Once, I was asked to attack a civ- Austria, IIRC. The diplomacy can be really, really arbitrary sometimes. They don't really detract from the game at all, so I guess you could put them in the 'pros' category. The maps on 4 just feel poorer now.Ĭity-States, I guess? They've never really been important to me, and when I go for a diplo win it's always just a case of buying them out, so take that as you will. The map-generating system seems better in 5-creating mountain ranges which divide continents and civs and so forth.
#Civilization v the complete edition vs brave new world series
Honestly, it's the highest praise when you ask 'why wasn't this in the series all along?'-it fits in perfectly. Honestly, in a game as abstract as civ, the realism doesn't really matter to me.īeing able to rush-buy any (non-wonder) thing makes a massive difference, giving a real reason to save up money. The military system in this is far, far better-although there's some realism problems with ranges, the fact that cities can defend themselves and the one-unit per tile thing actually gives the positioning of troops meaning. The military system in 5 is far better, whereas 4 had the 'stack of doom' problem. IMO, the religion system made more sense in 4, with the world being divided into religious factions that tended to aid their brothers/sisters in faith and defend against any others. The espionage/diplomacy was a lot clearer and consistent in 4, making it easier to form trades/alliances in it. The fact that each city has a individual health/sickness bar made it so much easier to build/plan, and it allowed you to really plan out your cities in a helpful way. Much better (IMO) economy, micromanaging, tech tree, and expansion Personally, I found 4 to be slightly superior to 5
0 kommentar(er)
