seriously, It just isn't a whole lot of fun.

It takes a lot longer to get through turns. I've got a beast of a computer, but even the loading times from the start of the game are ridiculously slow from the start. I loved in the other civs how I could zip right through the turns if I was just building. Now its like waiting for a child to be born.

production takes a long time and i honestly don't feel rewarded for building wonders anymore.


I guess the civ formula is just over done at this point. I'd had a blast with all of the other games in my past. I liked civ rev, was fun.

I'll wait for some expansion packs and maybe the game improves in the next couple years.

I agree. And here's why:

My First Ci_V experience: Went over to a friends place who had purchased it.

Picked Greeks, Marathon - major mistake. In C_IV I didn't like the overly fast pace of technology relative to unit movement. Epic or Marathon beautifully fixed that and turned it into a truly epic feeling game.

Immediately started sweating out my city placement, almost despaired that the terrian seemed relatively barren except for a couple of key resources. Oh well, can't re-role my first game. Pursued technology to harvest what resources I had - wtf, I got 1 extra production? Hmmm. By the end of the game I got the message that it really didn't matter where you placed things. Very odd, this was one aspect that created immediate tension in most Civ games and especially in C_IV. Passion - 1.

Noticed that the city screen doesn't really give you the feel that you're looking at a city. Hard to get the feeling that "ITS ABOUT TO GROW!" or "MY CRITICAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT IS ALMOST DONE, so I can move onto other vital production!" Passion -2.

Found out that I couldn't hurry production but I could outright buy it? Gone is the tension of finishing production so you can start the next desperate need. Passion -1.

Received a quest from a Military City state: take out my neighbour! The victim city state had resources that I presumed were valuable so I went for it. Made a Trieme and sailed it over to their island. Spent 10-20 or so turns bombarding a warrior before I realized that all I was doing was giving him 1/2 dozen promotions! Ok, that's a little strange that his warrior is now uber strong from sitting there getting arrows in the head and then recovering. Oh well, what ever doesn't kill you clearly makes you stronger. Passion -1.

Finally had an army sufficient to tackle this city. Sailed them across the lands. Had my super Greek Horseman (or whatever it is) take out the uber promoted warrior with Archer assist. Passion +1.

Fought my way through a choke point towards the city state. Difficult to say the least. Passion +1.

Finally, took the city state. Received an allied status for Military City state instigator. Started receiving military units. wtf again! He's gifting me units almost as fast as I could produce them if I was on a full war setting with my 4 cities? Kindof scratching my head as to why he needed help in the first place. Seems to be (more than) a little out of balance. Ok, fine. Actually not fine! What the heck, I'm not playing an RPG here - I don't really want to go on quests to find the sacred sword of a Thousand Truths! (Later I would find that the Military City states might be the least of problems). Passion -1 (and -3 when I learned of the degree of this exploit).

Through my attack on my first city (state) the city bombardment made me realize that a Settler might be my most powerful military unit in the early game. Run into barbarians? No problem, just plop down your settler (location doesn't seem to matter much) and start bombarding. He can't hurt you! Where's the tension of taking a risk of making a settler early run and daring to cross hostile lands to rush to that critical city location! And the Settler is relatively cheap too!
Passion -2 + an angry scowl!

Built my first building. WTF, am I interpreting this correctly, +1 food. Thanks alot! That took forever to build! What a pitiful rate of return if you can call it that. (Later, I would come to understand that these buildings had expensive maintenance! HA, am I to understand that this is a CIV game that wants you to NOT build?!?) Passion -1 (Upgrade that to Passion -3 when I realized the scope of the problem).

Found my first actual Civilization (Persia) strung across 2 smallish, very close islands. How fitting for a Greek conquest! Set up my Trieme between the two islands to cut off naval reinforcements as my major offensive sailed towards Island #1. Finally! A chance to turn that Trieme into a useful military unit after that debacle of ineffectively bombarding and inadvertently promoting my enemies' warrior. Blinked repeatedly in disbelief as I found that I couldn't take out their enbarking canoes sailing right under my nose! Great! I get to bombard them but not engage them! PFFFF! If
you can count rage as passion then +2; but really Passion -2!

Oh well, lets hope the land battle is more decisive. And it should be; I've made my first Chariot Archer with movement of 5! I get giddy as I visualize a series of hit-and-run tactics that wear down my enemies and prepare them for my Greek Horseman charge! Huh? If I shoot (range 2 spaces) then I can't further move...but, but, the standard movement of a melee unit is 2? So if I want to shoot I must end up dead? (Scratch head). Doesn't seem very useful to have all that movement. I guess I could rush very quickly to the front lines in order to fire and then die. Yes, very useful for dying fast - not much else. Of course, come to think of it I couldn't even rush to the front lines very quickly because some stupid worker is in my way. DOH. Major loss here, my giddy bubble of excitement was definately popped. Passion -3 due to the fact that it got my hopes up. To be fair, Passion -1 without my hope.

