|
I wasted lots of my 20's on this game. :) I have had a desire to play again but am confused. Reviews are all over the place on the new versions. Should I give them a shot? When did the franchise jump the shark? I have a fast computer so that will not be a limit, but I want a sound turn based Civ that does not suck. Advice?
I wasted lots of my 20's on this game. :) I have had a desire to play again but am confused. Reviews are all over the place on the new versions. Should I give them a shot? When did the franchise jump the shark? I have a fast computer so that will not be a limit, but I want a sound turn based Civ that does not suck. Advice?
In my personal opinion, Civ has not yet jumped the shark. Civ V had a very rough initial release but has been patched into a well-oiled machine, and has an awesome-looking expansion pack coming out next week.
However, Civ IV and Civ V have some fundamental differences in gameplay which each have value, but are just very different. Some prefer one style over the other.
I'll do my best to highlight my perception of the differences, pros/cons, etc., at least the very basics:
Shared Between the Two
- The notion of "culture" as a resource, just like production, gold, and food. Different buildings or events produce extra culture, and your borders expand based on culture, not population. Both games have a cultural victory that goes along with this.
- "Great People" production. Your cities can produce, over time, "Great People" like great generals, great artists, great scientists, etc. Great people have the ability to start a Golden Age (you need 2 to do that in Civ IV and 1 in Civ V), can build a special building (in Civ IV it's in the city, and in Civ V it's a land improvement), or do something else cool (Great Scientists instantly allow you to learn a tech, for example).
- Each Civilization leader has a unique boon to offer its Civ and usually a unique building and/or unit that is an improved version of an ordinary unit/building in game.
- All the usual civvy goodness you expect with expanding your empire, keeping your citizens happy, researching tech, building the Manhattan Project and nuking everything, etc. etc.
Civilization IV
- Pretty traditional square grid map, looks a lot like high res graphic version of older Civ games
- Traditional form of government system with anarchy if you want to change government
- Military units stack on top of each other. It is possible to zerg-rush a tank with a massive stack of spearmen and win.
- Religious system which can dramatically affect diplomacy and give you access to special buildings and the like
- Diplomacy system pretty solid (best of most Civ games I've played)
- There are resources that may give you more hammers/gold/food or allow you to build special units (Iron required for building swordsmen), and you have to both mine/farm/etc. AND connect these resources to your empire to access them.
- Good multiplayer if you're into that
- Expansions add corporations and espionage which add a lot of complexity in the game. Corporations work a lot like late-game religions.
- Probably a lot more that I'm forgetting because it's been a long time since I played it.
Civilization V
- New "city state" system -- spread through the world are city states, one city civilizations who are not competing for victory. You can overtake them or try to be friends with them (through performing quests for them sometimes, but mostly by bribing the hell out of them); befriending/allying with them allows them to trade resources with you and they will back you up in diplomatic matters (you have to befriend as many city states as possible to win the diplomatic victory).
- Has a new "policy" system which replaces the forms of government in previous Civ games. As you build culture, you unlock policies and trees, which grant you various abilities and boons (for example Honor tree helps you kill barbarians more easily and build up a stronger military while the Liberty tree enables you to expand faster). There's no switching governments and anarchy in Civ V, just adding onto your policies.
- Hex map, allows for more organic looking terrain and more careful placement of units
- Military units do NOT stack. This means you have to pick your units and move them carefully to have a successful attack against other units and especially against cities (but it prevents the stack of spearmen vs tank scenario)
- Ranged attack system where ranged units can target squares farther away and damage them, but they can't engage in melee and take over cities, etc.
- Cities have an inherent defense system -- even if you don't have a unit garrisoned in the city, your city has its own ranged attack which can help destroy attacking units (you still need to garrison a unit in there for extra defense though). Cities are overtaken when their defense reaches zero and an enemy melee unit enters the city, not when all military units in the city are destroyed (because of no stacking, only one unit can be in the city).
