Is Civ5 more or less fun than Civ4/Civ3?

[DaShi]

I'm glad that I'm skipping Civ V. I don't think the patches or expansions will really make a difference because I believe that Civ V should have been a more fun game than Civ IV+.

[Proteus_MST]

Well, yeah, I played Civ III and enjoyed it. But I can't imagine going back from IV to III because of all the many improvements in gameplay. Certainly, something as superficial as the map isn't even close to a deciding factor.

Same for me.
Played Civ III a long time, enjoyed it and even did a lot of unit modding,
to lessen the impact of the spearman vs. tank syndrome.
But when Civ IV came out there was no going back to Civ III,
as even Vanilla Civ IV improved/added a lot of things,
without removing too many of the things that I liked in Civ III.

[Myrddin]

So that in 1 city sized hex you could fit 6-8 units .........
Furthermore, to avoid tedious micromanagement it could be possible to lock a group of units into a set formation and move them as a group on the strategic map. The only need for the tactical map would be when fighting enemies and setting up said formations.

Of course this would require a massive recoding of path-tracking, AI strategy, the map, and more. But I suspect it would make combat more interesting, could allow for more units thus allowing for production and flavor to be put back into the land. I suspect it would also make war more difficult, since armies will be unable to fight blitzwars in the bronze age.

Also known as Call To Power combat model where you formed an army of up to 12 units IIRC, with a limit of 12 units per tile.

The tile limit threw up some major problems with unit pathfinding and AI eg how do you move round friendly forces, which means that I am doubtful that Civ V can be easily fixed.

[One_more_turn]

Civ V is a piece of ****, just putting it politely.

[Boracks]

Civ V is a piece of ****, just putting it politely.

To quote one of the advisors from a prior Civ, "I disagree, sire"

Needs work, yes, but so did IV when it first came out.

And I refuse to build city walls. Except as India (the fort is worth it).

[Dinner]

Civ5 is definately less fun then Civ4 imho. It all boils down to the fact that there is less to do and so you're left hitting end turn over and over again simply because there is nothing to do in much of the early and even midgame plus I find wonders less satisfying to build because they do so little. If you spend 50 turns building a wonder then you want it to do more then give you +1 to culture just in that city (which is the same as building a stone age monument). Then there is the fact that the AI can't really handle 1UPT to make organized attacks (melee in the front with archers and siege engines in the rear) and, while I like the embarkation feature, I do recognize the reason for it is because it's very hard to program the AI to make amphib landings if units have to be loaded on to transports (see Sorensen's lecture on AI programing on his website). The simplifying and streaming serves two purposes 1) to make the game more attractive to casual players who really aren't that interested in the game other then playing the odd game and 2) because the AI can't handle complicated things so by making the game simpler they make it easier for the AI. The problem is even with the simplification the AI is just terrible, even worse then Civ4, so the whole thing becomes underwhelming.

[Arrian]

I haven't played for a few weeks now. I haven't been playing CivIV either, but that's likely just because I'd need to install it (and patch it up) on my new comp in order to play. I probably will do that at some point. I've actually been playing some older games... RR Tycoon III and, get this, No Greater Glory (a DOS civil war game that came out in 1991!).

I'm sure I'll go back to it (particularly if they release a new patch). I hope that some day it ends up being a good game. Right now, though... meh.

-Arrian

[Ming]

Over time, Civ V will probably improve. It took years for BTS

But right now... given a choice of Civ V or a Civ IV MP game, I'm playing Civ IV.

[YC4B4U]

Into my 5th game I think. I still find it interesting, however I am starting to run into the "just clicking the next turn button" syndrome. It just seems to take too long to build units and buildings. If I start buidling a unit I am worried that it will be obselete by the time it is built - then I have to throw away money to upgrade it...

Also getting frustrated with the AI. Previous game I won a tech victory even though I wasn't the most advanced - just because no AI built a spaceship. The two largest AI armies declared war on me at the same time - they were 2 to 3 times more pointed sticked than me - but they didn't even try take me out!

I may be in patch waiting mode very soon...

[Norselord]

They both can be fun. But Civ4 has amazing bang for the buck in price over played hours. The only games that are even close were Diablo2 (+LOD), Madden '95 (last year that you could design your own plays), and FIFA09.

Civ5 is entertaining as long as I don't try to think of it in terms of Civ4. I am still on my first 2 months with it, and just trying to play towards each kind of social policy (picking two or three that seem to fit with my random leader, and playing towards those goals.)

I actually do NOT like the graphics in this game better than Civ4. The land tiles look too chaotic, i like being able to tell at a glance if something is grass or forest or jungle. Things that I find fun in Civ4: wonder movies, amazingly lotto-jackpot city locations (in 5 its all pretty much the same), city specialization, espionage, religion, the turn playback at the end of the game. I forget which iteration of Civ had the Palace, but i really enjoyed that. I liked the random events/quests in Civ4 -- much better than the same old CS quests. I liked the many little rewards that I got in Civ3 & 4 while just playing. I am not getting that little 'kick' out of Civ5.