Spent couple hours bombarding their city and following up with my Greek Cavlary and Spearman (whatever they're called). Kinda going through the motions once their field army is taken out. Long, slow motions actually. Use my otherwise useless Chariot archers and Trieme to bombard their city, doing almost no damage each time (Settlers rock the military house!) but some until I'm sure that my shock troops can get off a win. Probably could have taken them earlier with more experience. Hmmm, that was pretty boring. I remember facing off in Civ3/Civ4 where you (pre-Catapult) have to worry alot about having enough troops to take their city. You know that you're going to lose some troops, maybe alot. This was like, I know that my troops are going to take damage but not die. So as long as I hit, then pull back, I'm not going to lose any troops. Really took any of the tension away. Passion -2.

But thinking about this further: why did they get rid of cottages? Especially for a game that was supposed to move combat outside of the city. Can you imagine the tension as an equal or greater enemy approaches your fertile commercial land? "HOLD THE LINE!" you scream with the realization that even if they don't take your cities they could chop you off at the knees by pillaging the source of the soldiers paychecks! Visions of Hannibal in Rome! This game, who cares? Just build back those "Trading posts" and you're back in business again. Really missed the mark here. Passion -2.

Overall, this is like some dude telling a lifetime Chess player how they've redesigned chess by removing all those complicated pieces and all their complicated moves and "look my red and black pieces can 'jump over' the other piece". So cool eh! You'd be like yeah its an 'ok' game, but it ain't Chess - Chess involves real strategy and tradeoffs.

So not a fan and I won't be spending money on this game. And, FYI Firaxis or who ever is responsible for this mess, I have been a hopeless CIV addict for the past 15+ years. I have bought-destroyed-bought again probably 6-8 copies of every game Civ2, Civ3, Civ4 spending at least $300 per version (Civ1 was pirated, sorry but I've made up for it) because I simply have no ability to control how much I play and cannot keep the darn game in my house without risking my
life/wife/career. So I figure playing like crazy and then destroying the game is way cheaper than losing my job! Rinse-and-repeat.

So I wish you well in finding 8+ console users who will replace an addicted player like me. I'm sure those console players will still be there 10-15 years from now.

thanks for sharing. the game is a bit of a stinker right now, oh well. like i said, we'll have to wait at least a year until the game gets some serious work over.

Thanks a lot Thorite, you've mirrored my feelings when playing Civ5, especially about no challenge, ugly tradeposts instead of cottages and chess replaced with checkers.

I've stop playing Civ5, it's a sad waste of money cause I was sure that Civ5 will be insanely addictive - after all it's a next civ game! CivIII was awesome (leader traits, workers/settlers from settlers, culture etc), then Civ4 blown my mind, I remember talking for hours with my friends how ridiculously awesome Civ5 will then have to be. We were dreaming about fully explorable cities, each unit with leader that would influence combat (a'la Total War generals), lush vivid world from which you could zoom out to photoaerial view and manage it... If Civ4 was that much better from Civ3 then how amazing Civ5 will be to overshadow its predecessor?

:sad:

Eh, what a disappointment - it's all about max money with the least possible effort... It's like we were waiting all those years for new episodes of Star Wars, with classic Trilogy as an example and we've got... Phantom Menace (http://www.redlettermedia.com/phantom_menace.html) :suicide: (thanks tupisac for that awesome review link once more). I've never been a dedicated fan of Star Wars series (more of Star Trek geek I am), but I was totally shocked by this disaster of a movie that PM was...

Heh, at least we can hope for patches/mods for Civ5, where Star Wars saga will never be the same, the damage can't be undone - I find a bit of solace in that.

Pretty much spot on Thorite.

The saddest part is that they dont care about history anymore. Example : Trireme. Bombarding but not ramming/boarding. Really???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trireme

Tactics

In the ancient world, naval combat relied on two methods: ramming and boarding. Artillery in the form of ballistas and catapults was widespread, especially in later centuries, but its inherent technical limitations meant that it could not play a decisive role in combat. Rams (embolon) were fitted to the prows of warships, and were used to rupture the hull of the enemy ship. The preferred method of attack was to come in from astern, with the aim not of creating a single hole, but of rupturing as big a length of the enemy vessel as possible. The speed necessary for a successful impact depended on the angle of attack; the greater the angle, the lesser the speed required. At 60 degrees, 4 knots was enough to penetrate the hull, while it increased to 8 knots at 30 degrees. If the target for some reason was in motion in the direction of the attacker, even less speed was required, and especially if the hit came amidships.[50] Another method was to brush alongside the enemy ship, with oars drawn in, in order to break the enemy's oars and render the ship immobile, to be finished off with ease. In any case, prior to engagement, the masts and railings of the ship were taken down, hindering any attempt at using grappling hooks. The Athenians especially became masters in the art of ramming, using light, un-decked (aphraktai) triremes.