- Uses resource system similar to IV, but you do not need to connect the resource with roads to use it. You just need to have the tile within your borders and improve the tile.
- Diplomacy is horrible. The AI does stuff that makes no sense most of the time (though the expansion may change this)
- Multiplayer works okay (it had a lot of problems at first)
- Core game does not have religion or espionage but this is supposed to be in the expansion coming out next week. It's also supposed to expand on what you can do with city states.
- You never have to rebuild barracks and you don't need a Wonder to be able to upgrade obsolete units to a current unit (just the right tech and enough gold).
My personal preference is Civ V because I really like the city states and the hex map and the no stacking of units, which suits my style of combat play a LOT better. The poor diplomacy annoys me but I am really hoping the expansion makes that better. I think Civ V is slightly less micromanagey -- both of them are micromanagey to a degree and you do need to watch tiles you're working etc. and look at how you make specialists/work on great people generation, etc. but Civ V I think is a little more forgiving. I don't think it's easier, but just challenging in different ways.
The cons to both is that neither have as awesome videos as Civilization II did when you build Wonders of the World, nor as awesome advisors.
Either way, if you get one or the other or both, you will be one-more-turning well into the wee hours of the night.
Nice overview, Deathquaker. I have yet to play Civ IV or V. Now I want to give them a try. That for clairifing them.
Personally, I find Civ IV (with all the expansions) to be the best of the franchise, so far. I'd happily recommend it. Especially for the Fall from Heaven 2 mod, that turns it into a fantasy setting. Really well done.
Civ V is... well, I suppose it's not a bad game in itself, but it plays very differently. Personally, I got more of a "RTS" feel from it. As in, you start up a quick game, wage some war against the other civilizations and that's it. Even the epic length games on a huge map just feels too... small in scope, somehow. I'm not sure what it is. Definitely a different feel from the rest of the series.
|
I've been playing almost non-stop since the first game, though I haven't yet tried Civ V as I'm not confident it will run on my laptop. DeathQuaker's post is a good primer for 4 & 5. Here's how I would view each of the games:
Civ II - In my view the best of the series for pure gameplay value. The best balance between immersion and simplicity, the isometric map found in III and IV, and incentives to try different Civs. It's sort of the AD&D to the Basic of Civ I.
Civ III - If you want a game with a ton of detail, this is it. I probably put in the most time in this one, just for the sheer volume of scenarios available (try the Complete Edition for the full experience). It introduced the variety of victory conditions, detailed Civs, a massive tech tree and dozens of new Wonders. Most of all, it felt the most "fair" at all difficulty levels. The best innovation was the inclusion of armies - groups of units under a leader, with diverse combinations possible for intense tactical planning. This was the 3rd Edition D&D of the series.
Civ IV - Pretty much took what Civ III added and tweaked things, while adding new gameplay mechanics. Pretty much the same victory conditions, but the gameplay is a lot more finicky. There's not quite as much detail as Civ III, but more diversity. However, with a few exceptions the wonders are generally not as useful as previous games, which is less charming. Possibly the best new mechanic is the Civics system, which allows the player the tinker with various aspects of the nation, such as Economy or Labor. I'd call this the 3.5 of the series.
Personally, I find Civ IV (with all the expansions) to be the best of the franchise, so far. I'd happily recommend it. Especially for the Fall from Heaven 2 mod, that turns it into a fantasy setting. Really well done.
FFH is AWESOME.
Civ V is... well, I suppose it's not a bad game in itself, but it plays very differently. Personally, I got more of a "RTS" feel from it. As in, you start up a quick game, wage some war against the other civilizations and that's it. Even the epic length games on a huge map just feels too... small in scope, somehow. I'm not sure what it is. Definitely a different feel from the rest of the series.
Huh. I've played a lot of Civ V and I've never felt like that. It is definitely turn based and doesn't have the overwhelming click-it-now feel RTSes do. I spend many games exploring and improving relationships with city states and building things for a good damn long time--and have played whole games where almost no war is waged at all (and others where everyone declares war on me, but that's the same in any Civ game).
