For all of you Civ IV lovers out there.

[Sunrunner]

So after a lot of disappointment with Civ 5 I decided to take the advice of a fellow forum member and download the complete civ IV pack on steam for 6 bucks. First thoughts about the infrastructure and play style was very good. I love how religion and happiness were implemented.

But holy mother of god... this game has to have the worst combat system in the history of gaming. Computers roaming around with stacks of 50 units endlessly bombarding my city... I think I went afk for 5 minutes and came back and they were still at it. There must be some kind of trick to it because the computer and I got locked into an endless, boring stalemate of huge piles of men crashing into one another.

Final thoughts: Take religion, tile improvements, tech trees, wonders, and happiness mechanics from civ IV and tie them together with the UI, graphics, and combat of Civ 5 and you would have an awesome game.... couldn't emphasis that more!

[Taciturn Scot]

So, you tried Civ V first and then went and tried an earlier title? That's a very interesting observation. Combat in Civ 3 and 4 was like that - huge stacks duking it out for upwards of 10 minutes at a time. Worst would be when you accidentally ended your turn with a scouting unit in LoS of two AI stacks doing this. You'd have to wait an age before you could get your turn again...

Actually, there is an option to switch off the combat animations in Civ 4 so you might have a better game experience if you select that in the advanced set up.

[I Love Pies]

Yeah, combat in Civ 4 can get pretty hectic and sometimes annoying due to Stack of Doom combats. And the between turns can involve quite a bit of waiting if you have the combat animations fully turned on.

But then again, Civ 5's combat isn't free of annoyance either. Mostly it has to do with AI's lack of capability with the 1UPT mechanic, and the heavy traffic jam where a lot of the hexes get occupied by units that makes maneuvering very difficult.

I have never considered Civ games as combat games. Since I have been playing Civ 4 and Civ 5 back and forth since the release of Civ 5, I can honestly say that non-combat elements are generally more polished in Civ 4, which for me, is more important than combat. However, I think that Civ 5's mechanics just need a bit of fine tuning over time to make it as enjoyable as Civ 4 in its own right.

I really like the complexity and the choices available to me in Civ 4, whereas I like the new combat and the interesting new directions introduced in Civ 5.

[Sunrunner]

Although I would agree that, to me, noncombat elements are also way more important, combat is generally always inevitable.

Maybe the solution is to allow units to stack but if one unit in the stack dies they all die. This would allow for much better maneuverability but still have a large risk associated with using the feature. Additionally, a unit cap per a tile(of say 3 units) could be added in.

[Alex1939]

For me, Civ5 has ruined Civ4 and yet I don't enjoy playing Civ5 so essentially I no longer play Civ of any kind.

I don't know if I can go back to the concept of 1 barb warrior in 1000ad can take a city because I don't have a group garrisoned in it. Also I heavily tired of the Stack of Doom by the end of my Civ4 playing days.

But the immersion and basically everything else I loved about Civ is gone in Civ5. And I really don't even like the 1upt. I think 5 units per tile would be a much more effective system.


Oh well, hope for the future I guess.

[Mojito]

Got to Game settings and check the "quick combat". This will speed things up. You can also turn this on and off while you are allready under a attack

[woverby1963]

I would agree the loss of stacks of doom is a step in the right direction but one per hex may be a little restricting. This is noticeable when for instance you can stack a combat unit and a worker but not two workers. Im thinking maybe two to three combat units per hex and more for civilian units or maybe unlimited for them, of course it would have to be played out to see if it would really work. Just an idea for the future maybe. Civ 5 is still lacking the polish and depth of civ 4 but it still has the potential to be the best if its worked on more.

[Swordfishtrombone]

The only changes to 1UPT that I'd like to see is to have the system treat great persons, workers and scouts, each as their own class of unit, which could stack with each other, AND combat units.

Meaning that, at a hypothetical "best case" scenario, you could have a worker, a great person, a scout, and a warrior on the same tile. A scout could not stack with another scout, nor a great person with another great person, or a worker with another worker. Also, the units scout, great person, and worker, should all be able to stack with a combat unit of a foreign nation you are not at war with.

This would, in effect, eliminate the most annoying types of "traffic jams", without effecting the game play mechanics or balance at all; no longer would some foreign scout wonder into a combat zone and take up a strategically important piece of land, blocking combat units. And no longer would your order to have a great person go to one of your cities be interrupted by an automated worker, on it's way to somewhere, happening to stop in the city your great person was going to.

[pontifex_mundi]

For me, Civ5 has ruined Civ4 and yet I don't enjoy playing Civ5 so essentially I no longer play Civ of any kind.

Lolwut? Civ 5 ruined Civ 4? You are aware these are two different games, right? I still play Civ IV if I feel like playing with the complexity of the game, but I still feel like Civ V is more advanced, although I agree there is room for potential.

