Civilization V

[TheGodBen]

From this thread: http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=51...postcount=5689

SPCTRE wrote:

---

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.

Eyes wrote:

---

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.

[Robert Maxwell]

I really need to try Civ V and at least see what all the fuss is about. I have it on Steam, just haven't gotten around to playing it--I've got like 20-odd games I bought in a bundle and haven't played most of them yet!

[SPCTRE]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

I really need to try Civ V and at least see what all the fuss is about. I have it on Steam, just haven't gotten around to playing it--I've got like 20-odd games I bought in a bundle and haven't played most of them yet!

Yeah I know how that feels

Thanks for the reply TGB, I'll definitely check Civ V out when I get around to it.

[Eyes]

TheGodBen wrote:

---

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.

Civ V does seem interesting, and while I'm not that bothered about combat, a better combat system is always welcome. I might check it out if I like Civ IV.

Hopefully by then there'll be some expansion packs as well.

[Robert Maxwell]

Eyes wrote:

---

Civ V does seem interesting, and while I'm not that bothered about combat, a better combat system is always welcome. I might check it out if I like Civ IV.

Hopefully by then there'll be some expansion packs as well.

Just wait until Civ VI comes out, then they should slash the price of Civ V.

[Lindley]

While I understand why they removed it, I still kind of miss the ability to buy cities wholesale (finance revolts) in Civ 2 if your economy was strong enough. It was a simple way to expand your influence without causing a major incident (unless you wanted to).

[Robert Maxwell]

Lindley wrote:

---

While I understand why they removed it, I still kind of miss the ability to buy cities wholesale (finance revolts) in Civ 2 if your economy was strong enough. It was a simple way to expand your influence without causing a major incident (unless you wanted to).

Yeah, that was always fun. One thing I never liked about the diplomacy AI in any version is that real horse-trading would never happen unless one side completely outclassed the other--which would result in the superior side demanding cities and tribute.

In the real world, a bloody war with good odds on stalemate would result in significant trades on both sides: territory, goods, money, etc. In Civ IV I could occasionally get civilizations to trade cities to me, but again--only when I totally outclassed them and the city was indefensible to begin with.

[137th Gebirg]

IIRC, Civ V also removed the ability to culturally annex nearby cities that belong to other nations - something which I enjoyed doing as I was going for a culture victory. I also miss the use of religion in the culture wars as well. It was an extra dynamic that added to the mix. But I agree, the combat is definitely more fluid with this new system.

[Arrqh]

TheGodBen wrote:

---

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.

I had a bit of the opposite experience yesterday that also demonstrates how much better the combat is. I was trying to take an English city that was past a choke point, made even more difficult by a mountain I had to maneuver around. It was during the medieval period so the English had Longbowmen instead of crossbows... which aside from being a big stronger, also have a range of 3 instead of the standard 2. Given the location this gave the English a huge tactical advantage that I wasn't prepared for so despite my superior numbers and slightly superior technology I was simply unable to take the city. I couldn't get units in fast and in large enough number to get passed their ranged defenses. Because of my poor planning and the terrain I had no choice but to pull out of that war.

In Civ IV, I just would have had to build a massive stack and move it in. No tactics, no planning beyond building enough units. It would have been much easier to take the city, but also much less interesting and certainly less complex.

Incidentally, I played that whole game from start to finish without stopping for a time of about 7 hours. I think I need to give Civ 5 a rest for a few days for my sanity's sake

[137th Gebirg]

^^^ Heh - it is addicting. I had two 6 hour sessions last weekend. Wiped out the Arabs, English and Indians. Arabs were the most aggressive and a VERY tough nut to crack. The English were a little more weak and the Indians only had their capital city after England took all the others. Love this game!

My only REAL complaint is this game's frequent need for a map refresh, graying out the tiles and slowing down the movement every time the refresh moves up the screen. Several patches have marginally sped it up in the past year but it's still dog-ass slow.

[TheGodBen]

137th Gebirg wrote:

---

I also miss the use of religion in the culture wars as well. It was an extra dynamic that added to the mix.

I never cared much about religion as a cultural thing, I always used it as a political tool. I would always switch to the state religion of my most powerful neighbour to get in their good books and then spread that religion around my empire as much as I could. You know, like the way religion used to work in the real world. It's a pity that it wasn't included, city states aren't as interesting politically.

Another major thing I miss is the old happiness system. Happiness working on the city level made more sense than it does working on a civilization-wide basis, and it forced you to deal with the cities as separate entities with different needs. Unhappiness in one city used to cripple production there and forced you to deal with the problem, but in Civ 5 one city can be full of unhappy people and the problem can be ignored so long as happiness is high enough in all the other cities.

[Alidar Jarok]

I'm glad this thread was bumped. I think the game's improved a lot since it started. If you have money to shell out for the DLC, there are two new ones coming out (one involving the Seven Wonders of the World and probably Sumeria, the other involving Korea). If not, I think the game is solid these days. When they started, I think they removed some of Civ4's strategies (involving religion, etc), but didn't really replace them. Now they've found good synergy with the social policy system, city-states, and new small wonders they've added with patches.

I still think Civ4 is the best strategy game ever, but Civ5 is quite a lot of fun. The combat is heads and shoulders above and the production value with the uniqueness of each civ (including leaders, audio, as well as play style) is quite good.

[Kelthaz]

I've been meaning to play Civ 5 for a while now, but hearing repeatedly that the A.I is dumb as a stump has put me off the game. Have there been any patches or expansions to improve the AI yet?

[Alidar Jarok]

Patches have improved it quite a bit. They'll still make some tactical mistakes in battle, but a human can always outsmart an AI in combat. They generally don't make game breaking mistakes (worse case, they'll lose a catapult, not their army). But they're pretty good at defense these days and are capable at offensive attacks to take cities. The rest of the AI was good for the most part and still is.

[TheGodBen]

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

If you have money to shell out for the DLC, there are two new ones coming out (one involving the Seven Wonders of the World and probably Sumeria, the other involving Korea).

Are the DLC civilizations worth it? I'm reluctant to get them as it seems like they're nickel and diming us for things that would be cheaper together in a full expansion pack, but I do miss the variety of civilizations and leaders from Civ IV.