5> 4

[mkorin]

That's right, with the first fix for the first expansion, I think V is now better than IV ever was. I like the changes 1upt etc, the bugs are now mostly gone, and the ones that are there are playable.

Now to the haters, don't flame me until. 1 you've played it and 2 you have a reason to hate it other than the AI is stupid. The AI has always been and will always be stupid.

Mike

[Orange46]

I liked 5 better from the start because of the vastly improved combat. Combat was boring in all prior versions, but now it's as much fun as Panzer General was, with the added bonus of all that Civilization brings to the table. There are some aspects of 4 that I liked better, but I would not go back.

[Ming]

Yes... in general, the AI is always stupid. However, while I'm a fan of 1upt in some games, it hasn't worked for Civ V and will continue to not work simply because the AI is stupid, and simply can't deal with the combat. At least with SOD's in Civ IV, the AI might have been stupid, but it knew how to deal with it. The AI can surprise and overwhelm you, and really cause you serious problems... and it would plan it. So far, the combat in Civ V is just not suited for the current level of dumb AI, and I'm not sure it will ever get better.

And let's not talk about how bad Civ V is for MP.

[mkorin]

I hated the SOD. Regardless of how you were setup tactically, a strong enough SOD could easily take a city. 1upt at least allows some tactical thinking for combat. Sure the AI is stupid, but that could be changed/fixed if they wanted to change it. I think it is that way for a reason, I don't know what the logic is, but someone programed it that way for a reason.

Mike

[prelynmax]

I agree, but I still combat in any Civ game is downright tedious.

[self biased]

I hated the SOD. Regardless of how you were setup tactically, a strong enough SOD could easily take a city. 1upt at least allows some tactical thinking for combat. Sure the AI is stupid, but that could be changed/fixed if they wanted to change it. I think it is that way for a reason, I don't know what the logic is, but someone programed it that way for a reason.

Mike

the SOD makes marginally more sense, and 1upt makes for an extremely untidy map when you have a substantial army. i find it hilarious that they traded in 'road spaghetti' in for 'Unit Meatballs.'

also, i do not have a Panzer General shaped erection and cannot share in any such sentiment. I don't mind the hexes or some of the other design decisions, but god damn is the game boring.

[Roggan]

am say an say ony wonce

1>3<2>5<4

[Ming]

but god damn is the game boring.

That's my problem with the game.... they nerfed the wonders... the resourses... the great people... any strategy that worked got nerfed in later updates... the games is simply BORING.
While SOD's aren't optimal, at least the rest of the game (Civ IV) wasn't boring.

And again.... WHAT ABOUT MP!

[Sava]

am say an say ony wonce

1>3<2>5<4

I am quoting this because it is the truth.

I think that 5>3.
3 is still the worst IMO.
5 is second worst. But it is playable. 3 was unplayable.

[Alfred Mondale]

I have played Civ1, Civ2, Civ3, Civ4,and CTP1 and CTP2. I have not played Civ5. Yet I will say this: Oneunit per tile is an abomination. A tile covers a vast area of land,say 200 miles. How can only one unit fill it? Even assuming that aunit represents a multitude of men, why should they all be of onetype? Immersion is everything in Civ; I wish to play as a great rulerof a large nation, not be some lowly field commander. I will neverplay Civ5, it has ruined the franchise. I can only hope that the nextiteration restores the old system.

[steimlem]

i agree 5 is the best

[Adagio]

I do agree that 5 is now better than 4, but only just barely and there are some things in 4 that I like better than in 5

The religion in 5 is much better than in 4. Still far from perfect, but it's in the right direction
The 1UPT has it's ups and downs. It's not realistic at all, but does add more tactics than SOD. The mayor downside is the AI who can't handle it well
The government was better in 4
But overall 5 is more fun than 4, but just barely

[Tahitian]

Just registered, mainly for Apolyton Call to power stuff..

A total Civ 5:Gods & Kings junkie too, and the Brave New World expansion sounds simply AMAZING.

All kinds of fun details for peaceful players and builders, and cool ways for diplomacy, alliance blocs and ways to rein in runaway empires.
Stuff like domestic and international trade routes, and the totally redesigned culture/tourism have never been done better in my opinion.

Even religion gets new things in BNW, personally I can't wait to start converting barbarians with my misisonaries..
It's cool they seem to change the unique abilities of old ciivs too.

I grew bored of vanilla Civ V, but now the two expansions have a new lead designer Ed Beach and he has done so much good. I think those disappointed in the stripped-down and clumsy vanilla Civ V should give BNW a change when it's out in July..

[self biased]

anyone speculating on what the steam sale will look like? i might be inclined to pick up G&K and BNW if it's cheap enough.

additionally, I do have to reiterate that while i understand that some people really get a thrill out of tactical combat (and there's nothing wrong with that) I feel that it hyperfocuses on the already predominant military aspect of the game. as someone who is generally content to play a builder's game, i find dedicated warfare sometimes tedious, especially when one so greatly overwhelms their oponnent.

[bchris964]

hi dudes,
I like 4 than 5 because it is good as a whole.No doubt 5 has combat quality.
SOD is good here because negativity helps to prove positiveness is right.