Should I start with Civ V?

I

IsaacMM

Gawd
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
646
Haven't played any of the Civ games before, should I go straight for V or play IV first?
 
id say play civ 5.. theres a lot of game mechanics that have changed to where they really arent that similar.. you will just get stuck on a habbit of doing something in civ IV that doesnt work in civ V..
 
Hard to say. IMO IV is the better game, but it's had quite some time to mature. Hopefully Rise of Mankind(Civ IV mod) will get made for V soon enough though, it expanded IV by a ton so if they keep most of the stuff in-tact for V the game will be a whole lot bigger(in terms of your options for units, buildings, resources, techs etc).
 
civ 5 is for console loving casual players fyi civ 4 is the best option imo
 
SM is exactly on here -- go straight to V. Just finally finished my first playthrough and am pleasantly surprised with the mechanics over IV. (haven't played any mods)

Holy crap those death robots are powerful.
 
Machupo said:
SM is exactly on here -- go straight to V. Just finally finished my first playthrough and am pleasantly surprised with the mechanics over IV. (haven't played any mods)

Holy crap those death robots are powerful.
Click to expand...


lol ive yet to make the death robots.. i spend more time making my own maps then i do actually playing the game though..

the plain jane civ V is boring in my opinion.. b ut ever since civ 3 they have continued to make the game for the modding community and they are what make the game great.. still have no clue what this whinning about being made for consoles bullshit is but i have no clue how you could possibly play this game on console.. it would be a bitch and half..
 
I've never played civ before and went straight to 5. I have been enjoying it greatly. It's a fun game and it wasn't too hard to understand. Some of the mechanics were a bit illusory at first, but I think I got a handle on it. One thing I really like is the ability to play a half hour here and there, but still have a really epic experience going on.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
still have no clue what this whinning about being made for consoles bullshit is but i have no clue how you could possibly play this game on console.. it would be a bitch and half..
Click to expand...

People have to bitch about everything, and in this case of "consolizing" a PC exclusive game. :D
 
the game is civ revolution ffs it has no where near the management options and needs of any other PC civ games.
 
They are so different that it is a tough call. If you plan on going with Civ 5 eventually, then just go straight there now (because the mechanics are so different than civ 4 there is no point in learning everything twice) - if you just want to play a Civ type game, I feel Civ 4 is a better overall game (at this point - Civ 5 may mature over time just as much as Civ 4 did).
 
dajet24 said:
the game is civ revolution ffs it has no where near the management options and needs of any other PC civ games.
Click to expand...
I think I slightly prefer Civ4 so far being a builder, but in no way is Civ 5 a console game. Hyperbole much?
 
i stand by my statement and so does the majority of posters at the official forums and civfanatics.

game is seriously dumbed down
 
I have never played IV but V is worth playing. I would wait a while for them to fix a lot of the AI problems (the upcoming patch is promising). Seems like it will be a good deal around Christmas time where you might pick it up with an expansion for $50 or less.

While I haven't played IV it is probably worth the $5 or so on Steam.
 
Because it's your first contact with the franchise, try the free demo available on Steam first. And check the requirements, it takes a strong system at the moment to play the big maps.
 
dajet24 said:
i stand by my statement and so does the majority of posters at the official forums and civfanatics.

game is seriously dumbed down
Click to expand...

Are you trying to add credibility to your view by saying "everyone else thinks so too"? I saw the shitfest went down on civfanatics from the very day the game came out (OMG MY EYES ARE DAMAGED FROM LOOKING AT THOSE HORRID RIVERS AHH!!!!1!), and I wouldn't base my view on what the loudmouths there have "assessed".

I think the game is more interesting than Civ4, in fact I'd say it makes a lot of Civ4 features look pretty dumb.
 
For all you who favor Civ IV, is it just a matter of Civ V not being fully mature yet? I mean, would Civ V put Civ IV, when it was first released, to shame?
 
