ V's handling of resources generally (though prefer Civ 4's requirement for a road linking them to your cities to get the benefit), and the Civ V approach to Great People (although I miss the Warlord option) and Golden Ages.

    Calendar is in a more useful place in the Civ V tech tree, which standardises all the main luxury resource-relevant techs at the same point in the tree, but I've cone to prefer the Civ IV tech tree as a whole.

    I prefer specific Civ abilities to Civ IV's mix-and-match traits - but I miss having starting techs that are influenced by your choice of civ.

    I prefer the Civ IV interface to the friendly bubbly console-game look of Civ V. It also has more character in some minor elements - such as the age-old 'X the Hopeless' type of rankings in the lists of the greatest civs, and the "it's just too crowded", "You wouldn't give us tribute!" etc. happiness and diplomacy modifiers are more characterful than Civ V's lists of +1 from X, -1 from Y.

    I miss city-states when playing Civ IV, but miss random events and 'build 7 X' quests when playing Civ V.

    I miss espionage more than religion, although both will be reintroduced in Civ V in the next couple of months.

    I'm undecided about the loss of the slider. Frankly it makes macromanagement too easy in Civ IV - you can overspend and expand as much as you like as long as you're willing to take a research penalty, since gold is available on tap and isn't very useful for anything in its own right, giving little incentive to store it. On the other hand, I miss having some link between commerce and research which forces a trade-off.

    I prefer building and unit maintenance to a blanket city maintenance cost - I think cities probably should come with more of an offset than they have in Civ V, but find it strategically uninteresting that I can build as much as I want and as many semi-redundant buildings as I want in Civ IV cities without it costing any more than it does to have an empty city. The relaxation on unit maintenance in Civ IV is of course a byproduct of the need for giant armies to keep your stacks happy, but in combination with Hereditary Rule - and the fact that maybe one of the government civics is ever preferable, and that late in the game, meaning that you'll almost always get that bonus - it, again, makes management a little too easy - got unhappiness? Just whack a few cheap archers in there.

    While social policies are a nice development in Civ V, and offer more variety than civics (whose vaunted flexibility in being able to change them at will is only occasionally useful, and then only for a few civic branches), I don't really find that I miss them. I like the way culture works in Civ V, but I do miss cultural border wars. I also like, in principle, the idea of having maintenance costs that vary by civic/policy choice (missing from Civ V - since policies are fixed once unlocked, they're effectively constrained to offer only positive effects, no trade-off).

    My experience on returning to Civ IV has been that good/bad starting positions, determined randomly as they are, can have an unwelcome level of influence on your success or failure given more or less equally skilled rivals. This is a consequence partly of the greater bonuses provided by working resources in Civ IV, and partly I suspect of the randomisation algorithm itself - I simply don't find myself turning up in exceptional positions, either good or bad, in Civ V games.

    Although it gets a lot of flak here, to a large extent justifiably due to a poor AI, I actually find myself preferring diplomacy in Civ V somewhat to my surprise. I just don't find it very relevant in Civ IV - unless you have a neighbour like Montezuma, in which case it doesn't matter how much diplomacy you engage in because he'll attack anyway, having passive, cumulative bonuses for such things as open borders that required one click in the first few turns of the game tends to mean that you can rely on possible rivals not attacking you, and unless I want them to give me a technology, I don't bother opening the diplomacy window very much. Also, if you're in the lead, you have little to fear because AI civs don't coordinate with one another to any degree. Civ V diplomacy is founded on more dynamic, tripartite relationships; it's critical to know who's friends with who, and who has denounced who, and if someone goes to war with you the chances are everyone else - or at least all their friends - will pitch in, either by declaring war or by denouncing you, which makes it more likely that others will declare war, deny you trades etc. By contrast in Civ IV I've had games where I'm at war with one civ and am actually attacking their units stationed in the cities of their best friend, without any kind of diplomatic penalty or even a retraction of open borders.

