bah, nevermind, photobucket isnt allowing me to upload a 1920x1200 image. One more try.
I did buy CIV IV shortly after that posting. Figured out the strategy of the differing stuff pretty good I think. It doesn't like being played in 1920 x 1200 on my setup, but works.
What's the may map size for CIV V. I find the 80 x 52(?) more limiting that I would like. My god... it's so many years after the first CIV, and I don't think the map is any larger.
Civ4 or Civ5?
I dont quite understand the question, but I usually play on the "Large" map setting (not sure what the grid is).What's the may map size for CIV V.
DR, and anyone else who's had time with it, now that you've played Civ V for a while, how does it compare? I have 4 and I'm considering upgrading. Is V a better game overall? Worth paying full price for over Civ 4?
Thanks ahead of time.
It's fun but it buggy, I haven't played since the latest patches.
My cons, not as pretty as four, cut scenes for new wonders are gone. I like Len better for the voice over. The f'ing opening scene is lame as , probably the worst intro to any civ game ever.
Pros. Great war mechanics. U actually have to plan, no more stacks of . game play graphics are sick.
No air bases out side I'd ur land is stupid. Some other stuff that will be addressed in first add on
It's tons more fun when u can play in a group and talk , plot, and scheme, while slamming caffeine.
The new way warfare works make it sound like it's worth picking up for that alone.
Obvious comparison is obvious. 5 is a blend of Civ4 and CivRev.
Vanilla Civ5 blows Vanilla Civ4 out of the water in every possible way.
Vanilla Civ5 does not compare favorably to Fully Expanded Civ4 (Warlords+Beyond the Sword).
Civ5 is great, I play the out of it (you know this), but there are two key missing features like Vassal states and finely detailed diplomacy options that I sorely miss.
But the positives far outweigh negatives, IMO, with additions/modifications like Great People actually being...well, Great. That a streamlined economic system doesnt really allow you to expand beyond your means to afford it (in a way). That the AI can no longer swap techs behind the scenes creating this insurmountable gap between you and them unless you play the same game with some other AI (hated that in 4). Now people can enter into Research Agreements that award a random to each civ for a gold cost and waiting 30 turns. Best thing about it is that every Research Agreement is announced to the world (no subversion). The Cultural path is FAR better. Social Policies are the Whoop-Daddy no matter what your style of play is. City states took me awhile to warm up to, but theyre a nice addition in smaller doses than the defaults (large map = 18 City States (?), I turn that down to 10).
Less important aspects: The game looks 100x better in every aspect. The music and sound is varied, unique and appropriate for the moment (peace, golden age, war, imminent defeat). The leader animations are pretty ing cool and its nice to hear them speak in their native tongue (Montezuma and Nebuchadnezzar are my fav's).
Earlier in the thread I went pretty far into the combat in Civ5. Needless to say it is the most defining difference between the two games and that difference is not good, its phenomenal. Actually have to use foresight to plan an offense/defense, strategy on exact goals of said campaign and what to do with what you conquered and tactics up the ass on a unit-to-unit level. Awesome addition and the best selling point for the game and its future, IMO.
Soooo, yes, I say its worth your purchase. If you liked Civ4, I would bet you will like Civ5 after some getting used to it. Just like 4, dont get all comfortable at lower difficulty levels because they do not indicate (nor teach) the game properly. Playing anything less than Prince/Monarch would make you think the AIs are dumb, combat is one-sided and the game was just too easy.
It is, most assuredly. There is a certain amount of gratification you get from beating 5-1 odds in open war because youve properly teched and assembled your armies with a varied spectrum of soldiers.
darkreign is awesome because everytime you ask him about Civ, he'll have a professional review analysis ready for you in less than a day. ill never read a corrupted gamespot or ign review ever again. ill ask DR.
HA! Thanks. Its one of the few games I play endlessly and can speak off the top of my head about. Civ and Total War: Rome (didnt like Empire too much) are two games I have played for years and years.
Worst part: Ive never played multiplayer with either game. No interest in it, tbh.
Even worse part: Im not very good at either game. Or should I say, going to any dedicated fan forum for either game, you can bet that nearly 70% of the people there would tear me to shreds so quickly, they would think I was a noob.
LOL not understanding stacks. Lol not understanding flanking. Lol in CIV 5 u never need 2 plan .
Son actually your talkin bull .
Great people were far more useful in civ 4 (jus read a gp farm tactic in u shuld know wat im sayin) wit da exception of scientist, dat 6 science per turn is godly overpowered in CIV5. (check babylon renessaince in 800BC thread at civfanatics if u dont undastand)
You had da option of no tech brokerin so dont bout reality. Countries swappin techs is as real as it gets, no civ fan would complain bout it.
Da cultural path is . Imagine playin rome and havin a bazzillion wonders and (like s did in real life) and not havin any chance cuz u got a load of cities and u gettin policies at ZERO speed. Cultural path is fubar and dere already 3-4 mods out dere workin round da clock to clean dis up.
Moreover social policies in civ4 were really smart and had synergies n wit da leaders. U could really have flexibility and change on da fly. You clearly lack da understanding of da game from watchu sayin bro.
