Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Spud10]

Anyone playing?

I see they finally released the Mac Client so I'll be able to get it.. but I haven't yet. I'm still kinda hooked on SC2 but I suck terribly and feel a change might be due.

Tell me what you think? I played Civ IV to no end but is it worth the purchase?

[Juregen]

I am at Emperor level, but that is damn hard to beat.

[UknowsI]

Civ 5 has many large improvements, the biggest one being 1 unit per tile, but this broke the AI horribly at launch. I quit playing because even Deity (hardest difficulty) was pretty easy to beat. However, two patches has come since then and the latest ones is addressing a lot of the AI issues. I believe the game is considerably better now, and I really want to start playing it again, but I have no time

Civ is one of those games I enjoy playing for a while every 18 months or so. I can't see myself going back to Civ 4, so Civ 5 is a game I will enjoy periodically for many years to come. However, Civ 5 is NOT as balanced and well polished as Starcraft 2. It has a lot of flaws, but is the best turn based strategy game out there by a large margin.

[Darkeru]

Personally didn't like it. Still playing Civ 4

[Spud10]

[UknowsI]

Quite a few people prefered Civ 4, especially in the beginning, but that was also the case with Civ 3 and Civ 4. There are tons of threads about it on civfanatics.com, but most of them are buried by now.

Civ 5 seems to give you less choices because of how they changed the government system and because the tech tree is a bit more simple. Personally I think making the choices smaller with more logical consequences have been an improvement because it makes balanced wars more frequent, but it has also hindered some play styles. For example playing Civ as a pure empire builder has become a little boring because stacking building and wonders is a less viable strategy.

Summary: Some play styles are more fun in Civ4, but I think the changes was absolutely necessary if Civ is ever going to be a well balanced and competitive game (still a long way to go to reach that goal).

[OThePestO]

If you really liked Civ III and Civ IV, don't get Civ V. If you played those games and liked the direction that Civ IV was heading into but wanted even more changes, then play Civ V. Civ V is nothing like Civ III and very different from Civ IV.

I personally prefer Civ III and Civ IV.

[pintosaur]

i'm in the same boat, i think civ 3 and civ 4 were way better than civ 5

[Spud10]

well, i tried to buy Civ 5 via steam yesterday, but I got a whole bunch of errors so it never happened. It was only sale (25% off) and i figured i might as well go for it.

oh well, i guess my decision was made!

[UknowsI]

Yea, Steam can be annoying sometimes.

About the actual game. I've been playing a couple of games since the December patch now, and I have to say the difference is huge.

-The AI is much better
-Diplomacy improved
-Science balanced improved (improving your cities can now compete with expanding)
-Warfare balanced (stronger cities, weaker horsemen, more upgrade paths, promotions changed quite a bit. Overall combined forces are much more important, and a war will often only conquer a few cities instead of entire continents)
-City states balanced

Pretty much every aspect of the game has been rebalanced.

Too bad the game wasn't released in it's current state. I think a lot of the initial criticism would have been avoided.

[Kuros]

The recent patch cleaned up a lot of issues. It was like a beta before that, they released it with so many bugs. Not just balance issues, straight up bugs that slowed the game after reloading.

Uknows1, have they fixed the multiplayer experience yet? Before it was simply unplayable.

[UknowsI]