Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
p.s.: thinkgs you dislike in Civ 4 are the reason why i play it. :D For some people the chess is still a relevant game, even though there are only 2 teams and the map is pretty small xD
I completely agree that the AI is not great Ghetsis; I think this is a fair point. However, I think the AI is as poor in Civ IV. I remember winning some Civ IV games very easily and with little effort.
I also think you have a point about the AI struggling to master one unit per hex.
However, there are some benefits to it. Instead of two doomstacks smashing together with the strongest defensive counter always being selected by the defending doomstack, UUs and counter units (for the attacker) are more meaningful.
I think poor AI is something that (unfortunately) afflicts all strategy games. The only way to make it harder is to give the AI artificial advantages.
Hence the criticism Civ V's AI is bad must be stated in light of the poor Civ IV AI too and, because it is comparitive, means we should focus on areas of more significant difference.
I'm not too sure what you arguing here. Civ V has much more in common than Civ IV than chess lol!
If you are saying you prefer Civ IV because it has more simplistic systems than that is fine. You seem to acknowledge and agree with me that Civ V is more complex.
However, I prefer complexity over simplicity. Thus why I have a preference for Civ V.
The AI is no better in IV than V overall, the difference however that is most noticeable as a player is that the AI can use a deathstack and later game support it with bombers in Civ IV. In Civ V however the AI can't figure out how to soften a city then move in melee to capture. They body block their melee with ranged troops alowing you to pick off the nearest melee units preventing them from capturing no matter what kind of advantage their attacking force should have.
Landing boats are used even worse with enemies sending troops to sea in range of your cities instead of properly using the land.
The entire system for Civ 5 is designed for multiplayer and thats where it excels.
Have you ever seen the real world? How often countries change over the course of the years? ♥♥♥♥ mate, Germany went from imperialistic guys, to anti military. To absolute military and genocide superioritists and then to the absolute opposide in the course of 100 years.
Politics are in constant change, no country that has been founded 1000 years ago is even remotely the same as it used to be. In these 100 years in the real world, germany went from imperial, to democracy, to dictatorship and to democracy again. And if you take 200 years you'd have a split of a bunch of different kings and stuff go to unifiying. Not even counting having one part of the country go to socialism and the other become socio capitalist and then unifying again.
It makes way more sense if a country can change its politics time and time again.
2. The warmongering. Such a nice system where I can't take cities of enemies that attack me because everyone hates me afterwards. Its not like normally you'd invade the city and in the peace treaty you can be like "Yeah you get it back for this and that". But this is not possible in Civ V. Its also not in Civ IV but at least people don't ♥♥♥♥ around it and be annoying.
3. One unit per tile is absolutely stupid? Do you know how big Civ V tiles are? 10,000 square kilometers. This is 100 times 100 kilometers.
I have archers that can shoot 200 kilometers far. I can only put a single warship in a 10,000km² tile. I could fit the entire fleet of every nation in the whole world into a tile that big.
4. The AI is horrible
5. I can't control my economy. I cannot control how much I want to invest in science. Every science building I have, will produce 100% all the time. If I have economic problems or want to focus military? Well too bad. I want to have more culture? Culture slider doesn't exist. I want to spy all the nations? Well you only get like 3 spies as a continential spanning empire. ♥♥♥♥ you mate, I want to invest billions into my spies. I want to see what other nations do etc.
6. I'm in the information age and I still don't know ♥♥♥♥ about half of the landmass because the game blocked trading of maps for having world wonders that give bonus on finding them.
7. The global happiness. Why the hell would all of my people suddenly go into a mad rage when one city is going to ♥♥♥♥?
I don't even care about most stuff in the game because the unrealism of it already makes it nearly unplayable for me. And stuff like tourism I safely ignored half the time. Ohh also, the seemingly impossibility of having a vast empire is stupid. I understand in the beginning but when I get to industrial age+?
I also never got why people said you would only have the bigger doomstack smash the not as big doomstack. Have you guys ever heard of artillery? Artillery is the holy mother of the battlefield.
“You can’t describe the moral lift,
when in the fight your spirits weary
hears above the hostile fire,
Your own artillery.
Shells score the air like wavy hair
from a forward battery.
As regimental cannon crack
While from positions further back,
in bitter sweet song overhead
crashing discordantly
Division’s pounding joins the attack;
Mother like she belches shell;
Glorious it flies, and well,
As, with a hissing screaming squall,
A roaring furnace, giving all,
she sears a path for the infantry….”