I think 5 units per tile would be a much more effective system.

I don't see how this would work out. Cities would be way too easy to take if 3-5 units were allowed to stack. Even if only one unit in each stack were allowed to attack per turn, the city bombardment would be meaningless if only one of these units would take damage, while the remainder would be able to attack at full strength. Also, artillery, archers, embarked units etc would be way too powerful if they were allowed to simply be protected by melee units, destroyers etc. The whole tactical concept would be meaningless if units were allowed to stack. I know it might be frustrating at times, but I'd rather have the 1upt than an insufficient stacking system. I think the developers tried stacking, and found that it wouldn't work out.

[Saurus the Second]

For me, the biggest problem with civ 5 is the lack of options regarding the tech tree. The tech tree in Civ 4 was brilliant. For instance, one player had tanks and mechanical infantry while lacking artielllery and the cabablity of building airplanes.

The opponent might have airplanes in abudance, and artillerty so could weaken the enemy ground forces so that the somewhat weak rifelemen then could fight sucsessfully against the otherwise supreme ground forces.

After a certain threashold was reached, I was forced to turn of the battle animations. I'm not a fan of the SOD either.
But that's about the only thing that is wrong with civ 4. Possibly, the resource system, from civ 5 could be implemented in civ 4 as well. Additionally, by making units more expensive in civ 4, the micromanagement during end game would ease.

I have not yet installed civ 4 on my new machine but I'm compelled to do so due to civ 5 beeing very shallow, unstable, and predictable. In additon, technolgy cost is way too cheap during end-game and the space-ship parts are to quick to build. Thus many end game units and buildings lack any logical function. (I have tried to build a giant death robot, but has failed every time - my space ship is finished and launces too early)

I still yet have to win a cultural victory in civ 5 on emperor difficulty at a standard sized pangea (at epic pace)
After that has been done, I believe I will revert back to civ 4.

[Fantasy]

So, you tried Civ V first and then went and tried an earlier title? That's a very interesting observation. Combat in Civ 3 and 4 was like that - huge stacks duking it out for upwards of 10 minutes at a time. Worst would be when you accidentally ended your turn with a scouting unit in LoS of two AI stacks doing this. You'd have to wait an age before you could get your turn again...

Actually, there is an option to switch off the combat animations in Civ 4 so you might have a better game experience if you select that in the advanced set up.

Does anyone even play with the combat animations ON? That's nuts....

[Sunrunner]

Does anyone even play with the combat animations ON? That's nuts....

I played Civ 4 initially with animations on just to get a feel for what it would be like; ended up following the above advice and turning it off. I must say after several games I haven't enjoyed any of the combat aspects in it. Starting from the beginning and building up my civilization was tons of fun but when it came to declaring war it was plain boring. Maybe it is just me but the mechanics behind attacking aren't very intuitive either; even on the lowest difficulty, attacking same unit AI players always turned out for a loss to me. Its like tile defense bonuses are blown way out of proportion. The mechanics in Civ 5 are very clear as to exactly what is attributing to the win/loss.

Also, artillery, archers, embarked units etc would be way too powerful if they were allowed to simply be protected by melee units, destroyers etc. The whole tactical concept would be meaningless if units were allowed to stack.

To me Civ has always been laid out like a board game and one unit per a space makes sense. I must also agree with the fact that huge stacks of ranged artillery would be way over powered. I wonder if a damage penalty for stacked units could fix this?

[Koga1211]

I played Civ 4 for years, it has its pros and cons, and I have hope that Civ 5 will eventually be patched to a point where its more in line with some of Civ 4's "pros". But I DO have one thing to comment on immediately...

Let me attach my General to my military unit(s) again, PLEASE! Its really annoying trying to micro manage a general so he doesn't get killed just because he didn't follow my military units path perfectly! Why can't I attach him to my unit? It was like this in Civ 4, and probably in 3 and below (I can't remember), I don't see the logic behind NOT allowing it!

/endrant

[pontifex_mundi]

Let me attach my General to my military unit(s) again, PLEASE! Its really annoying trying to micro manage a general so he doesn't get killed just because he didn't follow my military units path perfectly! Why can't I attach him to my unit? It was like this in Civ 4, and probably in 3 and below (I can't remember), I don't see the logic behind NOT allowing it!

The difference between Civ V and the earlier versions of the game is that in Civ IV you simply gave xp to the units in the tile, and were able to give some special upgrades to the unit with which the general was linked, whereas in Civ V the general provide a combat strength boost to your units. I feel like it was harder to protect my general in Civ IV than it was in Civ V, as I in the former was afraid to lose my general in combat, so I hardly ever used him on the offense. In the latter I may stack him with a strong unit or in a city adjacent to my force. As you may move him in the same tiles as a military unit, it just takes a little more time to move him, instead of risking losing him in combat.
Oh, and IIRC your GG simply linked your stack together in Civ III.