I will note, though, I've never played epic or huge (I usually play standard time on a small or normal map) -- I prefer a game I can finish in a few sessions (of a few hours each), otherwise when I have to shut the game off eventually (I do like to sleep on occasion) and/or don't get back to it for awhile, I just forget what it was I was doing. And then I just start a new game anyway.
But it sounds like we've got very differen play styles.
|
Great overview DQ.
I like all versions of Civ, with Civ II holding a very fond place in my memory. Civ V represented a major change from previous versions to a more hex based tactical game. Combat has the feel of some of the better SSI style games. For me this is a huge plus. My main complaint is that the AI for the game seems more passive than earlier versions. I have played through many more games with Civ V where I never went to war compared to other versions where I usually had at least one war with somebody through the course of the game. It may have to do with my Teddy Roosevelt play style as I tend to play passive (talk softly) and let the computer AI start a conflict, then I go an eradicate the computer opponent (big stick).
Has anyone else notice this with the Civ V AI? Also it seems that big empires in Civ V are much more difficult to manage than in earlier versions.
Later,
Mazra
Great overview DQ.
I like all versions of Civ, with Civ II holding a very fond place in my memory. Civ V represented a major change from previous versions to a more hex based tactical game. Combat has the feel of some of the better SSI style games. For me this is a huge plus. My main complaint is that the AI for the game seems more passive than earlier versions. I have played through many more games with Civ V where I never went to war compared to other versions where I usually had at least one war with somebody through the course of the game. It may have to do with my Teddy Roosevelt play style as I tend to play passive (talk softly) and let the computer AI start a conflict, then I go an eradicate the computer opponent (big stick).
Has anyone else notice this with the Civ V AI? Also it seems that big empires in Civ V are much more difficult to manage than in earlier versions.
Yes, I've noticed both those things. Although with whether people declare war on you, it depends a LOT on who your computer opponents are. Once I got sandwiched between Montezuma, Caesar, Napoleon, and Genghis Khan. It wasn't pretty (it's a scary game when you consider Genghis Khan your one reliable friend).
It also depends on resources. If you're playing a sparse resources game and you have the only plot of iron on the continent, people will try to cut you down and fast.
I think sometimes--again depending on who you get as opponents--if you build a strong army early on, the AIs note this and are more likely to leave you alone unless you're infringing on territory/resources they want.
If you're not an obvious threat, though, the AIs leave often you alone as a war would just be costly.
For big empires, yeah, I get the sense the game encourages you to stay small -- also with the way you have the option to choose what you do with conquered cities. Fully assimilating them causes the most (temporary) unhappiness, IIRC. It's often better to create puppet states in terms of generating resources/happiness.
Huh. I've played a lot of Civ V and I've never felt like that. It is definitely turn based and doesn't have the overwhelming click-it-now feel RTSes do.
Maybe I should play Civ V some more. It just didn't instantly grab me the way the previous versions of Civ did (and still do). With Civ V I felt more like how I felt when I sat down for a random game against the AI in Age of Empires. Not that it plays like an RTS, but more that "hey, let's sit down for a quick game" feel, which I think was a deliberate design decision. And which really wasn't what I was looking for in a Civ game.
Now, if there was a FFH3 mod for Civ V, I might have to change my tune. Praise our Octopus Overlords! :)
(I'm not greedy though. I could settle for an Alpha Centauri 2.)
Both Civ IV and Civ V have their merits, but I personally prefer Civ IV for one primary reason. There are different ways you can win with each version (diplomacy, conquest, religion, and technology are the primary ones). In Civ IV, each of these ways entails a substantially different strategy and approach, with very different priorities in how you proceed. In Civ V, the game play is virtually identical, regardless of the victory type I want to pursue (at least for me). I've played Civ V dozens of times and, by the time I'm close to achieving victory, I can basically choose which way I want to officially win by simply making a few adjustments during the last 20 turns. I have to do virtually all the exact same things to win, regardless of whether I want a diplomatic victory or a technological one. That just doesn't feel right to me, so I always find myself gravitating back to Civ IV instead.
