Procyon Lotor

I'm not articulating my point very well, either. Probably because I'm confused about what my point actually is, as it is a bit of a moving target. For now, it is this: Every Civ (except for Civ 2) has been "different in kind" than its predecessor. Civ5 is no different than the rest. So I think I initially disagreed with you that Civ 5 was "different in kind." Now I agree with you. But I think that's always the case with a new Civ game, and I don't think Civ5 was a bigger change than over its predecessor than, say, Civ 3 or Civ 4. I suppose this is kind of a goofy argument, and whether an individual likes 4 better than 5 depends on your own personal preferences and pecadilloes. Like I said in my original post, if you enjoy micromanaging your tiles so you can make sure that no overflow food is lost, Civ 2 is still there. I remember trying to do that. It was horrible. Me, I like to relax, turtle up, skirmish a bit, explore, make large-scale strategic decisions, avoid micromanagement, and win peacefully, with maybe one or two dramatic war tossed in to make things interesting. Civ 5 is a lot more fun for a player like me. I like the city-states. I like the 1UPT (it makes defending your territory more fun than confronting a stack of doom.) I like that the various Civs are better differentiated. I especially like the more leisurely pace of expansion, and the use of global happiness as a replacement for the obnoxious old mechanics that put brakes on your growth (city happiness and $$$ and corruption). I can appreciate the frustration people have with the design decisions that restrict your options, in particular the move from changeable civics to permanent policies. But that doesn't strike me as THAT big of a problem. I guess I'm just a bit confused by people who insist that Civ 4 is a better game. To me, Civ 5 is another big step forward. And I hope this isn't the last major expansion we'll see. Civ 4 didn't reach perfection until the BtS expansion, which really made that game super-awesome.

Gah, that was the worst - when an AI crammed settlers into your nooks and crannies. Doing some research, it seems that the Great Leader in Civ III was randomly gained in battle, while the Great Scientist was spawned when you were the first to research a tech. The former could rush wonders or build armies, like you said, and the Great Scientist could rush wonders or start a science golden age. Civ IV's great leaders were a LOT different, as Civ IV introduced the various types, the counters in your cities, and tied wonders and specialists to generation of those points. That gave you a ton of control over their production, made specialists a lot more interesting, and generally added to the game. Civ V's great people are a small variation on this mechanic.

I wish I drank less whiskey so I could remember more stuff, but if I recall: - Great People were introduced in Civ IV. - Civics were introduced in Civ IV - Impassable Borders were introduced in Civ III. Did they grow in Civ III? I don't remember. I would argue that those two (maybe three) changes were more significant "new" features than anything Civ V has added, other than the 1UPT and the city-states (two new features that have received with almost universal approval). I would also argue that the greatest advance in Civ 5 are the iterative ones: moving happiness from city-level to global, and changing the way that strategic resources work. Actually, reading what I just wrote and reconsidering it, the "global happiness" move should probably be listed as a "new" feature. I suppose the global happiness, more than anything else, changes the way that Civ 5 plays versus CivIV. It completely changes how and when you expand, which is the fundamental building block of any 4X game. Perhaps I just prefer the more relaxed, considered, and strategic expansion of the new system over the frantic and stressful expansion phase of previous Civ games. I think I just talked myself into agreeing with you, at least insofar as Civ 5 is different "in kind" from its predecessor. But I still disagree with the point that previous Civ installments were merely iterative. Civ II being the exception, as it was probably the smallest step up, mostly adding improved graphics and multimedia (!!!) advisors. Civ III added a boatload of new features to II, some of which were not always well-received (HOW CAN I BE EXPECTED TO WIN WHEN THERE IS NO IRON ANYWHERE NEAR MY EMPIRE?!??!), and IV added new features to III, none of which I can remember at this time other than civics.

....and Troy Goodfellow intercepts the answer! Doh! Type faster!

Gormongous, please explain what you mean when you say that Civ 5 is a "different take on the same themes." (In case I sound like an a$$hole again, I am genuinely curious to hear you out on this. I spent 5 minutes on that sentence to try and make is sound less confrontational. I hate the internet.) I ask because I don't think that the change from 4 to 5 is so different than the changes between previous versions. I'm grinding my brain trying to remember the mechanics from 2 and 3, but my recollection is that from 3 to 4 was a very big leap in many, many ways. Civ 5 seems like a much smaller change.

Sorry. Attempt at Humor = Failed. That came out hilarious in my head. On the screen, it just makes me sound like an a$$hole. That was unintentional!

