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

You know what... I do want CIV IV.5!

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

  1. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,150
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    I've seen people he say they liked Cvi1, then Civ2, then Civ4, then CivRev



    See what I did there?
     
  2. Deep_Blue

    Deep_Blue Knight

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Messages:
    750
    You never played CIV IV and you are upset with people who say that they like CIV IV more than CIV V?
    Umm...ok :rolleyes:
     
  3. .Wolff.

    .Wolff. Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    Inside your mind.
    Ahem, please, let me clear this matter up first.
    I don't care what anyone plays. I"m not mad with anyone, dissapointed in the fact everything is taken to the utter extremes.

    As I stated, I like Civ5, simply because it is the first one I have played. Yet, I have several friends who agree and disagree with me.

    It is a matter of choice. Do people really need to post a new topic every single day complaining about the same exact issue that was explained the day earlier? No. It is just spam and usless points.

    The only issue I personally have is the fact that this game is being patched and updated and such. Which means that in time it WILL get better.

    Complaining over and over again over pointless things like, "I want Civ4!" is just a ******** waste. Why not focus on possibly helping report bugs and issue instead of complaining?

    Well, now. Call me old fashion, but that is what I'd do.
     
  4. Neomega

    Neomega Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    11,261
    :lol:

    :lol:

    wait, one mroe time

    :lol:

    What are you doing right now?

    just one more for good measure:
    :lol:

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

    zonk Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    572
    To put it succinctly --

    Because a lot of us aren't just unhappy because of bugs -- a lot of feel that the underlying mechanics of the Civilization series have been irreparably altered.

    I'm not trying to play the "I go back to I, II, III, and IV; while you've just played V" card -- but there's no way around it... Civilization was never a war-centric 4X game. Yes, warfare was always a key part... In some iterations - it was even the 'most key' part.

    It has become that in V -- fix the AI and maybe you'll have a decent war-centric 4X game, that has more of a nod to resource gathering, city building, and diplomacy than your standard Age of Empires or what not.

    But that's not Civilization. At least, it never was before -- heck -- developers from the previous releases used to in fact rebut complaints about quecha rushes or axeman rushes by point blank saying "Civilization is not meant to be a war game!"

    If you prefer the building side of Civilization - and only dabble in the warfare aspects, I'm just not seeing anything that can fix V. Whatever route you go -- if you skip war -- you're looking at little more than a lot of next turn marathons waiting for the SP level... or the next tech... or the next building to be built....
     
  6. Superluminal

    Superluminal Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Location:
    USA
    Gentlemen, we can rebuild it, we have the technology. We have the capability to build the best Civilization game. Civ V will be that game; better than it was before. Better, stronger, faster.
     
  7. .Wolff.

    .Wolff. Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    Inside your mind.
    xD That is amazing.

    But seriously.
    I really don't mean to sound rude or anything. It is all just my way of thinking on this subject...
     
  8. Bad Brett

    Bad Brett King

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    828
    :lol:
     
  9. polypheus

    polypheus Prince

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    372
    Exactly. Shafer chose to ramp up the war game part of it with an inappropriate tactical Panzer General system. But he totally dumbed-down the non war-game part of it. That is the essence of the problem.

    If he had put the same effort towards the non war-game part then that would be one thing. Heck,he could have thrown out all of Civ4 and redid it with more complex economy, multi-Civ pacts all sorts of new stuff and at least we are getting a Civ game, you know, one where you develop your Civ and war is only one component. But he seemed to want to make Civ primarily a war game as if you don't play it as such, there is almost no fun in it as the rest of the game is so shallow.

    Well guess what, if that's all I want I will just play "Rise of Nations". That is a much better war game than Civ5 will ever be! Heck Rise of Nations non-wargame aspect is even better than in Civ5!
     
  10. Leif Roar

    Leif Roar Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    You don't see an inherit conflict between these two statements?
     
  11. sketch162000

    sketch162000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    221
    Hey, I've been lurking here since the announcement of Civ V at E3, but this post was so honest and unapologetic that I had to comment. I wholeheartedly agree with you, Civ IV.5 would have been killer! It's so frustrating, because all Firaxis had to do was improve on BtS and Civ V would have been great! Instead, they tried to reinvent the wheel and came up with a mess of a game :(

    With that said, I'm a little more harsh than you are about what we should scrap from Civ V...

    Hexes are debatable, they don't really add anything except curvy, organic landscapes. In fact, they removed two directions, which is troublesome considering that 1upt forces you to arrange units in a formation.