    On the other hand (a) I miss tech trading (gone in Civ V, and the research agreements that replace them are both far too abusable and too much of a no-brainer - gone is the need to weigh the tech you're providing a possible rival against the value you'll gain from what they're offering), and (b) at least the Civ IV system, while ludicrously unrealistic, largely noninteractive and somewhat unambitious, actually works. The glowing report I give of Civ V diplomacy above is of Civ V diplomacy in principle - and in games when it works that way, I've had some of my best Civ experiences in 20 years of playing these games. But those games tend to be the minority.

    Oh yes, this too. Be prepared for Civ V to run very slowly, especially when it loads and even on fairly new machines (mine is newer than the game). It also had severe problems in multiplayer at one stage, however there was a specific multiplayer patch and I haven't played the game in multiplayer since, so I don't know if these issues have been fixed.

    EDIT:

    Additionally, the Civ V AI is very poor at combat. This has the result that games can often be too easy, simply because the computer can't defend its cities or attack yours adequately. I'd rarely if ever play Civ IV above Prince; I currently play Civ V on Immortal.

    Another good point I missed. For no very clear reason, international trade routes are gone in Civ V; trade also provides a blanket bonus to your gold for every city of yours connected to the *capital*, with the result that cities no longer have individual trade routes - you just get extra money in the bank the empire as a whole. And yes, I miss this too.

    Phil
     
  4. Geddy

    Geddy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Messages:
    106
    Come on, Civ V is a failure in the market and the community because it is a simplified, dumbed down game. It is also full of flawed concepts that just don't work. Further, the developers mislead the community by not coming clean about the game before it was released. That's why few play it. Friends don't let friends play Civ V, over Civ 4.

    Moderator Action: Please use the rants thread.
     
  5. Tiber4321

    Tiber4321 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    350
    You make some great points, and essentially hit on the weakest points of Civ 5.

    My main complaints- No espionage, No land or sea routes required to trade resources, No trading of maps (even after Navigation is reseached). No buying and selling techs. The AI behavior is bizarre. Diplomacy is a real chore. There are supposed to ways to bribe other AIs into going to war with you, but they are not transparent. Overall, I like the CS concept, but the way you interact with them needs to be changed quite a bit.

    These things are all fixable, the complaints I have in the following paragraph can't be fixed.

    I don't like the idea of such confined expansion, i.e. if you build cities too fast, or grow too fast, you seem to get punished. There are points in the game where you have to leave workers idle, turn cities into gold production, because you can't afford to build anything new. I know there are tricks and methods to controlled, micro-managed growth, but it gets to be TOO tedious micro-managing every tile and worker. This is how you have to play to have a chance to win at the highest levels. I just don't have that much time. That said, you can have some fun, wide open games at the middle levels of Civ 5. Play the game for you own fun, don't get caught up in trying to win at Deity.

    Also, you are correct about the AIs fighting with poor tactics. They also take a while to update their miltaries with techs they have reseached, hence even at high levels, you tend to be fighting out-dated units (I think this was generally true in Civ 3 as well).
     
  6. Olwe Pallanen

    Olwe Pallanen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    For me Civ III was more immersive that Civ IV which was more immersive than Civ V. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but for me Civ V is somehow not s fun as the other two.
     
  7. Brichals

    Brichals Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    775
    Location:
    Berlin, D
    It's the 6th highest played game on Steam right now, 3rd non valve game. It's behind skyrim and football manager. And its about 1.5 years old. It's not a failure by any means.
     
  8. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,120
     
  9. Naokaukodem

    Naokaukodem Millenary King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,997
    You have to be warned of some things before jumping in.

    In Civ5, happiness is global. Initially ressources had a value of 5 happinesses, which has been nerfed into 4 only. Plus, buildings such as colosseums have been nerfed also.

    It's not the same thing at all when it comes to expand. In Civ3 you have to expand the fastest possible, taking as many land as you want. In Civ5, you are GREATLY limited by happiness. You never have a lot, when a new 1 pop city will cost you... 4 happinesses !