[Sunrunner]

Let me attach my General to my military unit(s) again, PLEASE! Its really annoying trying to micro manage a general so he doesn't get killed just because he didn't follow my military units path perfectly! Why can't I attach him to my unit? It was like this in Civ 4, and probably in 3 and below (I can't remember), I don't see the logic behind NOT allowing it!

I personally don't have any problem with having to micromanage my great general - his bonus to surrounding units is worth it and all you really have to do is keep him 2 tiles away. Like the person above said, attaching it to a unit will make you fear for the units life and make you use it less.

[Davor]

I don't find combat in Civ V so great. At least I can properly defend my cities in Civ IV or less. In Civ V unless I make a Blanket of Death that surrounds the city, Civ V defence is a fail in my case. It takes forever to make walls, and then eventually those walls don't become usefull anyway because modern weapons bypass the walls so how do you defend your city then?

At least in Civ IV I can move ALL my units at once, not this one at a time like in Civ V. I feel like I am playing Civ or Civ II all over again moving one unit at a time. You telling me, that Firaxis had to take a 18 year backward step in combat?

[Taciturn Scot]

I don't find combat in Civ V so great. At least I can properly defend my cities in Civ IV or less. In Civ V unless I make a Blanket of Death that surrounds the city, Civ V defence is a fail in my case. It takes forever to make walls, and then eventually those walls don't become usefull anyway because modern weapons bypass the walls so how do you defend your city then?

At least in Civ IV I can move ALL my units at once, not this one at a time like in Civ V. I feel like I am playing Civ or Civ II all over again moving one unit at a time. You telling me, that Firaxis had to take a 18 year backward step in combat?

I think you are confusing Civ V with Civ IV. In Civ IV, Gunpowder made your walls and castles obsolete. In Civ V, they add to your city's overall defence value.

Surrounding cities with units is the way it happens in the real world. Failure to surround said city could result in a failure to capture it. Once it's surrounded and you are bombarding /attacking each turn of course it should fall. These are better tactics than Civ IV required.

I'm not going to say how I defend my cities. It's my strategy, I devised it and it works so effectively that I've only once ever lost a city to the AI. Perhaps you need to try doing something different from what you used to do in Civ IV. You ain't playing Civ IV no more...

[Davor]

I know I am not playing Civ IV no more. I can't remember where I read this. Maybe in the Civ V manual or the "Help" in the game. This was for Civ V. That is why I never made them before, but now that I came back, I am starting to make walls and castles now. I just wish I can rememeber where I read this for Civ V.

[Taciturn Scot]

Keep looking then. I haven't read that in the Civ V manual. This is what I read in my manual...

Walls provide +5 defence to your city's defence value
Walls are required to build Castles. Castles add 7.5 to your city's defence value (cumulative +12.5)
Castles are required to build Military Bases. Military Bases add +12 to your city's defence value (cumulative +24.5)
Nothing mentioned about becoming obsolete.

Or, at what point did you notice that your cities defence values suddenly plummeted due to a particular technology being researched and making these imporvements obsolete?

Seriously, I think you're mistaking it with Civ IV gameplay. You may not be playing Civ IV no more but you appear to be confusing Civ IV game mechanics with Civ V.

[SamBC]

The most important trick for defending cities in CivV is - don't let the enemy get too near them! Wars happen "in the fields" now. When a fairly strong force gets to your city, especially to envelop it, you're likely to lose it. The only exception is cities largely surrounded by mountains, which trade-off defensibility for a loss in productivity

[Fantasy]

I played Civ 4 initially with animations on just to get a feel for what it would be like; ended up following the above advice and turning it off. I must say after several games I haven't enjoyed any of the combat aspects in it. Starting from the beginning and building up my civilization was tons of fun but when it came to declaring war it was plain boring. Maybe it is just me but the mechanics behind attacking aren't very intuitive either; even on the lowest difficulty, attacking same unit AI players always turned out for a loss to me. Its like tile defense bonuses are blown way out of proportion. The mechanics in Civ 5 are very clear as to exactly what is attributing to the win/loss.

Civ IV gives you a detailed breakdown of strength and all the factors affecting it, before you attack, including a percentage likelihood of victory. I don't know how it could be made simpler.

The rules, in a nutshell, are very realistic: infantry units get a bonus when defending/fortifying. Mounted units can not get any defense bonuses (from terrain or fortification), which makes sense. Same for armored units. Mounted units are effective against early ballistic units (catapult, trebuchet, cannon) due to flanking attack. Cavalry and armor have a combat withdrawal chance (due to speed). Archer units are good city defenders but lousy assault. And all this is broken down for you in the left bottom corner before your attack (just right click to the unit you want to attack with your selected unit, but don't let the mouse button go).