I didn't pick up Civ IV at launch but I mostly played vanilla Civ without the mods. At this point in time yes Civ IV does put Civ V to shame. I mean the move to hexes and the new combat system is nice but omg the AI and the diplomacy is totally retarded. And there are less to distinguish between the different civilizations, in IV, you knew if you started next to Monty or Genghis you had to beef up your defenses quickly. In V, they are all like a bunch of whiney 4 years old saying ooo my army is bigger than yours every few turns.
 
Civ IV was a better game out of the box. Civ V is a step backwards in many ways. Also, where the fuck is the map editor? Why would they release that later?
 
Parmenides said:
For all you who favor Civ IV, is it just a matter of Civ V not being fully mature yet? I mean, would Civ V put Civ IV, when it was first released, to shame?
Click to expand...
I don't think it'd put it to shame, but it's lacking in a few areas IMO. I love the new combat system, but the AI doesn't know how to use it. I don't know if that will ever get addressed, meaning most of the advantages of 1UPT will only be apparent against other people. My other big issue is the removal of cultural influence. One of my favorite things to do in Civ4 was to make a city with so much culture that it would start taking over tiles from opponent lands. I'm curious as to their rationale for removing this system aside from the "culture bomb."

If I had my choice, at the moment, I'd love to have the basic mechanics of Civ4, combined with the combat system of Civ5, plus an AI that can competently use that combat system.
 
If civ 5 is significantly "dumbed down" then I'm fine with that. I found the mechanics complex, yet understandable. I had no clue what was going on for the first 50 turns or so, and am still learning new stuff around turn 200. Any more complex and I would have been turned off.

I think a lot of the "Civ 4 was better" bitching is just gonna happen when a franchise that has die hard fans changes things. As someone who hasn't played civ 4, I find 5 very enjoyable.
 
Civ V if they ever patch it to fix the crashes. Damn thing is buggy as hell..... :(
 
ryken said:
I think a lot of the "Civ 4 was better" bitching is just gonna happen when a franchise that has die hard fans changes things. As someone who hasn't played civ 4, I find 5 very enjoyable.
Click to expand...
I love how preferring Civ4 is bitching. IMO Half-Life is better than HL2. Sorry for the "bitching."

Civ 5 is a good game. But if you like building more than war I'd be surprised if you like Civ5 better.
 
drako said:
I love how preferring Civ4 is bitching. IMO Half-Life is better than HL2. Sorry for the "bitching."

Civ 5 is a good game. But if you like building more than war I'd be surprised if you like Civ5 better.
Click to expand...

No, preferring is not bitching. If you have a preference, that's fine and totally understandable. However:

civ 5 is for console loving casual players fyi civ 4 is the best option imo
Click to expand...

bitching.

game is seriously dumbed down
Click to expand...

bitching.

but omg the AI and the diplomacy is totally retarded
Click to expand...

bitching.

Also, where the fuck is the map editor?
Click to expand...

bitching.

And that's just in this thread. Other threads (here and elsewhere) have their fair share too. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people with valid complaints about the game and even more valid points as to why they prefer civ 4, and that isn't bitching. At the same time, there is a lot of bitching going on too. I find civ 5 to be quite enjoyable.
 
i think civ V is dumbed down a bit to interest the younger crowd that doesnt have the patience to learn a game like civ IV.. i mean really how many teenagers did you see playing civ IV? was mostly people between 18-30 playing the game because we actually have the patience to sit there and play the game..

but i cant really say much about civ IV because i only put about 20 hours into the game and got fed up with the square sectors and quit playing the game..

there have been some pretty cool mods for the game so far and the games only been out for a few weeks.. give it a month or two and we should see some pretty nice complete mods for the game..
 
ryken said:
No, preferring is not bitching. If you have a preference, that's fine and totally understandable.And that's just in this thread. Other threads (here and elsewhere) have their fair share too. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people with valid complaints about the game and even more valid points as to why they prefer civ 4, and that isn't bitching. At the same time, there is a lot of bitching going on too. I find civ 5 to be quite enjoyable.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Although I'd argue the the third point is legitimate when it comes to the AI although calling it retarded does make it sound like bitching.

If you do enjoy Civ5, you should give Civ4 a chance sometime. Chances are you won't like the army stacks (I hate them personally), but the rest of the game is really good. The pacing of Civ4 also feels better, although that's what mods are for and I'm sure Civ5 will improve in all of these areas (save perhaps the weak AI).
 