I also feel like Civ IV is a deeper, more immersive experience, while Civ V is more simplified and streamlined. That simplification probably makes the game more accessible to a wider audience, but it just lacks the same level of depth that I feel with Civ IV.
Of course, a close friend of mind vastly prefers Civ V, so it definitely is a matter of personal taste. But those are the two main differences from my experience.
Hope this helps...
(I'm not greedy though. I could settle for an Alpha Centauri 2.)I'm greedy. I demand Alpha Centauri 2.
It's still my favorite. I still have it installed and play it regularly.
+1 x 10^23 !!!
Both Civ IV and Civ V have their merits, but I personally prefer Civ IV for one primary reason. There are different ways you can win with each version (diplomacy, conquest, religion, and technology are the primary ones). In Civ IV, each of these ways entails a substantially different strategy and approach, with very different priorities in how you proceed. In Civ V, the game play is virtually identical, regardless of the victory type I want to pursue (at least for me). I've played Civ V dozens of times and, by the time I'm close to achieving victory, I can basically choose which way I want to officially win by simply making a few adjustments during the last 20 turns. I have to do virtually all the exact same things to win, regardless of whether I want a diplomatic victory or a technological one. That just doesn't feel right to me, so I always find myself gravitating back to Civ IV instead.
I think this is true if you're going for the diplomatic or technological win specifically.
This is because you need to build the United Nations, which you don't get till you get a late game tech, close to the time you'll have also gotten the Apollo Program.
But for it to also be true, you also need to have spent time building alliances with City States (although that often happens if you're trying to play peacefully, but you need the money to do it). You can only win a diplomatic victory if you've got a lot of alliances with most of the city states in the game.
If you want a military victory, you're better off being expansionist and building a lot of units out of each city you build. At least the way I play--and it could just be that I don't play well--this usually means you can't afford to befriend City States because you're throwing gold into upgrading units, etc. And you may focus how you develop your techs differently.
Cultural victory however pretty much requires NOT being expansionist, because the larger you are, the more culture you need to generate to gain policies. I find if I'm focusing on Military, I can't also hope I can have Cultural victory as backup. Sometimes also tech, because I want to prioritize building science buildings rather than culture buildings.
THAT SAID, I agree that the Civ IV victory conditions felt more varied, and I preferred how diplomatic victory worked in Civ IV, even though I like the city state system in Civ V. I also liked the economic victory which Civ V doesn't have (although I consider the diplomatic victory and the economic victory to be one and same, because you usually need tons of gold to keep the City States on your side).
I also feel like Civ IV is a deeper, more immersive experience, while Civ V is more simplified and streamlined. That simplification probably makes the game more accessible to a wider audience, but it just lacks the same level of depth that I feel with Civ IV.
I wonder if/how that will change next week when Civ V's expansion pack comes out. Often people think of Civ IV plus its two expansions, which add loads and loads of complexity. If Civ V Gods and Kings does the same thing it might put them on a more similar playing field in that respect -- although I agree each is tailored to different play style preferences as they are.
|
|
For someone not knowing either CivIV nor CivV it might be the best option to wait a few weeks and get both of them for a few bucks (probably sans Gods and Kings) in the upcoming Summer Sales (CivV requires Steam and I would really be surprised if the Civ franchise wouldn't appear in the Summer Sales discount)
I wonder if/how that will change next week when Civ V's expansion pack comes out. Often people think of Civ IV plus its two expansions, which add loads and loads of complexity. If Civ V Gods and Kings does the same thing it might put them on a more similar playing field in that respect -- although I agree each is tailored to different play style preferences as they are.
That sounds interesting. I think, on a fundamental level, Civ V is just not designed for me. I'll be checking out the expansion, though.
