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. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Very well said sketch162000. :)

    I too like to just play. If I happen to win, that's fine but my overall objective is to have fun. I also feel that ciV caters to people that just want to win. That's their main objective and why they play. I loved all the Civ series but I especially loved cIV. The sheer amount of options that were available to the player was wonderful. You could really tell a story when you played. The game came alive and the wonderful AARs reflected that.

    Sadly, I must agree with your final point. I don't think a mod (unless it changes pretty well everything) or an expansion is really going to change the fundamental design of the game.
     
  2. sketch162000

    sketch162000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    221
    Why does it have to be mutually exclusive? Can't a game be fun and immersive as well as strategically balanced? I think Civ IV BtS came pretty close to an ideal, particularly on multiplayer for strategy guys, since you could just omit things like tech trading.
     
  3. falconne

    falconne meep

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    204
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Who said anything about rushing? Or unconventional tactics? I'm talking about my second game. Once you've absorbed the depth of the game (which takes about an hour after installing it, maybe more if your machine is not uber spech'd), it's pretty hard to lose, since the AI doesn't understand it.

    I doubt the AI will ever be able to understand the mechanics as well as Civ veterans. Even the BtS AI never got close. Unlike Civ 4, the game doesn't have enough going on to keep a builder or immersion player interested and distracted from the poor AI; it's designed to be played to win. Without a challenging AI, it's pretty much a multiplayer's game.
     
  4. pazmacats

    pazmacats Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    108
    How about "Civilization IV 2" (followed by Civilization IV 3), Civ "5" should be considered a spin-off.
     
  5. Mustakrakish

    Mustakrakish In 'Node' We Trust

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,520
    Location:
    Grainvillage, Finland
    That is indeed a bad argument...

    1. Weren't you talking about creating military production cities? You really don't have to. You can just focus on making money, which you'll need to buy cultural buildings if you're going for cultural, buying science buildings if you're going for science, and especially if you're going for diplo. Doing that you'll have (or should at least) enough money in your treasury at all times so that you can neglect your army and when you face a threat, you buy the damn troops.
    Now some people like and some don't like the new money power system, but that's another story. the point is you definitely don't have to build military production and/or production city.

    2. There is no point in NOT building a market in your "science" city since markets don't have any maintenance cost.

    I always liked to do stuff like that too! :)
    I can't see why one couldn't do those things and more (well except for religions) in civ5. I found myself role playing in this game more that in civ4. But that is merely a taste/opinion thing and I'm not intending to say you're wrong or anything (that would be just silly), I'm just saying. :)

    Well I'm definitely the one who likes to "play"... Winning was never... rarely a priority to me. Often I would just jump in there and go with the flow without thinking of the victory condition I'm after and just enjoy the game. I recently had one of those games in civ5 on Earth standard overcrowded (I find that the Earth map is the most fun at the moment. I hate boring continents... just my gripe about the game) and it was quite fun... until I got bored of course :D, but that's what happened in civ4 too for me, when I would just go with the flow. The difference is I can have a "alright I'm bored, time to end this thing" victory in civ5... :lol: Which I HATE! It should be burned with FIRE!!!
     
  6. Penwa

    Penwa Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    114
    This is what I do/did. One of the reasons why I would continue to play with my civilization long after my spaceship left for alpha centuri.

    In Civ 5, I don't feel like playing one more turn and I haven't even finished playing my marathon game yet.

    Sad, but I have to agree. I would have prefered a IV.5
     
  7. Bad Brett

    Bad Brett King

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    828
    I play to win, but winning is no fun in Civ 5, simply because you use some basic tactics instead developing your own strategies during the game. Civ 5 is a game that a typical Starcraft player could learn to master. Go for horseback riding, raise all cities you can, spam trading posts, by colosseums.

    Several of the Civ 5 fans claim that Civ 4 actually was a lot easier and that they always ended up out-teching the AI on ANY difficulty level. I would like to see them record one of those games.
     
  8. OliverFA

    OliverFA Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    57
    100% agree. What's the point of buying a sequel if you want something different? Is like going to watch Terminator IV and expecting it to be a reflection about love and friendship :confused::eek: Or buying the new X-COM and expecting it to ba a FPS. Or... buying an apple and expecting it to taste like an orange.

    If some people "are finished" with CIV4 is just because there is no new material for it. Looks at Europa Universalis III. 3 expansions, and two more on the work simultaneously! Paradox understood it right.

