Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Korbac]

There we go. A straight up question. Worth it for £20? (I have plenty of money at the moment.)

I liked Civ 3 and I though Civ 4 was a solid improvement. I've played the demo of Civ 5 : Gods and Kings and it seems to be really good! Anything I should be aware of?

Cheers community.

[LoSboccacc]

I liked it a lot.

it is quite different, play quite differently than the third and fourth, is more like the first: war is a viable strategy even in early ages (I got a city from china in a game using a warrior and an archer) and the experience is 'streamlined' meaning less micromanagement of cities.

there are some bads, too: no complex decision to be made in empire wide management and a lot of unit micromanagement in late games.

I paid full price and I'm happy with it.
it is definitely worth the discounted sale price that happens sometimes on steam.

[Johnfalcon99977]

Basically what greatorder said. If you insist on getting CiV, then you must also get the Gods and Kings expanison, which improves the gameplay a lot. Civ4 is still better, however.

[LoSboccacc]

I think most people disliking civ V are trying to play civ V as if it were an updated civ 4.

you should approach it with a clean mind and play it as a hexagonal war game with a deep resupply simulation, not as a shallow empire simulation with deepened combat.

[Korbac]

Thanks to the three of you. I think I'll leave it for now then.

[puke]

Dont mean to derail, but the Qout Capita mod collection for Civ4 BtS really extended my gameplay experience.  I would have stopped playing much sooner, but that mod really made it enjoyable for a much longer time.  I'll still pick it up now and again.

It isnt updated anymore, but it's pretty well "done" I think. Should try it out if you havent seen it yet.

[Knight of Fools]

I see it more as a different tune of music than other Civ games. They essentially dumped all of the complex stuff for a streamlined, accessible experience. It's enjoyable, can be paced to your liking, and feels like a grand game of chess with the way the unit movements work.

My biggest piece of advice for having more fun is to turn the difficulty up once you've familiarized yourself with the game. Contrary to most game designs, the AI in Civ5 will actively cheat in your favor. It's supposed to make the players feel nice about themselves, but it won't work on you now. I've gone and spoiled the illusion for you.

Pros: Fun, different, and refined from older versions. Most beautiful Civ to date, even on low settings. You'll get your money's worth out of it, sale or no sale.

Cons: Simple; the refining process left out a lot of complexity in favor of appealing to a broader audience.

[fenrif]

I think most people disliking civ V are trying to play civ V as if it were an updated civ 4.

you should approach it with a clean mind and play it as a hexagonal war game with a deep resupply simulation, not as a shallow empire simulation with deepened combat.

It's almost as if by naming the game "Civ 5" they were presenting it as a sequel to the previous game in the Civ series, and that implies a certain level of continuity in terms of how the games play and what players should expect from them.

[Korbac]

I see it more as a different tune of music than other Civ games. They essentially dumped all of the complex stuff for a streamlined, accessible experience. It's enjoyable, can be paced to your liking, and feels like a grand game of chess with the way the unit movements work.

My biggest piece of advice for having more fun is to turn the difficulty up once you've familiarized yourself with the game. Contrary to most game designs, the AI in Civ5 will actively cheat in your favor. It's supposed to make the players feel nice about themselves, but it won't work on you now. I've gone and spoiled the illusion for you.

Pros: Fun, different, and refined from older versions. Most beautiful Civ to date, even on low settings. You'll get your money's worth out of it, sale or no sale.

Cons: Simple; the refining process left out a lot of complexity in favor of appealing to a broader audience.

Cheers, KoF. While I am happy that the doomstack's of old are gone, and that it's streamlined, I didn't really play Civ for the War (More the Science / Culture.) It's a shame since the new game has a much better culture system, but oh well.

Ninja Fenrif - True, but I think they're about the same thing even if the gameplay mechanics have changed slightly.

[Satarus]

I liked the hexes and the 1UpT certainly makes you think more about war than simply marching your doom stack.  I easily held a choke point with 2 archer units and 3 melee units that I cycled through to my fort until I had bled him dry.  I also liked the social polices as a natural evolution of your civ's civics.  However it does mean that you don't have the flexibility to just switch from a peaceful building civic to a wartime civic by eating a few turns of anarchy or burning a golden age.

[Eagleon]

I enjoyed Civ5 a lot, and I've been playing civ games since the first. Unit stacking always felt very gamey to me - actually 5 was the first time I found myself having fun waging war, rotating out cavalry to the fields after a strike, covering the sidelines to prevent the enemy's reinforcements from striking at my core offensive, unit healing actually mattering... Usually when all-out war starts is when I start a new game or move on, but for 5 it was much less tedious. City growth is more interesting, too, rather than being expanding circles of lolcity.

On the other hand, I definitely miss the mods of 4. Hopefully the Steam workshop will attract some more experienced and original modders down the line, because all I'm seeing from the larger mods is either grammar implosions that persistently makes you feel like you're getting a Russian trojan, or boring giant balancing mods for vanilla.

[LoSboccacc]

I think most people disliking civ V are trying to play civ V as if it were an updated civ 4.

you should approach it with a clean mind and play it as a hexagonal war game with a deep resupply simulation, not as a shallow empire simulation with deepened combat.

It's almost as if by naming the game "Civ 5" they were presenting it as a sequel to the previous game in the Civ series, and that implies a certain level of continuity in terms of how the games play and what players should expect from them.

 

btw, if you want to play a game like civ 4, you have civ 4; I'm glad they experimented a bit, even with mixed results. can't wait for civ 6! 

[Errol]

Is probably worth it, but I would wait for a sale. Also, the longer you wait the greater the chance of one of those amazing mods coming around.

Civ4BtS is the classic though. If you like grand strategy it definitely will give you bang for your buck.

[LoSboccacc]

it is funny because those where the same arguments for civ iv against civ 3. but it's simpler! look, no pollution! but it is streamlined! less micro and more management!



well, to be honest it is only with BtS that there is enough meat to make it interesting.

[pisskop]

Nope.  Well, to be fair, I stopped after my single archer and the city it defended raped the ai army on Deity...

The systems were bad.  The ai stunk, the diplomacy was smasha-and-grab, the combat system and hexagon system had potnetial, but a beacon in the dark is too little...

Oh, and I still have cIV to play