    So, in lower difficulty levels, AI will expand so slowly that at the end, all the land would be inoccupied. It's rather a strange (and unrealistic) thing.

    In higher diff.levels, AIs will expand like pigs, whereas you will be limited by 2-3 cities, and insulted by AIs for your civ being "puny".

    In both cases, this is a very unpleasant situation. You will end up FRUSTRATED. Corruption was frustrating in Civ3, but never as nearly as happiness in Civ5. I prefer corruption over global happiness, but the best would be none of them. (and not another new gay comer !)

    Civ5 is weird, ridiculously limiting, unfun and boring. :)
     
  10. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,120
     
  11. Optional

    Optional Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,935
    Location:
    It Dockumer Lokaeltsje
    You start with 9 happiness or so, and when you expand, you will indeed want to expand to a place with luxes, but don't exaggerate.
    Only India has a real problem with the initial expansion, due to their err... bonus.
    With any other civ I can usually sell luxes, get happiness back from CS investment, am not reliant on colosseums and the real break on my expansion is what the AI is taking.
    Civ 5 isn't that different from Civ III in the early game. Where Civ III places a huge emphasis on early expansion, meaning getting settlers out quickly is strong play, Civ 5 isn't much different. Hoards of players even take it as far as going for the liberty policy to help their early expansion. That's not as far as I would take it, but there's a strong element of land grabbing in the early game, not at all hampered by happiness concerns. Guided by happiness concersns, as you'll want to expand towards the luxes, but not hampered by it.
     
  12. Freesmog

    Freesmog Skeptic1938222569

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    175
    Location:
    outside the city
    As well as Civ3 forum (if he hasn't already). I never played Civ1 and briefly Civ2 (which I enjoyed). I really liked Civ3, as well as Civ4. I can't stand Civ5. Go figure. I'm not going to argue, it's pointless, but in my mind Civ5 kind of ruined it for me, and I prefer Civ3 and Civ4 mods these days.
     
  13. Tiber4321

    Tiber4321 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    350
    @Phil, thanks for the detailed reply. I'm still having some doubts about Civ 5, mainly in the area of dipmlomacy. The following has happened to me twice. An AI asks me to DoW another AI with him. I reply with the "give me ten turns to prepare" option, ten turns later, I ask them to DoW with me and they say no. I give them a spare lux or some gold, and they still say no. So wtf? I still don't know fully understand the way diplomacy functions in this game. Also, there has been a lot of sentiment that dip victory on Civ 5 is way too easy, and essentially comes down to buying off CSs in the last turns of the game. I've won a game this way, and its not very fulfilling. These are things that many hope to see changed in the coming update.

    Optional says " Where Civ III places a huge emphasis on early expansion, meaning getting settlers out quickly is strong play, Civ 5 isn't much different." I strongly disagree. An early settler/city rush (which is the winning move in CIv3) simply doesn't work at Prince on up in Civ 5. You will be buried in unhappiness and DoWed like crazy. Expansion is very slow in Civ 5. You get your free settler, so you have only 2 cities for a while. If you go to 3-5 cities early, you better have the military to protect, and the happiness factors to support it. If you are on a continent with four aggressive AIs, you will be fighting for your life.

    Naok says "Civ5 is weird, ridiculously limiting, unfun and boring". I have to somewhat agree with the first two adjectives. The methods to achieving high level victories seem somewhat contrived and counter-intuitive. It also forces you to do as many tedious, micro-managing things as possible. This can make the game unfun. For example, why does exploration have to be such a PIA? You can't see what the world looks like until Satellites are reseached? That's absurd, you could walk into a book store and buy a World Atlas like 100 years ago. I know some tedious, micro-managing is part of high level Civ and I don't have a problem with it, but they could make the game more enjoyable, if they would limit this where possible.
     