[Fantasy]

Surrounding cities with units is the way it happens in the real world. Failure to surround said city could result in a failure to capture it.

Not true in most cases. Both in ancient sieges as in WW II sieges, many a city fell without being surrounded. Cracking through the defenses was the key in most cases. Yes, stopping supplies to the city is important, but was not typically achieved by completely surrounding the city, which is physically impossible, but cutting supply routes, bombarding convoys etc. I would go as far as to say that no city has ever, in history, been completely surrounded.

[Taciturn Scot]

Realistic? I certainly wouldn't go that far. Every unit in Civ IV has its counter and when you select a unit to attack a stack, the very best counter to your unit is submitted. You have no choice, you have to attack the enemy's best unit. Not realistic at all. And combat is resoved unto the death - with a few exceptions mounted units and artillery units and that's by no means a certain thing.

I did like the flanking bonus for mounted units v artillery though. That was a very nice touch.

[Taciturn Scot]

Of course it's not true in every case. Very little in life is. Surely you're not claiming that it didn't happen very often.

[Fantasy]

Realistic? I certainly wouldn't go that far. Every unit in Civ IV has its counter and when you select a unit to attack a stack, the very best counter to your unit is submitted. You have no choice, you have to attack the enemy's best unit. Not realistic at all. And combat is resoved unto the death - with a few exceptions mounted units and artillery units and that's by no means a certain thing.

I did like the flanking bonus for mounted units v artillery though. That was a very nice touch.

Actually....... I agree. I like the Europa Universalis-style, where you can lose a fight even though your army is not annihilated. I like many other things regarding the EU-style of fighting, like their way of "stacking" (combining units) with the concept of support limit.

[mickreid]

There could have been many different ways to fix the stack without destroying it - and getting rid of 80% of other stuff that made the game fun in the process.

[Fantasy]

There could have been many different ways to fix the stack without destroying it - and getting rid of 80% of other stuff that made the game fun in the process.

I agree with your words of high wisdom. May they grace the ears/eyes of future Civilization designers.

[Alex1939]

Lolwut? Civ 5 ruined Civ 4? You are aware these are two different games, right? I still play Civ IV if I feel like playing with the complexity of the game, but I still feel like Civ V is more advanced, although I agree there is room for potential.

To clarify and make it more simple for you to understand.


After many many years and hundreds (thousands?) of hours.. I bored of Civ4 mainly due to combat.

After two months I quit playing Civ5. Combat, while needing some improvement, is not the reason I quit. Everything else is. (including lack of functional and fun multiplayer)

I don't want to go back to Civ4 because the combat that I'm sick of is still there. I basically CAN'T play Civ5 multiplayer so that'sout. The single player is a shell that feels like a boardgame. I am not immersed in the game.

Therefore Civ5 has essentially killed both games for me.

Simple enough for you?

[Oerdin]

You went away for five minutes and it was still going? What are you playing on a 286? :lol:

[I Love Pies]

I don't find the 1UPT vastly superior over Civ 4's combat mechanics. If anything, Civ 4's combat was also very straight forward and easy to understand. The only downside that I can see from Civ 4's combat is that huge portion of battles in late game end up being fought as either siege or defense of cities, and not out in the open as much as seen in Civ 5.

Anything else other than combat, such as diplomacy, economics, research, city management, espionage, amount & accuracy of information via Civilopedia, buildings & wonders, etc. are all clearly better in Civ 4 by a mile currently. And like the previous poster mentioned a few posts above, the tech tree is vastly superior in Civ 4 as well.

If you play Civ games like a combat sim game, then no doubt you might find Civ 5 more entertaining. But as an empire building and management game, this new baby has a long way to go to catch up to Civ 4.

Don't think that you know all the ins and outs of Civ 4 with only a few days of playing. It is a very complex game with lots of choices and lots of advanced play tactics available. Play more of both games and see how the inner mechanics work. Over a longer period of time, you just might understand why a lot of people on the forums prefer Civ 4 over Civ 5 currently. I say currently, because Civ 5 is still evolving. Who knows what will happen over time?

[NitroPhantasm]

Realistic? I certainly wouldn't go that far. Every unit in Civ IV has its counter and when you select a unit to attack a stack, the very best counter to your unit is submitted. You have no choice, you have to attack the enemy's best unit. Not realistic at all. And combat is resoved unto the death - with a few exceptions mounted units and artillery units and that's by no means a certain thing.

This is probably the most valid criticism I've seen of SoDs to date. I could find myself persuaded against SoDs on this basis.