Print

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

[Alastar]

Sure.

Combat system is difficult to write an adequate AI for and allows one to punish tactical weaknesses very harshly. Not a big problem for Panzer General clones, but you can't compensate as well with handicaps, numbers and level design in an open-ended empire simulator.

It also doesn't handle many units gracefully. As a consequence, maximum possible military production and buildup needed to be kept under tight control (the necessary changes also limit effect of player choice in other contexts).

Global happiness was supposed to hamper infinite horizontal growth. At launch it did the opposite, after a (mechanically ugly) fix it did little. "More is better" is less fun than trade-offs. Admittedly, there are options encouraging a "developed cities only" approach but it's very much a binary thing.

Easy per-city-bonuses and low relevance of terrain make cities samey. Less tough decisions that arise naturally.

Put much more eloquently than I could (I just ranted in forums...) here: http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/civ5editorials.html

[TheFryingWeegee]

Civ 5 forces you to use or get Steam.
Steam is the worst platform of its kind that I have encountered.

[Starver]

While my own experiences of it are in accordance, due to actively avoiding it I don't know if it's still quite so bad, and I've seen some people rave quite highly about the usability of Steam, so I expect to see some refutations (or at lest vehement contradictions) any time soon.  Be prepared to justify yourself.

(My own justification is probably way out of date, so I won't go into my own bad experiences right now.)

[Truean]

One thing I will absolutely say about Civ 5 that does suck: no in game map editor.

There are some fan made things that do come close (the fan can do it but not the company? really?), they don't update the tile graphic until after you reload the game. (This is Fraxis' fault, not the fan who made the mod).

Civ 4 does have a good game editor. Civ 5 does not. Why? There's no reason. Yes, Civ 5 gives the ability to mod at a highly technical level, but a huge part of the fan base is not so technically proficient as to actually know how to use it. There's no reason they couldn't make a simple tile paint/plop function.

[Donuts]

Civ 4 because Caveman2Cosmos. It's got bear cavalry.

[RedKing]

I initially did not like Civ 5, but as I've played it some more, I really like some of the diplomatic options, like the ability to funnel troops to a city-state to create a proxy war.

Overall though, I still prefer Civ 4. Especially the Fall From Heaven 2 mod.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I initially did not like Civ 5, but as I've played it some more, I really like some of the diplomatic options, like the ability to funnel troops to a city-state to create a proxy war.

Actually, that's got me wondering: Are there any games that are at least moderately good at depicting proxy-war diplomacy? I can only think of Hearts of Iron.

[10ebbor10]

Civ 5 forces you to use or get Steam.
Steam is the worst platform of its kind that I have encountered.

Never met Origin, I presume?

[Helgoland]

No one mentions Civ3? A childhood memory of mine... still play it today. I never got the hang of Civ4.

[Donuts]

No one mentions Civ3? A childhood memory of mine... still play it today. I never got the hang of Civ4.

Get C2C for Civ4 then. Caveman2Cosmos makes Civ4 better than all the other games.

[Arni]

Looking back (briefly tried Civ4, seen bit Civ5) I'd suggest:
Go for the original...

Good childhood memories
--

If you've got some time to spend trying stuff, try FreeCiv

[Alastar]

My preference in the mainline Civ series is 4 > 1 > 2 > 3 > 5.

Civ4, at least with the expansions, actually held together at high levels and offered many meaningful choices.
1 and 2 are less robust but still fun; 2 is probably the better game but not by enough to overcome my nostalgia for the first.
3 and 5 didn't quite play out how the designers thought they would, feeling artificial and gamey. Both also involve quite a bit of tedious micromanagement.

[Truean]

I have very fond memories of Civ 2. Back when it came out, it was revolutionary and it's still a masterpiece. It provided a very needed feeling of fantasy escape and simulated control in the lives of several people who needed both, but had neither.

I never played civ 3. Civ 4 tends to feel somewhat blocky to me in terms of the map, and I honestly wish it were set on a slant (diagonal, and nearly isometric) like civ 2 was. I truly think this would be an amazing improvement for civ 4. Civ 5 feels more organic, but is rather limited by it's one unit per tile rule and several other things (not that it isn't a good game. It is). I sorta wish you could combine 4 and 5 with the simple genius of 2.

[Doomblade187]

I loved the city-building an empire-spreading in 4, but never really got the same feeling from 5, myself. That said, though, I vastly prefer the combat system in 5 to that of 4 due to the lack of doomstacks, which I never really enjoyed or got the hang of. That and ranged units could attack at range.

That's just me, though- I'm not you.

[Alastar]

The combat system in 4 with its stacks of doom isn't pretty, but it works.
A straightforward "assemble balanced stack, point at nearest city" is workable and the AI can do it. There's a rich tactical element to warfare if you look for it, but that's mostly optional... getting the economic aspects of the game right is the higher priority.

Civ5 by contrast has a more involved combat system with a lot of mandatory low-level micromanagement. It doesn't add enough depth for the additional work required in my opinion, and it highlights AI weaknesses. That's beyond forcing many design concessions that weaken other aspects of the game.