So 5 years and 2 expansion packs later, do you consider it a more enjoyable and better game than IV or III mechanics-wise? I see some clinging on to IV, which is understandable as it's probably the apex of Civ gaming, but I really don't know why so many people suck III's dick. Many of its mechanics were poorly thought out, like the lack of any hard counter against stacks, the instant transport railroad, the bullshit Statue of Zeus wonder, and the lack of any real limit on expansion which made the game a contest for making the most cities.
Compared to IV, it's shit.
Just straight up dumbed down and bad in comparison.
>>318346009
Usually people will respond with "muh sooper complex 1 younit pur tile" when it's really just a false sense of complexity. The most you can do in the way of tactics is to put your melee units in front, archers in back, and some cavalry on the sides and watch as the AI charges unorganized into your forces like an autistic 2 year old playing the game for the first time. At least Civ 4's collateral damage forced you to break up your stacks somewhat and think about where they'll go, especially in the late game with cannons, artillery, and bombers.
In terms of vanilla game, yes. I don't know if I'd call it "better" but I certainly think it's more enjoyable to play: combat is enjoyable under some specific conditions rather than never, the way things like great works of art are handled really makes for more interesting culture game in particular, it's prettier to look at etc.
However, Civ IV has far superior mods like Caveman2Cosmos that extend the advantages of 4 (like greater detail and more involved mechanics, admittedly C2C in particular also has some handicaps of its own like AI being unable to handle it and far slower turn times) from a large gap to a huge chasm and V doesn't really have anything that even compares.
>>318347452
>combat in V
>enjoyable at all
nicely wew'd my lad
>>318345827
Can't even get this shit to run on my computer so no. I've tried just about everything and it still wont work on my windows 7 computer. I have 8 gigs of ram so I don't see why this game wont even load up without crashing.
>>318348947
Play IV, anyone with any actual experience with Civ games outside of V knows that it's vastly superior.
>>318348947
Ram isn't the only factor on why an application would fail to launch.
>>318345827
>like the lack of any hard counter against stacks
what is artillery
>>318349126
That's in 4, artillery in 3 only damages one unit per ranged attack, making it extremely cumbersome at taking down large stacks compared to collateral damage in 4
>>318345827
as much as my inner autism dont like it
It would probably be the game I would introduce to a new comer with 4x genre.
>>318348947
> I have 8 whole gigs of ram, why won't muh game load?
>>318349108
I know this, but it isn't a game that requires a 1000 dollar computer to play. My buddy can play it on his 200 dollar laptop with only 4 gigs of ram. I can play shit like call of duty black ops and the witcher 1 on my computer, yet civ wont even start, after deleting, reinstalling, reinstalling steam, verifying files, and other asinine tasks that didn't work.
>>318348902
The decision-making process isn't exactly interesting (like someone said, it essentially comes down to putting melee in front and archers behind) but with V's improved graphics, it's entertaining to watch your guys beat the enemies and when dealing with a small amount of units, I don't find it bothersome as a result (of course, it's even worse when you have to deal with a lot of units, but I tend not to go for conquest victories and won't have to deal with it). Conversely, Civ IV doesn't have entertaining decision-making process and it's not pretty to look at either, and as such it's always a bother.
An example of a combat system that I'd consider mechanically interesting would be something like the one in Dominions (although it's not exactly something that could be implemented in a Civ).
ooo a civ thread
i tried to play my installation civ 4 again and the game bugged out, prolly because i moved the intstallation prior to a hdd wipe
anyway i installed it again and im still peeved that it doesnt have a NOCD patch (i have the dvd complete version)
anyway i saw it was on for cheep on steam and i considered buying it to circumvent installation issues but then decided against it because why would i buy something i already have hmmm?
still would be nice if i could activate it on steam but there's no cd-key in the complete version - beyond the sword works without the cd key but i like the reg civ 4
>>318345827
Civ 5 puts gameplay into diplomatic and cultural victories
what Civ 5 promotes that i don't like is builds, and usually if you're doing well in one aspect of victory, you're quite capable of winning in other methods
if they go back to octagonal movement then ill consider playing 6
about the only thing that is definitely improved over iv is the leader models
>287 hours played
Yeah I'd say it's pretty good.