In short: Hail artillery. Normally I would build 30 artillery cannons and proceed to bomb the ♥♥♥♥ out of the enemy doomstack. Then I attack with my people. I doesn't matter if the doomstack has 100 or 200 guys. It doesn't matter to a big field bombardmend.
1. You obviously know very little about history...Germany is a very young country and has only existed for around 150 years sport...oh dear!
Germany barely conquered anywhere by the start of the 1st World War. It held less overseas territory than the UK, France, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal historically. Hence you could argue that Germany didn't act on imperialist notions or were bad on acting out those imperialist notions.
This can be represented in the game as unlocking non-martial social policy trees...then going down the 'Autocracy' ideology tree (which has martial bonuses) in the industrial/modern era.
Hence Germany's path can be very well modelled by Civ V social policies and ideology.
Whining about a system you evidently don't know about and a country you evidently don't understand is not a very effective argument.
You have also done nothing to undermine the premise, which is, Civ V is more complex than Civ IV.
You have merely tried to argue it 'doesn't model history very well.' This argument clearly fails as well.
a) I will address the rest of your arguments after I get back from a visit tomorrow.
Aldo the one unit per tile, may sound great on paper, but was (strategically wise) horrible, as for conquering an city, you need to have troops waiting their turn, like lemmings...This situation was even worse, when your target was on a little land mass...
And I don't talk about the elephants who need...nothing to be build, not even the ivory who was ON the map...
The real good point for CIV5, was the mods (I never play Vanilla anymore), for making the game more difficult, and putting more meat for it, correcting the more annoying parts in the process.
On my side, I rather play an Civ 4 (which contain the illness and the morally questionable policy (like slaves), but these parts of history were too grim for CIV5-CIV6, right?
Or better, play an game with the mod C2C, which I use so much that it was rare for me to play an Vanilla game.
The simple fact is that if Civ 5 (complete) was a significant improvement over Civ 4 (complete), very few if any people would play CIv 4 anymore.
2) If you are taking other civ's cities and eliminating other civs, the other civs remaining are going to be annoyed with you...
Perhaps try and form some friendships with other civs or, when another (warmongering) civ asks you to go to war with one of their enemies, agree.
3) I disagree that a one unit per tile is 'stupid.' It means you have to plan a war; how you will attack a city and determine unit placement. It adds complexity...
You do realise Civ is an abstraction...archers firing 2 hexes simulates their ability to fight and skirmish. Hence they are not firing over a huge distance, they are closing within range of their target before withdrawing...
Their is little strategy to Civ IV warring; get a deathstack that is weighted in certain proportions and then aim it at an enemy city...
4) The AI is horrible in pretty much every strategy game. This can be overcome by increasing the difficulty level and/or playing multiplayer against real opponents.
Remember, we are comparing Civ V to Civ IV here...not Civ V vs perfection. The Ai in Civ IV is very bad. It have never seen it build a decent navy...but I have seen this in Civ IV.
5) Err...yes you can control your economy! Build building that cohere with your objectives...you want to get more money? Build trading posts, markets, international trade routes etc.
You want science? More population, science buildings and research agreements.
More spying, build recon units and give them sentry etc etc etc.
6) Err...it's called exploration...
7) Civil disobedience in once city can lead to civil disobedience in other cities. Check out the London riots in 2011, there were subsequent riots in other British cities. There are so many examples...
Global happiness is good. It means cities don't have to be cookie-cutter copies of each other. You can use global happiness to address local unhappiness in one city. Think of it in terms of directing luxury goods into one city to keep it happy.
NO, you are describing the effect OF artillery on the morale of allied soldiers...Not the actual effectiveness of artillery winning battles.
If artillery was so overwhelmingly effective, why was there stalemate on the Western Front (WW1) for years?
1) You think having to negotiate a treaty to spread your religion outweighs the complexity of constructing a religion that can help you win the game?! I disagree and I am sure most reasonable people would also agree that selecting 5 /6 tenets that are geared to helping you and not an opponent, is more complex that offering a treaty.
2) Conquering cities in Civ V is fine if you prepare properly for it. If you don't, you will fall short and fail.
3) I don't think someone can advocate for greater complexity vis-a-vis strategic resources vs Civ V.
One resource allows you to build an infinite amount of units! In Civ V you have to acquire multiple strategic resources to build a large and diverse military.
Again, this is the typical bullcrap you hear. You have provided no arguments to back up your assertion! Answer me these questions:
1) Justify why Civ IV is more complex in terms of social policy/civics, when you can change your civics at the drop of the hat? This allows players to rectify their poor earlier choices.
