At First I ranted about Civ 5.. But Civ 4 Sucks
Ok So I hated Civ 5, I purchased Civ 4 + all Expansions.
In my First Game.. I get my ass kicked.
The Combat in Civ 4 Sucks, I'm sorry guys but it plainly sucks.
I got my ass handed to me by the A.i who was on easy, every unit they had seemed to know every bonus and would wipe the floor with me.
Civ 5 Seems to have the combat system worked out beautifully.
On a board where there are obviously a ton of Civ 4 fans are you really going to post a topic containing "Civ 4 sucks"? Then on top of it you say your playing on easy inviting "LTP" responses. It feels like your just trying to pick a fight.
I am glad you like Civ 5 but this thread serves no purpose IMO other than trying to piss people off.
Wait, your argument for Civ 4 sucking was that the AI was too hard, and Civ 5 is so much better because the AI is now worse?
You could apply that exact same logic to Civ V, and the forum is spammed with it. Overall, the forum would probably be a lot better off without the mass of trolling, but it'll be a while for it to die down.
Originally Posted by dizzymonkey
We hear from another of the "Press start to win" crowd that Civ V is aiming for.
You played one game and it went badly for you, so the game sucks. Do I have this correct or did I miss something? Did you play again, probably not. You lost, so the game sucks, yeah that is a well informed critique...
It will die down in a few weeks or so, only to start right up again when a major patch comes out or an expansion comes out. That is the way of life on gaming forums.
Hey Press start to win is my line : ). Seriously though, the OP embodies that mentality.
Originally Posted by Takao
And A damn good line at that! Quite fitting as of late.
Of course. Plenty of people are just here to troll. That's the downside to official forums. Unofficial forums can simply set rules against negative criticism, and ban those who break those rules, but on official forums, doing so would only make things worse.
Originally Posted by Takao
After my first two runs with Civ5, and feeling "abit" disappointed, I was thinking of buying Civ4 from Steam. I mean, I already have Steam, so why not. But I realized that buyinh only Civ4 wouldn't cut, I had to but the expansions too, otherwise I would be in an almost same situation. Raw Civ5 vs raw civ4 with patches.
So I knocked off the idea, and at least trying to give civ5 another shot.
I have no problem with Steam.
The difference is that a lot of the feedback for Civ 5 is to try and get changes to the game (some of it is the "this sucks" stuff but a lot of it is constructive) as it is still new and we know patches / expansions are in our future. Civ 4 is done and everyone knows it - there is no possible purpose for stating that on this board other than trying to pick a fight IMO.
Originally Posted by Morthis
The biggest issue is that no patch will be able to fix this game - the biggest gripes are the gameplay decisions already built into the game.
For example, Empire Total War had SERIOS bugs at release, and it took nearly a year for all of them to be addressed. The fundamental mechanics of the game however were sound - it wasn't as if they "streamlined" it for a more casual consumer base.
This isn't the case for Civ V. Some of the AI problems / bugs will be fixed via patches I'm sure, but only a massive expansion will resolve (if they even care to) the majority of complaints of this game.
OP has a point. The combat system is much more transparent in Civ V. It even tells you the bonuses. And since there can easily be more bonuses than fit in the box it uses to display them I guess it's fair to say that they're not easy to keep track of as a new player ;-)
Ok, so I too thought that you couldn't lose a Civ IV game on purpose on Settler, but some things are just hard to understand without some experience. Civ V does a great job at making the game easy to pick up for new players.
So what you are saying is civ5=easy and civ4=hard? Don't see anything related to how good they are in your example.
yes Civ 4 has to be the worst vanilla game of the series no doubt imo...
Civ V is a much more polished and streamlined game than Civ 4.. yes it has bugs and so forth, but will get better and 'is' a much better game than Civ 4 vanilla.. not that i really enjoyed Civ 4 with the expansions.. still too sterile and it relied on modding to actually become fun.. not my idea of a god game if you have to rely on expansions and modding to make it good..
Guy meant civ4 + expansions.
And what I've understood, hard = sucks. Pretty sad message.
I suggest you to try civ I. It's basically civ 5, but a bit harder so you can learn to defend your cities properly. Then slowly move your way up to civ2, 3 and 4, so you can grasp missing concepts gradually.
I too can Rant!
The AI in Civ4 has the much discussed Stack-of-Doom to compensate for its inadequacies and it pretty good at using it. Trick is to use lots of throw-away siege units to do collateral damage to the entire she-bang.
The AI in Civ5 has no clue and no SoD crutch, period. You can steam roll it with warriors even in later eras
Combat is pretty much the ONLY thing that was improved in Civ5 so the fact that the earlier version sucks shouldn't come as a surprise.
What Civ4 has over Civ5, in abundance I might add, is choice. There are so many variables and knobs that you tweak to suit not just short-term but also long-term goals .. none of that silly empire building nonsense exists in Civ5.
So in the end you have an 'assisted' AI that will kick your ass versus a clueless AI that gives you all its cities when it loses a unit.
It is almost as if Civ5 was created with multiplayer as being the driving force (explains the Steam hook-up as well) but completely neglecting the single player aspect.
Mods will save the day, which is a sad thing to say for any game.
I wouldnt say Civ4 sucks :O, however i will say Civ5 pwons it with ease
Maaaaaan...you come right out of a comic book.
Civ 5 is a lot better than Civ 4 in the millitary aspect.
Originally Posted by Zaul
So a person that played civ 5 before 4 naturally will think that civ 4 sucks.
But in every other aspect of the game, Civ 5 sucks.
A person who liked Civ 5 probably will not see that the game is all about war, so if war in civ 4 sucked then all of civ 4 sucks!