    Fact: When a big part of the fanbase dislike the new game, something is wrong. You can debate endlessly about the reasons for this dislike. About how "wrong" or "right" are they to dislike the game, but something is wrong.
     
  9. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I know that they are releasing the 4th expansion pack (Divine Wind) for EU3 in December. Are they making another expansion pack as well?

    Anyway, you are perfectly right with your analogies. When we go to buy an apple, we don't expect to get an orange. Some change is good but a clear departure from the series is not.
     
  10. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    I feel that this is one of the points why some people are defending Civ0.V so much.

    They can win it. Based on the map size, whenever you have the feeling that your plans might go wrong, wage war. Game won.

    As an added incentive, you can do it on levels which (based on their name) are much higher than in previous versions, so you additionally get the feeling of having "mastered" the game.

    Wrong. It has been dumped down below ground floor.
     
  11. commofdoom

    commofdoom Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    24
    Location:
    Michigan
    an updated alpha centauri would make a :):):):) ton of money too.
     
  12. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,284
    Maybe they should just finish the features included in civ IV before adding any, like fixing:

    - Hotkey commands
    - User interface lies
    - Events
    - AI attempting any VC other than culture
    - Apostolic Palace
    - Diplo resolution choice
    - Vassal state mechanics (it is possible to have a vassal and the fact that you have it prevents capitulation, but if you delete YOUR OWN VASSAL in worldbuilder, the civ will capitulate!)
    - Spawn balance vs AI expansion rate (no reason 1 AI gets 3 cities while another gets 20 when neither are even choked off, and there's no reason someone should be choked off)
    - Overflow was knowingly bugged and never officially fixed in the FINAL patch
    - I could go on.

    Civ V definitely needs a lot of work, but if it actually reaches the title of "complete game", it will beat its predecessor, I don't care how different the two are.
     
  13. Shiggs713

    Shiggs713 Immortal

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,361
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    my thoughts exactly.
     
  14. OliverFA

    OliverFA Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    57
    In my opinion, there is with just one important change: Difficulty levels.

    Why difficulty levels have to be related only to AI "intelligence" and AI bonuses? Just make the game very simple and basic at easy level. And then bring gradually more concepts and more control over the empire as the difficulty level raises. To provide a very simple sample. Easy level could not have unit upkeep, medium level could have something like global upkeep and hard level would have complex upkeep based on each unit. And the same for all the different concepts.
     
  15. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    So you keep playing, till the end, aldo you know forhand that you ain't gonna make it ?
    Well, if so then i think you are a unique person :)
     
  16. OliverFA

    OliverFA Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    57
    In fact is more like a stand alone expansion pack or EUIII.5. They are developing a new version o EUIII that includes all the features from the Magna Mundi mod in the game source code.

    If they manage to develop good tutorials and include simpler scenarios for new people to start learning their games, they would appeal to a lot more people.
     
  17. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Um, yes? International politics and power plays regarding the holdings of Spain in Latin America were central to the whole pirate thing, and laid the seeds of its ignominious defeat during the Spanish-American War. Conflict between Engand and Argentina remain limited to conflicts between England and Argentina. Brazil doesn't care. When America went to war with Mexico, the entirety of the militaries of South America didn't come marching up.

    Some people like to think that history is what happened after ww2. This is not so. If this were true, then we ought to do away with France, Germany, and England, and just lump them in under one Civ. Yeah, that would be real popular, I imagine.


    Er...

    You don't have to keep your Civ at 5 or 6 cities to win Cultural. Generally, that would take longer, since you don't generate as much culture. More dangerous, too.

    Expanding your empire in Civ has always required choosing particular governments policies, or buildings. This is not more true in Civ V than it was before. In fact, there are more ways to have an expansive empire in Civ V because there are more mechanics that allow for it.

    You can refocus a domination into Culture, and Culture into Domination.

    The point there was historical immersion. Having a lot of options leading to silly results still doesn't do anything for historical immersion.

    Well, how soon are you reaching the Modern Era anyway? I estimate 1800s to be about turn 260-280. In all of my games at King level, there were no places to place a settler profitably even before this turn signature. Every place has been settled and is being developed.

    In Civ V, I can get to a position on the board where there are 10-12 City States and 7 Civs surviving to Modern Era. I have never played a game in Civ IV where there were 20 personalities on the board at so late a date.