I disagree with the assertion that Civ5 puts the player in a "straight-jacket." Troy was right -- if there's a straight-jacket, then you are putting yourself in it. The use of the cultural victory to illustrate that point was particularly unfair. If I recall, the cultural victory in Civ IV was also something that you needed to decide on somewhere around turn 1 if you playing at a reasonable difficulty level. Here's my "Civ Story," but first, my Civ Credentials: I've owned and played every Civ game, including Alpha Centauri and Civ Revolutions. It all began with Civ 1 on my parents' old 286 when I was in middle school. Every iteration has been better than the last. And so this is my story. It is the story of the holdouts, those who will not admit that the latest Civ is better than the last. Alas, this is nothing new. If you dig in the Civfanatics forums, you will find similar sentiments when Civ IV came out, as Civ III pro's absolutely hated everything about Civ IV. Heck, you can probably find gripes from Civ II holdouts when Civ III arrived. And, sometime in the next decade, we will hear people mumbling about how Civ VI ruins everything that made Civ V the Greatest Game of All Time. Why does this happen? I have two theories. The more generous one is that folks become so versed in the old version of the game that it takes a long time for them to break the shackles of their pre-existing expectations for how the game should work. When the new version does something different (like policies over civics) the difference frustrates the old gamer. As time passes and gamers learn to love the new system, however, the number of holdouts begins to diminish. The second theory (the theories are not mutually exclusive, btw) is that some people nee dto prove their hardcore badassery and status by claiming secret, counter-intuitive knowledge. In this case, that the old game was better. Only n00bs like the new game. Real Gamers know that the old one was the best. I guarantee you, somewhere a 40 year old manchild is sitting in his mother's basement playing Civ III, doing that thing where you build a city every other tile and running only specialists, micromanaging every city on every turn. That man still thinks that Civ IV is a hot pile of blasphemy. The Moral Of The Story -- Civ 5 is way better than Civ IV. It is not a difference in kind, it is a difference in quality. Civ IV did not play out with THAT much variety, and the combat was excruciatingly boring (build SoD, send SoD at enemy city). The diplomacy is MUCH better -- Civ IV was all about religious blocks, and you did not have the city-states to offer alternative options for expansion, trade, etc. Finally, the Civs are much more and better differentiated. I much prefer a step towards Alpha Centauri's factions than continuing with the same-game-experience-with-each civs from Civ IV. You can disagree with me on all of this if you like. If you do, I just hope you don't take such a curmudgeonly attitude towards your mother, whom you still live with.

Hell-Mikey, I suppose this actually goes to the foregoing discussion on whether knowing the historical context is necessary to make this game enjoyable. I just read Von Manstein's memoirs last summer, so the historical context is pretty fresh in my mind. That makes the "story" pop quite a bit more than if I only had a basic understanding of the Eastern Front. Of course, you are only telling an original story in a very limited sense. I'm not sure whether that goes to "puzzle vs. strategy", as it might simply reflect the scale depicted in the game. I think with UoC, you find your stories in the ebb and flow of the battle, turn-to-turn.

Troy asked what the difference was between loading a saved game versus playing a losing game until the end, implying that the latter was a mere exercise in frustration, which could be avoided by simply reloading a save. First, if you reload every time your plans are frustrated, you are not so much playing a game as experiencing a predetermined outcome. Second, how can you feel like a superstud if you go crying to mommy-savedgame every time something bad happens? Badasses do not behave in such a fashion. Finally, playing through adversity is where the best stories and experiences come from. Simply blasting straight through to Victory is no fun at all. (I'm MUCH more likely to play a game of Civ4 to the end if I'm losing) Making a comeback, erasing a deficit, etc. -- THAT is where the real fun is. What if the US reloaded a save after Pearl Harbor? What if the British reloaded the save after Dunkirk? What if Grant reloaded the save after the first day of the Battle of Shiloh? History would be pretty boring if that were the case. Of course, only CK2 and Dwarf Fortress have had mechanics or philosophies that consistently make losing fun. For most Grand Strategy Games the death spiral is just as un-fun as the victory spiral.

I'm a big fan of Advanced Tactics Gold. Two player games on a randomly generated medium-sized mirrorish map are a ton of fun in this game. I highly recommend it.

Dominions 3 - $50+ Worth every penny.

I would like a first-person Civil War or Napeoleonic strategy game. You would play the role of the general. (Or maybe you could start as a colonel?) You would issue orders via couriers and aides-de-camp, unless you were physically with the troops, in which case you could issue the orders directly to the unit commander. You would receive information either with your own two eyes from your first-person perspective, or through the reports of your subordinates, delivered either orally over a map in your tent, or in written dispatches. What you wouldn't do is issue orders directly from a God's-eye view, which is what we are all used to. After the battle, you could watch a replay to find out exactly what the heck happened. Maybe you can start low (Colonel) and work your way up through a campaign. That would be cool. This might be an incredibly frustrating and terrible game. Or it might be awesome. In any event, it would be interesting because it would model the fog of war and information delays that historical commanders had to deal with. Rob talked about something like this in a recent 3MA, and it has been something that I have always wanted to see done.

"Making setbacks fun" is something I really look for in my Grand Strategy Games. The real downfalls of the 4x genre are (1) setbacks are frustrating, not fun, and (2) endgames are long miserable drags. Games like CK2, that are properly described as Grand Strategy Games and manage to avoid these twin flaws, are special.