  14. Optional

    Optional Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,935
    Location:
    It Dockumer Lokaeltsje
    I can assure you that by far most players try to get their expansion off the ground as quickly as possible, with the National College being the main reason for holding back - the National College may only be built when all your cities have a library, so this doesn't go well with expanding quickly.
    Certainly Civ 5 is about much less cities, though, for many play-styles and win conditions expansion is over when 4 (four) cities are in. the numbers are very different from Civ III, where you were maybe talking about one or two dozen cities, and a multifold of that after a military campaign. Any city anywhere was always fine in Civ III.
    That's definitely not Civ 5. You want your cities at good places, other wise you won't put them in. I find this an improvement over Civ III, as managing more than a few dozen cities becomes a pain.
    I'm not Civ 5's biggest champion, though. Civ III was better in many respects, but Civ III also had a lot of dodgy aspects that I'm glad we're not seeing anymore - all those science farms, the over-reliance on armies and artillery on higher difficulty levels, both aspects the AI couldn't handle whatsoever, the crazy research path the AI took in the Industrial Age, always going Nationalism, Communism and Fascism and whatever techs you had in that top path, with the human player always taking the much more sensible lower path, taking an advantage the AI could never catch up with anymore.
    Quite a lot of steps back have been taken with Civ 5, though, wholeheartedly recommending Civ 5 I won't do, but I would definitely recommend keeping an eye on it. The Civilization series has a good reputation of making vanilla games a lot better with expansions.
     
  15. Naokaukodem

    Naokaukodem Millenary King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,997
    Philbowles and Optional, I can't let you say such things.

    It's not the first time I notice it, I created myself several topics on the subjects and saw the same reactions :

    "Nothing to see, everything is cool, there's no problem with happiness, why ?"

    Whereas I feel there is a BIG problem with happiness, and i'm an old Civ player.

    This negationism kinda hurts me, everything is good in a candy world... no, didn't see that flying cow...

    Seriously ?
     
  16. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,647
    Location:
    Sydney
    Though be aware that the Civ4 forums would be populated largely by those who regularly play Civ4, and so probably don't play Civ5, so the opinions will be strongly weighted to the negative.
     
  17. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,120
     
  18. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,120
     
  19. Civinator

    Civinator Blue Lion

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    4,873
    As I like Civ 3 and I´m not happy about Civ 4, I want to give my 2 cents to this thread, too:

    The problem in this thread is, that the complete discussion concentrates around gameplay - but it is the 3D-Engine and the way the world is presented in Civ 4 (and Civ 5) that I don´t like. Many things in a civ game can be corrected by modding, but not the use of the - in my eyes - for a strategy game wrong graphics engine. When looking on the world like a frog, I don´t have any fun of that game.

    Spoiler :


    It´s the presentation of the map, that gave Civ 4 the image to be a comic-like caricature of a civ game, many of the "Mikey Mouse"-leaderheads used in Civ 4 only intensified this impression. And so I have some experiences in modding Civ games (CCM, SOE and GCM), I can´t mod away this - in my eyes - silly 3D-Engine.

    As if it wouldn´t be enough, to get a game with a presentation of the world that is not accepted by me, this superfluos and in my eyes ugly presentation additionally costs calculation power of my pc - a lot of calculation power. If I try to imagine what could have been done with this calculation power if used properly (per example fluid late games on really big maps), I could get sad about the way Civ 4 and Civ 5 were done and Firaxis is caught in its own 3D-trap.

    To force customers to use Steam doesn´t make things better for Civ 5. One of the facts I like on Civ 3 is, that I don´t need Steam. So it seems I have to stay with Civ 3 and Civ 2 ToT, as nothing better did follow. Civ 5 in its current state is no game, that can be recommended to me. Attached is a screenshot of the Civ 3 WW 2 scenario Storm over Europe (SOE) to show, how maps can be done in Civ 3 without a 3D Engine and any special programming as it was done for Civ 4 and Civ 5.

    Spoiler :
    " align="" border="0" />
     

    Attached Files:

  20. Brigg

    Brigg Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2011
    Messages:
    132
    Location:
    dfw
    I hated 3 and skipped 4 until recently. I like 5, but 2 was best.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page