    Not at all. There are temples. There is culture. There is the Piety Tree. Religion has simply be relegated to backdrop status, where it should be. Civ isn't fine-grained enough to really have the space for religion, or corporations, for that matter.

    Realistically, people of the same religion were at least just as prone to schism and declaring each other mortal enemies as they were to unite and be friends forever. How the hell is this going to be useful as a game mechanic, if it just replicates what already normally happens between neighbors?

    Pardon me, but I've been basically stumbling my war around Civ V for these few weeks and I seem to have no trouble whatsoever winning at King. Civ V is not punishing me enough, it seems, to have the temerity to build roads everywhere as Rome, or to build the Colossus as Greece, or to build the Angkor Wat as Siam, when all of these are supposedly useless extravagances.

    I have no grand strategy. I don't even wage war much, since I'm a builder player by nature. I survive just fine.

    I've played a scattered, sea-strung empire as England, using Ships of the Line to enforce my holdings and defend my cities.

    I've played a Forest-driven game using Iroquoi and their Longhouses.

    I've invaded Germany and defeated England with Camel Archers as Arabia. Then I emptied their treasuries by selling them luxuries.

    You can sling to Artillery and crush your opponents that way in Civ V. Or you can play the Civs against each other and participate using City States for proxy wars. You can win with Science, with floods of units, or with Gold.

    The leaders also have individual quirks. Gandhi and Ramkhamhaeng don't like violence. Napoleon and Alexander readily respect military might. Catherine appears to like luxury trading a lot, and Bismarck is an interfering busybody. Both Hiwatha and Darius are both REXing, expansionist fools.

    I mean, I'm no expert or anything, but I did uncover all this in Civ V.

    falconne:

    You say that, but all I hear is that you're disappointed that it's not Civ 4.5! I'm not averse to war or conquest, but I'm a builder player at heart, and I play at King, so obviously, I'm not playing for the challenge or the win.

    Right now, I'm trying to figure out how to get more of my cities past size 30. I've done it already with two cities in one game. Now I'm trying for 10. I initially thought size 20+ was very large, but since achieving multi-size 20 cities, I no longer think so. It's clear that Civ V cities can be larger.

    Do you understand the mechanics enough to achieve this quickly? If so, I'd be happy to get tips - I'm having trouble busting past size 27 fast enough.

    I'm also trying to figure the point of some of the Policies, like Representation, or many of the Autocracy Trees. +33% Strength for 20 turns sounds immensely powerful, but I've yet to use it. Done Autocracy, though. Very strong for domination.

    I've built most of the Wonders already, but I haven't actually gone on and noted the specific effects or how to leverage. Taj, I think, I can leverage well enough, as well as all the Great People Wonders, but both Hagia and Hanging Gardens eludes me at the moment.

    I've tried Trade Route Economy, Trade Post Economy, and some form of Hammer Economy at present. At higher levels, it seems you can just rely on AI gold to support your entire economy. This was not possible in Civ IV!

    I feel no shame in saying that I did not fully grasp all the intricacies of large city and small city dynamics in one hour. Truly, I did not. Perhaps it benefits me that I'm stupid enough not to understand Civ V as well as you.
     
  18. deanej

    deanej Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    New York State
    I give up. You gave a modern example as to why you think civ4 is unrealistic and I gave you a modern example as to why it's close enough and now you complain that a modern example is irrelevant. And yes, it is CLOSE ENOUGH. I did not claim perfectly accurate. If you want perfectly accurate, your only recourse is to invent a time machine.
     
  19. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    deanej:

    You got the wrong impression. I didn't say that your example was irrelevant. I said that history was relevant, so lumping all the European nations doesn't work whatsoever, particularly because every Civ has had many, many European Nations, and no South American or Latin American nations that could could call "Brazil," or "Mexico." I mean, unless you mean that Mexico is currently ruled by Montezuma.

    It's not close enough. Not at all.
     
  20. deanej

    deanej Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    New York State
    It works for current events. I made no claim that it worked for earlier events. I was only describing the situation TODAY. I stick by my point that representing all of Latin America as one country is close enough - ever hear of a limited war? I can't think of a single conflict besides the Panama Revolution between Latin America countries that has affected anything outside of the region, and the Panama Revolution is just as easily represented by the US taking over Panama (in a civ game at least).

    I only play RFC and FFH in civ4 these days, so the idea of new civ spawns after 4000 BC is the norm for me. Curiously, this takes care of all the problems with representing all of history.
     

Share This Page