Not overally impressed with civ V, Civ IV was epic in complexity and longetivity of games.
Both good games in who their ment to target. Think of it as chest vs checkers games, it is what it is.
 
drako said:
Fair enough. Although I'd argue the the third point is legitimate when it comes to the AI although calling it retarded does make it sound like bitching.

If you do enjoy Civ5, you should give Civ4 a chance sometime. Chances are you won't like the army stacks (I hate them personally), but the rest of the game is really good. The pacing of Civ4 also feels better, although that's what mods are for and I'm sure Civ5 will improve in all of these areas (save perhaps the weak AI).
Click to expand...

The AI in Civ V will get pissed at you for a war that THEY started and invited you in. They will also offer you all their gold and city during the beginning of a campaign in which you only take one of their city, on the flip side when you push them to the edge they will not consider giving you anything for a peace treaty. You can also tell them you will go to war and then change your mind indefinitely without any negative effect 10 turns later. Don't get me started on the path finding, apparently embarking next to 2 enemy frigates is a good idea, you basically have to be very careful of the path your unit chooses. I know we're all PC nowadays but i couldn't find a better word than retarded, ummm how about mentally disabled?
 
different games, I prefer civ 4 for the time being, after about 60 hours of civ5. I have to have a couple of thousand hours in civ 4 and still not tired of it due in large part to mods and what I feel was a deeper more mature game. kudos to fireaxis for civ4. civ5 feels very empty to me...I never got to build a giant robot because I won too soon just to end the boring game.
 
what you call bitching I call observational failures of said game.

game is a train wrek simple as that. The 1 unit per tile is fundementaly broken in its current implementation,

They shoulda stuck to civ 4 and made a unit cap due ot cash restraints or limited tiles to about 3-5 units or 1 of each type etc. as is its stupid that a non at war AI or other player can simply make a line of troops in the middle of nowhere and due to the mechanics of the system you cant get past them... I hope they have 2 good expansions and flesh the game out but i dont see the current 1 unit per tile system staying as is .. they gotta change it so adjust to certain situations atleast.
 
My advice after 2-3 major games on easy...don't bother with Civ 5, it doesn't matter how well you play the game, if you're not some ultra slick politician you're going to lose, other civilizations just gang up and dick you over, it's completely irrelevent how far ahead you are in technology or army size, basically someone is going to ally against you, and everyone see's you as weak because you're getting pummeled and all joins in.

Whoever developed this clearly doesn't understand the concept of "easy", there is no cap on how much pain the AI will bring your way, so you're lulled into a false sense of achievement only to have some AI civ gang up on you and crush you to a pulp. I'd avoid this game at least until they've confirmed they've fixed the diplomacy to actually allow you instances where you can successfully create alliances with other civs against some common enemy.
 
the game is a ton easier.. not sure how your failing on easy lol

Winning on Emporer lvl here without issue. ( which shouldnt be happenign never could do this on civ4) Not all the time anyways)

AI does nto understand ranged units, or proper embarkment..
 
I found this an interesting article: Civ V Has No Soul by IGN.

I'll say that I've been playing the series since the first game - the only ones I haven't played were Civnet and the console versions. I like both 4 and 5. Both are good games, but different in their own ways. 5 improves in some areas (such as how it handles combat and culture-expansion), but lacks in others. One of the biggest complaints I've seen is that people can't play 5 the way they played 4.

To the original question, I'd start with 4, simply because you can pick it up cheaper than 5. Then when 5's price drops, pick that up.
 
dajet24 said:
the game is civ revolution ffs it has no where near the management options and needs of any other PC civ games.
Click to expand...

I just played they very very short demo, and i found this, it seems to dubbed down compared to civ III/ IV, i was really considering buying it tonight and thought try the demo first, really was left bored...
 
the game is so simple now. absolutely dumb now. I was only ok at civ4. i totally dominate at civ5. combat is quite broken in single player, because the AI is stupid, and does not know how to use it. Civ 4 is the better game. If you want to play a simple to play, but hard to master and more fun game, alpha centauri is what you want.
 
dajet24 said:
the game is a ton easier.. not sure how your failing on easy lol
Click to expand...

