From this thread: http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=51...postcount=5689
See, that's what I've heard about Civ V
everywhere - less complexity. From what the guys over at the Giant Bombcast were saying about that game it seems to fit my needs perfectly - a layman's Civ
, if you will
I wouldn't say that it's a layman's Civ, in several areas it's more complex than Civ IV. It's just more bare-bones right now because it doesn't have any expansions. I remember that Civ IV was also criticised by some people when it was originally released because it was simpler than Civ III with its expansion packs. Many of the diplomatic elements that I miss in Civ V, such as the ability to create vassal states, weren't even in the base Civ IV game but were added in the expansions. Civ V will probably be the same, they might implement the "missing" features such as religion and colony states so that when Civ VI rolls around people will complain that it's not as complex as Civ V.
Well that's good for me getting Civ 4. I love complexity in my games, and to be honest, I'm not that fussed about the combat system. I'm a good strategist, but I make for an appalling tactician.
My problem with combat in Civ IV was how boring it was. You made a stack and then you beelined it to the nearest enemy city. You didn't have to worry so much about enemy units or your supply lines as the enemy would usually pump all their units into defending their city. It was dull, dull, dull.
In Civ V, you've got to choose where you place units carefully, and you have to pay close attention to where enemy units are. In my most recent game, I went to war with the Japanese and we had only a three-tile border, so I had to move my large army through a narrow bottle-neck while also contending with Japanese counter attacks. It was the most satisfying conflict I ever had in a Civ game because my decisions about where I placed my units made a huge difference to the war, which isn't something that I felt was true of Civ IV.