City states is kool tho, but overpowered. (dat food is insane, shuld be toned down asap).
I wont talk ai since it equally sucks. Mods on 4 certainly solve dat, but as one would have guessed when civ 5 was deved s was bout da dough not bout community and as u can see great mods is very rare fo 5 (da real community stickin 2 da quality of 4).
I can almost assure you when dem longbows start in up yo cannons u gon understand dat combat is umbalanced as and dat beyond da great ideea to use hexes combat is so boring, easy and not tactical dat it doesnt really matter.
Da overall complexity of da game has been seriously toned down to say da least.
Jus droppin dimes son. God bless.
oh and btw da game is easy as . In da first week there were deity wins... it took alotta time 4 a single deity win when civ4 was released. Dats statistics.
I haven't seriously played a Civ since II. I'm guessing I won't even know how to exploit Civ V's imbalances. Heh. Kind of scary though... games like this are so hard to make even so that players of all skill levels can enjoy it.
that's right. I would recommend civ 4 RFC (dat is bawss!).
For civ 5 be sure to mod it like dis:
- all balance mods
- economy mod
at the least. Im sayin dis cuz da game is clearly marketing great combat yet in da same time even on marathon you cant use a unit too much in its era because you are always techin too fast and buildin too slow => no sense wat so ever.
There's a stack mod for when u understand non stacking is not suitable for a game like civ (meta-tactically speaking). I would recommend that also.
Problem with mods is that they are hard to make and the best modders are still on 4. That and the game is much more harder to mod than civ4 where you had direct dll control.
Thanks to DR, I became aware of http://www.civfanatics.com/
If you have any problems there is most likely a thread that addresses it.
I've finally completed my first game (marathon/prince), after the ers patched and hotfixed it a bunch of times. It was only on a standard sized map though. I'm still afraid to try a Huge/marathon game. Every single one I tried previously crashed. Firaxis' rep (for me) has been damaged quite a bit. No reason I should've waited this long to enjoy the game.
If it was any other dev/game, I would have given up long ago.
IV or V, symple?
Just play it at the simplest difficulty to start off. This will allow you to ease in since 5 is so radically different from all the rest, relatively speaking. It can also help to play your first few games with a teammate (to give yourself a bit of an advantage). As you become more proficient, you can start to ratchet up the difficulty little by little.
I would suggest referring liberally to the Civilopedia as you start out. Keep your steam client web browser up on the civfanatics forum and all your bases will be covered
Also, be prepared to be sucked in and yelled at by your fiance' for spending entirely too much time playing it, lol
My gf has threatened to uninstall it and steal the disc before...........
Maybe it is, I dont play online. Stated that right off the bat.
But GPs are more useful in 5, mainly because they can add to GA length. 2 GP farms and it isnt uncommon for me to be in almost a perpetual GA.
I dont around with game settings too much, I dont like to trim out the I do not like, I work with the mechanics provided under the conditions set by the dev/mod.You had da option of no tech brokerin so dont bout reality. Countries swappin techs is as real as it gets, no civ fan would complain bout it.
Yes, you can turn off tech trading in 4, but why would I? That completely gimps the AI and turns a Monarch game into a Chieftan game with more units. That doesnt make sense to me.
Well, thats the point isnt it? Youre not going to win a cultural victory (Utopia) with 80 cities. Youre either a warmonger winning by the edge of the swrod or a peaceful Utopia of an all-inclusive nature and the envy of the world, you cannot be both.Da cultural path is . Imagine playin rome and havin a bazzillion wonders and (like s did in real life) and not havin any chance cuz u got a load of cities and u gettin policies at ZERO speed. Cultural path is fubar and dere already 3-4 mods out dere workin round da clock to clean dis up.
Like which ones? Please enlighten me with your completely forced hood-speech, bro.Moreover social policies in civ4 were really smart and had synergies n wit da leaders. U could really have flexibility and change on da fly. You clearly lack da understanding of da game from watchu sayin bro.
at saying DR has a lack of understanding of Civ.
You don't get it do you? GP are useful because of corporations/religions not only for gold but for metagaming link passive domination. No great spy means absolutely no espionage in CIV5. It's funny dat 4 a sayin he know GP farms he dont understand that with the small cities in civ 5 things can't work like with 2 wheat tiles in civ4. Blame it on weak improvements for basically giving too little for hooked up bonuses ( +3f vs +1f is huge). Small city = less specialists. How many cities do you see in civ5 get over 10 in few turns? not many, not many at all.
Golden ages in civ 5 are very powerful indeed but only if you're spawnin great artists (lower cap is 7 turns) but they can't compare them to teching wit all types of great people in 4. In 5 you can tech only wit great scientist which is bullocks cuz theology should be techable by great prophet, economics by great merchant and so on. That in itself provides a huge difference in favor of 4.
Furthermore great people are really useful in late games in 4 while in 5 they lose all usage beside scientist and engineer(3 turn ga? ga culture bomb=war waiting to happen?). Great general and one unit per hex is really dubious at best. And please dont say settling great people is an option cuz its reall not.