As I said the enemy AI gangs up on me, they make all sorts of crazy alliances with each other and you try and ally with some of the civs and there's just no way to actually entice them into taking out a common enemy.

Last nights game really drove the point home, one civ right on the other side of a "large" map became some ultra dominant civ, and i spent loads of turns trying to convince the other smaller civs to gang up on this bohemoth but none of them would have it, they bicker between themselves and threaten me with war for no good reason.

Everyone who has played risk more than twice knows that the only way for smaller players to take down larger enemies is to gang together and eliminate the strongest first, bickering between yourself as smaller nations just results in death.

So I can fend for myself and expand slowly bashing other civs on the head which is fine, but then this super power dumps down an army 20x my size and obliterates me...

I've tried all sorts to get other civs to ally with me, the only time it's possible that i've found so far, is if they offer and you accept, usually that's to meet their agenda though...

They need to seriously improve the politics in the game
 
PrincessFrosty said:
As I said the enemy AI gangs up on me, they make all sorts of crazy alliances with each other and you try and ally with some of the civs and there's just no way to actually entice them into taking out a common enemy.

Last nights game really drove the point home, one civ right on the other side of a "large" map became some ultra dominant civ, and i spent loads of turns trying to convince the other smaller civs to gang up on this bohemoth but none of them would have it, they bicker between themselves and threaten me with war for no good reason.

Everyone who has played risk more than twice knows that the only way for smaller players to take down larger enemies is to gang together and eliminate the strongest first, bickering between yourself as smaller nations just results in death.

So I can fend for myself and expand slowly bashing other civs on the head which is fine, but then this super power dumps down an army 20x my size and obliterates me...

I've tried all sorts to get other civs to ally with me, the only time it's possible that i've found so far, is if they offer and you accept, usually that's to meet their agenda though...

They need to seriously improve the politics in the game
Click to expand...

wait until the large civ is occupied beating on a different AI civ and then attack him while his units are injured and cut off. you have to be aggressive sometimes because anybody who has played Real Life knows that little guys would rather be on the side of the strong guy than risk getting thumped because their weak allies could not help them defend. once you start beating back the large civ the others will be willing to join your cause.

i can tell you straight up, if you try to 'turtle' and never establish yourself as a power the other civs will see you as fresh fish and come to feast. its never worth it to be friends with the little guy.

also, yes diplomacy is broken, there is no friends in this civ game and no vassal states as in the previous game to enforce any sort of alliance. you can either establish yourself as a somebody by carving out your empire or find an island to turtle on and just build naval vessels to defend your borders.

the game needs fixing, I hope the mod community can get some substance into it and that fireaxis can fix the many pending issues.
 
That's not my experience, I did try attacking the larger civs in my first few matches to eliminate the big guy early on and none of the other civs would ally with me, they all want protection from the biggest civs and as soon as you touch anyone in an alliance you have a whole bunch of people instantly go to war with you and what turns out to be a strong assault falls back into a defence and while a defence is possible even against superior numbers there is a limit to what you can handle, and even if you do survive until they stop attacking you're left worse for it because you have no additional territory and the big fish are now so dominant that you can't possibly hope to compete.

Maybe my issue is that I'm playing with too many AI, I've set custom maps to land mass as one large Pangea or whatever it's called, and set the map size one below the maximum, which comes pre-set with a lot of AI. Still this is no excuse for ultra-stubborn AI, my next game I'm going to make aggressive allies right off the bat and try my hardest to keep favour so that later in the game they may consider war, It sort of takes the wind out of your sales with a military win, there can be no small conflict it has to be you vs 1/2 the world or complete peace, I can't even attack them little city states or whatever they're called, the smaller 1 city factions (I find it really irritating you can't raze their "capitols", why they have that rule I never know, I tend to raze enemy cities and quickly replace with my own new one in the same place to avoid all this bonus unhappyness)
 
Just take the easy route, set it to islands, get to the stage where you can build frigates and obliterate anything in your path.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top