In CIv V you have to make long term strategic choices in terms of policies; you can't undo your choices.
Civ V clearly requires longer term and consequently more complex strategic thinking.
2 )Justify why Civ IV is more complex in terms of religion, when your religion is exactly the same as other religions? Same benefits and just spread.
In Civ V you have to make long term decisions about the benefits your religion will give followers, you have to ensure it benefits your civ more than the other civs it spreads to. You have 5/6 choices in this regard.
Civ V clearly requires more complex thinking here.
3) Justify why Civ IV is more complex in terms of strategic resources, when you one resource gives you an infinite supply of that resource?
In Civ V you have to control as many strategic resources as possibel to ensure you always have an up to date military. Hence you need to think about where you need cities and how to control the surrounding area.
Civ V clearly demands more complex thinking here.
4) Justify why Civ IV is more complex in terms of trade routes, when it is all automated (ect Mercantilism) for you?
In Civ V you choose which civs and cities you trade with. There is a complex web of money, science, religious pressure and tourism (cultural pressure) to consider when making decisions here.
Civ V clearly demands more complex thinking here. Civ IV required no thinking here lol.
This is why I laugh when you make assertions based of no argumentation.
Civ V is absolutely unrealistic. I don't care if it is more complex to have only one unit per tile. If you make the tiles 10.000km² big then it is totally stupid. Make the tiles 10km² big and give us 1000 times the tiles (also around cities) and I'm with you.
I don't care if it requires more long term thinking to develop social politics, if it makes no sense as to why I cannot change them. No ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ country in the world has held the same politics for 5000 years. It is absolutely normal for countries to change.
Point 3 is what I don't like about Civ IV but I have C2C for that one.
Point 4: Because I can only have like what? 8 trade routes? Why would a continent spanning empire have only 8 trade routes? It would make 10 times more sense if the trade routes would be per city not per empire. Also it is not all that often that Emperors diskuss the trade routes. Especially in later stages it is way more often that trade routes are simply done by the people.
We can of course always Diskuss about what Civ V has that Civ IV doesn't and completly ignore what Civ IV has that Civ V doesn't.
Civ IV I can control my funding for Science, spys and culture. I have spare money and need more science? Fund science more. I really want to know what Napoleon is doing in his country? Lets invest more into my spies and put the majority of the generated points towards napoleon.
I want to know what is going on in other places? Lets trade maps or later, build a satellite.
I need to control the illness in my cities, I also need to be sure everyone is happy. Unlike CiV V people don't just stop breeding when unhappy. Otherwise we would have way more children in First world countries and none in third world ones.
2) You can acquire new policies, hence your development doesn't just stay still...how do you acquire new policies in Civ IV? Technology...how do you found a religion? Technology...everything is a function of technology in Civ IV. How unrealistic is this?
4) This is hilarious..you criticise Civ V for limiting trade routes...but Civ IV gets a free card when it also limits trade routes too?
You arbitrarily define the correct amount of trade routes as that found in Civ IV without any justification lol!
There is a limit because of balance obviously.
I could state, a large empire only has 6 cities?! In real life a large empire has thousands of settlements...
Both Civ IV and V abstract the management of empire, so critiquing one means you must be prepared to acknowledge similar critiquing of the other. You don't seem to realise this.
Civ V you can control:
Science
Culture
Spying
Economy
I want more science? I build try to maximise population in a city/cities and build science buildings. I want more culture? I select social policies that give me more culture and build cultural buildings/employ great writers/artists/musicians.
Productivity is hit when people are unhappy because of civil disobedience...food production is affected to.
The funniest civic 'slavery.' When you utilise slavery you can lose a huge amount of population...when in reality, you enact slavery it increases the population...as you have to import slaves...
Stop talking about 'realism', you are making me laugh!
You keep bringing that up but you're wrong about it making V more "complex"
In Civ 5 you set your social policies based on what Civ you play or what victory you are aiming for. This becomes a very static setup, you know before hand what policy trees you want to max and what individual policies you wish to obtain early making it a very static system once you have played a few games.
In 4 changing civics causes anarchy, that means you have to weigh up lost turns vs civic benefits throughout the game.
Personally I see Civ V as a multiplayer game and Civ IV as a single player game. The 2 are so functionally different that a direct point by point comparison becomes a ridiculous task.
Most people will have certain mechanics they like and their opinions will show bias towards the game they prefer.