I wasn't sayin you should turn it off, on the contrary i was saying that it is normal to see civs trading behind the back. Happens in real life. Furthermore, if you are the one out teching it's only normal, adversaries want to catch up. If in civ 4 you were outteched you'd get techs for like 10gp.
Moreover, your lack of knowledge on the game discarding espionage and corporation tactics. And btw tech trading != tech brokering != no tech trading.
this is just ignorant and proves complete lack of understanding. On monarch you'd have to cannonball oracle monarchy like and smart bulb to stay on par technologically. If you are that good you should have known that ai gpfarms too from prince. Moreover the ais in monarch have a tendency to attack different parts of the techtree so you can't go picking what you want.
Was Rome in 0 AD a cultural center of the world?.. all roads lead to rome and . Ofc it was. Was athenai an extremely cultural city in that period? Ofc it was. Were alexandria/thebes cultural monsters in that period, sure they were.
In civ 4 you could get a cultural victory with that, in civ 5 no chance cuz of cities like Lugudnum, Burdigalia, Valentia, Tarentum, Apuliia, etc. You think roman empire wasnt the greatest from a culturally standpoint in that period? CULTURE != nature. Culture = world influence in case you don't understand. You can impose culture with ease, see byzantine empire for example.
Sayin your either a warmonger or a utopia is shyte. What about expansionism? England 17 centuy reason why we speakin english not french world wide?.. that's surely culture. What about religious state like the arabs in medieval age ( load of cities) followed by seljucks and turks? They cultarally influenced 1/3 of the globe back then. Or china? Do you know how many in cites china has?
What about a techocracy from the future? Zounds of cities SF style. That's culture too.
I actually like overall culture idea, i think its great for metagaming but the idea of 30% more per city is FUBAR and irealistic as while taking away versatility and game tactics. That a up on all levels gameplay wise.
imma say one thang, wit dat mentality you prove you know bout this game. Stop bein an ignorant and learn from wat im sayin.
If you don't trust this or it seems to convoluted ask any veterans at civfanatics and you'll see the same results.
-for starters nationhood with spiritual was crazy efficient. You could of gone from warmonger to peace loving in a second. This argument only s up the "you can be warmonger or this or utopia" nicely.
-slavery and hereditary rule enable you to
-aggressive/charismatic traits and any war social policy put pressure on the other army because of extra upgrades.
-You said you knew somethang about GA, than you should understand what a philosophical trait and pacifism social can do.
-Just givin examples.. there are so much more.
Furthermore your inability to understand that an empire in civ 4 has the ability to change and to adapt to the game by chaning social policies is mind boggling. Are you sure you know what you're talking about or not just trolling?. Do you understand that throught man's history each empire has had many good and bad periods and was ruled as such. You can't be a pure warmonger when you're outteched.. you;; get murdered as you can't be a pure utopia when you're cornered... changes man, that was the cream of the game... rulling real time, reacting to reality.
In CIV 5 you pick and you're set. Am empire ruled with civ 5 policies would be raped by one ruled with 4 policies because of pure versatility and adaptivity. Darwinism at its finest.
Son you gotta step yo game up... civ4 bout the changes and always thinkin and doin somethin... civ5 you play 2-3 games and they all da same... dat da difference, in case you don't see it u not worth da effort 4 me. GOD bless .
Last edited by rickross; 02-19-2011 at 05:04 PM.
Alright, pretty obvious youre a better player than me.
I concede.
You a legit poster. If only lakerfan was as such
Imagine playin civ with ST posters, would be mad fun :
arabia - ghazi
DoK - jerusalem
many asian fans
many euro fans
us by default represented
Dat would be wild .. any allegiance would have nil value .. if you'd play 2-3 games such as these with forumers from civfanatics you'd get blacklisted asap... da good ol days of collage. DAYUM gettin older is not fun, no mo time for civ
Honestly, I never claimed to be an expert at any Civ.
Ive never been able to break the Monarch barrier and even then I routinely lose.
I scoured civfanatics a long time ago to learn more about Civ strats and tbh, its too much to learn. So I just enjoy the game(s) for what they are. I think I can speak effectively to the differences between 4 and 5, but I have always made two things clear...
1) I am not very good. Playing at Monarch level is noob-level and I dont win very often.
2) I do not play online and have no will to.
But I understand what youre saying about the social differences between 4 and 5....and youre right. You can hot-switch your entire empire in 4 from a warmonger to a cultural dynamo whereas in 5 the moment you pick, youre locked in for the rest of the game.
I treat the two games as different experiences. Is fully expanded 4 better than 5? Yes, undoubtedly. But to me theyre just different games all together. I like the new combat and have not experienced the Longbows/Cannon overpowered aspects you have, thats for sure.
But your understanding of the various methods of play are more on par with the civfanatics, and thats just beyond me...and I kind of prefer it that way. Civilization4 is a game I could never master, I never excelled at it and I enjoy it more because of that. I dont know if I am going to win or lose until almost mid-game....before then, its a toss up and thats why I keep playing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