    Agreed on City States, however CS's are frankly a little annoying with the quest spam. The incentive for interacting with CS's should be more than just sheer boredom. From what I've seen, they usually don't seem to command game breaking resources or strategic positions that the AI is willing to wage war over (or the AI doesn't really care,) so it kind of devolves into a popularity contest. I think the gold/influence mechanic is a bit unrealistic. Why not cultural influence? This would be a great application of religion.

    The borders-expanding-one-tile-at-a-time REALLY irks me, so I think it should be changed back to the Civ IV style. It takes entirely too long to determine the borders of your nation this way, and part of what made the early game of Civ IV fun was the land grab IMO--squabbling over strategic territories, vying for resources. Border conflicts, are less likely overall until later in the game, nigh impossible on a huge map. It rather seems like you have a collection of city-states rather than a unified nation. Maybe a system where cities have a workable radius(CiV style expansion) but there is also a cultural national border (cIV-style pulsing) would work more realistically. With national borders, it would be clearer where the AI draws the line, so that they are not knocking on your door complaining about arbitrary "land that is rightfully theirs."

    I do think that the 1upt is one of the better additions to the game, although limited stacking and the ability to move several units in formation with one click would make for less traffic jams.

    [/TEXTWALL]
     
  12. DarkSchneider

    DarkSchneider King

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Messages:
    739
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    Heh, I had forgotten how much fun I had with Rise of Nations. In retrospect that game was really ahead of its time.
     
  13. sketch162000

    sketch162000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    221
    QFT

    I think that there may be a bit of a philosophy problem in this release that you are hinting at. To paint with large brush strokes from my perspective, I imagine that people who enjoy CiV seem to be players who appreciate it more as a strategy game, like Risk or Stratego. There's a set of rules, there are different strategies, as long as the game balances, they are happy. The interesting context of human history is a bonus.

    On the other hand, people who are upset seem to appreciate the game as a simulation of human civilization, in particular. Changing history, sparring with famous leaders, impersonating a great nation, leading your people from the dawn of man into the future, culture, religion, monuments; All these cool things got nerfed in favor of the raw strategy component. (read:streamlining)


    [/TEXTWALL]
     
  14. zonk

    zonk Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    572
    And you know -- that's what generally pushes me from sad to mad...

    They could have seriously just kept all the non-war bells and whistles from BTS -- maybe tossed us the Social Policies bone as an add-on to Civics system, but focused on hex 1UpT as the 'main' evolution for V... and I think I would have been happy.

    It's not that I never fight wars - it's that it's not why I play Civilization. If I want to play a wargame - I generally load up Hearts of Iron or an AoE-type title.
     
  15. UKScud

    UKScud Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Hamilton, NZ
    Probably the best thing you could do is go spend a few dollars on a budget game called Civ4BTS...won't cost you much, quite old now. Play it a few times...try a few mods...

    ...and then come back and see if you understand what the fuss is about.
     
  16. troytheface

    troytheface Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,262
    that is like buying "pong"

    it is still fun too

    the evidence is clear- Civ5-for the moderns
     
  17. PAnz3r

    PAnz3r Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    Italy
    i agreed with the 3d starter, only a reflession:
    the hexes and the 1UPT rules can be one of the best improvment in the civ series, can bring to us a fantastic mix between tattical and strategic combat-move and, if you attach to this the new comunication network policies ( few road imply more value of these for supporting the front lines or transfer rapidly troop during defenses) , we can reach a completly newly level of combat....similar to historical "napoleonic strategic thought"
    I really like it and i can see a pre organized plan too reach it behind the CIV V bugs, give time and we can have one of the best civ ever ( if they still wanna work on it)
     
  18. zonk

    zonk Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    572
    ...who think Civilization should be primarily focused on warfare.
     
  19. BobeBrown

    BobeBrown Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    255
    The game flat out sucks. Keep dreaming and hoping. Firaxis clearly dont have the money or resources.
     
  20. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Those have to be really large brush strokes ;) I could point Sullla as a example of how a player that basically plays as much of Risk and previous civs and that does not talk about civness or whatever when he criticizes the game, but of core inbalancements due to not so well thought core rules ... that lead to the fact , like he said "Civ V is a very strange game", agame where you should raze instead of keep, where having more than 4 pop is actually a mistake and where buidngs are normally a bad investement .

    To be honest, I don't see how this game as it is can satisfy either the risk side or the historical simulation side. A game where you are better razing than keeping will not bode well for the first group, a game where cities with no buildings are the way to go will not bode well for the second.

    Like I asked once, I really don't see what was the target group for the game as it is. Maybe Jon Shafer ? ;)
     

Share This Page