I own Civ IV, but have not played it. I will have to install it and give it a spin.
I wonder if/how that will change next week when Civ V's expansion pack comes out. Often people think of Civ IV plus its two expansions, which add loads and loads of complexity. If Civ V Gods and Kings does the same thing it might put them on a more similar playing field in that respect -- although I agree each is tailored to different play style preferences as they are.That sounds interesting. I think, on a fundamental level, Civ V is just not designed for me. I'll be checking out the expansion, though.
Fair enough. Civ IV is certainly an awesome game -- plus, again, FFH for the win. :)
|
|
I used to claim Civ4 was better than Civ5, but the farther past the 150 hour mark I slide, the more Civ5 feels better. No more do I restart a higher than chieftain difficulty map simply because Darius is my nearest opponent and will, without a doubt, spend his first 200 turns trying to kill me because I'm close to him. No longer will Katherine come across two other teams simply to war with me because I don't share her religion (although both of those civs are still highly aggressive in Civ5).
Civ4 had its merits, especially FFH mod, but the hex map and the greater importance of resources leads me to a more enjoyable game. Having to debate whether to PO Washington or not when I culture bomb his border for oil resources is just something I didn't get in Civ4 (though I could culture spam a city in 4 and eat the enemy's borders, which I do miss in Civ5). Also, it seems a city peaks out on cultural borders at ~8 hexes radius, which makes me sad.
Are the Civ V expansions worth buying? I have the core game I have played it a lot and have not played for a while because I have burned out on it.
Are the Civ V expansions worth buying? I have the core game I have played it a lot and have not played for a while because I have burned out on it.
There's one expansion and it's not out yet till June 19 (the day before my birthday, it's like they KNEW what to get me! ;) )
Right now beside the core game there are just some little DLC packages that include some extra Civs and some scenarios and maps. They're nice, but not necessary. I have the Babylonian DLC (which I got on sale) and I do like that Civ.
We had a chilly day in Hell recently, so I pre-ordered something for once -- the Gods and Kings expansion, so I will post after I get it and I've managed to stop clicking the end turn button and seeing what happens next...
Civ V was added to Steam Workshop recently, so there might be some worthwhile mods already (and hope for FFH3...)
Apparently Kael was hired to work on the Elemental series of games (AFTER its awful launch), so it's unlikely we will see any more FFH, as FFH fans are unwilling to take up his mantle.
Sad, although I wish him every success at Stardock, which is a great company.
|
|
Civ V was added to Steam Workshop recently, so there might be some worthwhile mods already (and hope for FFH3...)Apparently Kael was hired to work on the Elemental series of games (AFTER its awful launch), so it's unlikely we will see any more FFH, as FFH fans are unwilling to take up his mantle.
Sad, although I wish him every success at Stardock, which is a great company.
Yeah, the new Elemental game was led by the FFH guy. I think its in beta right now: Elemental: Fallen Enchantress
|
|
Hehe. Something from another thread just reminded me of when my brother and I executed our "three thousand year flank" in Civ III. We sent a warrior army exploring to the east, slowly working its way around the coast.
In the intervening time, the AI declared war on us. We sent an advanced army into their territory, capturing cities along the way.
The warriors arrived in the enemy capital just in time to capture the palace after our main army had been wiped out.
We still like to picture that wandering tribe of savages!
I've played most of them, and while I enjoyed the complexity of 3 and 4, I never managed to finish a game because it reached a point where there was just too much to keep track of. I like 5 because it has the same overall flavor and the complexity is set at a bit more manageable level.
Sounds like I'm the oddball here but-
I got civ 3 and hated it. So much little crap to deal with that I just shelved it and went back to Civ II gold. WHile I played Civ I alot, C2G is what "i remember' when I think back to the game. It was simple if you wanted simple, a lil more deep if you wanted a lil more deep, but never got to clunky and complicated to play.
At least, that was my .02 :)
(glad to see they may have gotten better again after 3 though..)
-S