Call me old and grey (34) but the hole DLC seem like scamming to me. In the "old days" when a game needed a patch it was because of hardware configurations. Not because the game was half finished. Nowadays people seem to actually accept 0 day DLC's. Jesus! If it was finished why wasnt it part of the game. Also the scheming to remove working functions only to add them later in "Extra Addons packages" seems scruples.

Just my 50 cents

Pretty much spot on Thorite.

The saddest part is that they dont care about history anymore. Example : Trireme. Bombarding but not ramming/boarding. Really???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trireme

Tactics

In the ancient world, naval combat relied on two methods: ramming and boarding. Artillery in the form of ballistas and catapults was widespread, especially in later centuries, but its inherent technical limitations meant that it could not play a decisive role in combat. Rams (embolon) were fitted to the prows of warships, and were used to rupture the hull of the enemy ship. The preferred method of attack was to come in from astern, with the aim not of creating a single hole, but of rupturing as big a length of the enemy vessel as possible. The speed necessary for a successful impact depended on the angle of attack; the greater the angle, the lesser the speed required. At 60 degrees, 4 knots was enough to penetrate the hull, while it increased to 8 knots at 30 degrees. If the target for some reason was in motion in the direction of the attacker, even less speed was required, and especially if the hit came amidships.[50] Another method was to brush alongside the enemy ship, with oars drawn in, in order to break the enemy's oars and render the ship immobile, to be finished off with ease. In any case, prior to engagement, the masts and railings of the ship were taken down, hindering any attempt at using grappling hooks. The Athenians especially became masters in the art of ramming, using light, un-decked (aphraktai) triremes.

Civ is not a war tactical game. Nor can I think of when they ever had triremes do that in this series.

Well, whats the point about calling them triremes. Why not call all units Giant Death Robots A01 to Z32. Why put Mongols on horsebacks instead of motorbikes. Lets put some nice spaceships into the medieval era and move the pyramids to modern time.
What I use to love about civ was that it was also kind of educational. I always read the civilopedia and often would continue on the net. Especially after starting modding I did a lot of research.

Firaxis didnt.

nevermind, just delete my post.

Well said, and I agree. The startup and load times, along with the 60% to 90% chance that the game will hang or crash altogether, are a recipe for gamer's blueballs.

Before giving up on this game altogether, I actually re-read Ulysses between turns and during loading and restarts.

So, there's that, which is nice. :/

Civ is not a war tactical game. Nor can I think of when they ever had triremes do that in this series.
Given that Civ5 has removed the point of city infrastructure, I would have to argue that this is now a tactical game more than a strategic game.

Regardless, are you vouching for my Trieme not being able to take out a bunch of canoes but rather simply harrass them with meaningless volleys as they sail between islands? And if you are, then please tell me where the "strategy" is in not being able to prevent your enemy from sailing between islands?!?

(Stepping into Lalaland) I'd like to see you row your canoe up to my Trieme while I pelted you with burning ambers and flame arrows or simply rammed you.

Thorite - you accurately summed up a lot of my feelings about Civ5. In short, it's not a game I feel immersed in. With Civ4 + BTS, I was able to maintain the illusion that I was running a civilization and created a historical narrative for my civ in every game, explaining its development and its interactions with rivals. In Civ5, I definitely feel like I am just playing a game. It just feels so... soulless.

I've found the game settings, combined with the type of victory I have in mind, really make a big difference.

If you're going to play for a Science/Cultural victory, don't pick the epic or marathon speeds because you'll spend too much time hitting Next Turn.

Domination victories on larger maps, and epic or marathon, still pull me in on the right difficulty settings.

I first played CiV for 43 hours when i first got it, but stopped playing it. Thought I'd fire it up again last weekend...ended up turning it off after about 30 minutes. Just so boring.

It's not boring.

Civ is not a war tactical game. Nor can I think of when they ever had triremes do that in this series.

I would say V definitely WANTS to be a wargame, though... moreso than any previous iteration of the series. I think it's evident in the design decisions, the choices of implementation for non-war aspects of the game, and interviews with the producers and developers.

All that said, personally -- I'm just happy that the OP looks like a promising candidate to recruit for my coming holy war against embarkation.

@ Zonk
Well, I'm in. But build a transport first, please.

As a long time Civ fanboy: so very, very sad :(

I feel sorry for you guys who forged ahead to explore this one by purchasing and are disappointed.

Thanks to you guys for taking the time and care to share your experiences. It has helped me to feel even more confident in my resolve not to buy this one for a long time. Maybe not until the "Civ5 Complete" compilation without Steam in a year or two hence. Maybe never.

So glad I chose not to be in the pioneers on this one.

So glad I chose not to be in the pioneers on this one.

Your loss. I'm having a blast.


Also, lol @ "I played it for 43 hours and now its boring".

It's not boring.

It is even more boring than your post.
;)

Oops! I did it too!
:mischief:

Your loss. I'm having a blast.


Also, lol @ "I played it for 43 hours and now its boring".

I played Oblivion this summer for at least 600 hours. It might've been 800 I forget.

Anything less than 100 is a waste.

I played Oblivion this summer for at least 600 hours. It might've been 800 I forget.

Anything less than 100 is a waste.

Interesting. Anything that saves me one night at the bar is not a waste. :)

One night at the bar = $50.
Two nights at home instead of at the bar = Priceless.

Your loss. I'm having a blast.

Though I'm happy to hear that you are enjoying it, I hope you can understand how I also feel it is crappy that by switching the direction of the series so dramatically, and evidently winning over a lot of folks (many of whom it seems did not enjoy previous versions, though not saying that applies to you) they simultaneously have alienated a large fraction of us micro-manager or "grog" types. Maybe in a year or two, with expansions and mods both "camps" can be made to be satisfied. Still from my perspective, it feels crummy.

Though I'm happy to hear that you are enjoying it, I hope you can understand how I also feel it is crappy that by switching the direction of the series so dramatically, and evidently winning over a lot of folks (many of whom it seems did not enjoy previous versions, though not saying that applies to you) they simultaneously have alienated a large fraction of us micro-manager or "grog" types. Maybe in a year or two, with expansions and mods both "camps" can be made to be satisfied. Still from my perspective, it feels crummy.

I can't, because I don't see how the direction was switched at all. Admittedly, I never played Civ 1, but Civ 2 has arguably taken up more of my life than any other game in existence, followed closely by Civs 3 and 4 and yet, Civ 5 is my favorite installment by far.

I also find that the 'alienated micro managers' are also the ones crying loudest about having to micro manage their military. The problem here is that people will never be happy no matter what.

To me, Civ 5 has found a happy medium between micro managing and overall control, which I find particularly enjoyable and refreshing.

Received a quest from a Military City state: take out my neighbour! The victim city state had resources that I presumed were valuable so I went for it. Made a Trieme and sailed it over to their island. Spent 10-20 or so turns bombarding a warrior before I realized that all I was doing was giving him 1/2 dozen promotions! Ok, that's a little strange that his warrior is now uber strong from sitting there getting arrows in the head and then recovering. Oh well, what ever doesn't kill you clearly makes you stronger. Passion -1.

Im not sure why you would continue attacking an enemy which you're clearly not strong enough to take out. If they're in their own borders, they're gonna heal and if you aren't doing enough damage then you're not going to take them out. Of course they'll gain XP, they're engaged in battle. Maybe its a little lame that they're just sitting there, but they still deserve something for surviving battle. Besides, wasn't your Trireme levelling as well?


Finally, took the city state. Received an allied status for Military City state instigator. Started receiving military units. wtf again! He's gifting me units almost as fast as I could produce them if I was on a full war setting with my 4 cities? Kindof scratching my head as to why he needed help in the first place. Seems to be (more than) a little out of balance.

The Militaristic CS asked you for a favor and you did it. That makes them your Ally until it degrades. They will occasionally gift you units, and you can ask them to stop whenever you want. I personally haven't seen the rate so extreme that it would be considered an exploit. The production rate is probably on par or slower than what you could produce yourself, but that is entirely circumstantial


Ok, fine. Actually not fine! What the heck, I'm not playing an RPG here - I don't really want to go on quests to find the sacred sword of a Thousand Truths! (Later I would find that the Military City states might be the least of problems). Passion -1 (and -3 when I learned of the degree of this exploit).

I'm not sure what the complaint is here. If you don't want to do a quest, then don't do it? Are you mad that they included extra things to do in the game? :confused:


Through my attack on my first city (state) the city bombardment made me realize that a Settler might be my most powerful military unit in the early game. Run into barbarians? No problem, just plop down your settler (location doesn't seem to matter much) and start bombarding. He can't hurt you! Where's the tension of taking a risk of making a settler early run and daring to cross hostile lands to rush to that critical city location! And the Settler is relatively cheap too!
Passion -2 + an angry scowl!

There are trade-offs to settling a new city. Culture costs rise. Happiness decreases. Maintenance costs rise. Sure, city sprawl is a simple, effective and often used tactic, but I wouldn't consider popping cities up everywhere just to fight a unit. The costs and effectiveness of a simple combat unit that can move and fight are a much better tradeoff. Also, there's tension trying to run a settler through hostile lands. If an enemy even touches your settler, they're gone unless you fight back for them.


Built my first building. WTF, am I interpreting this correctly, +1 food. Thanks alot! That took forever to build! What a pitiful rate of return if you can call it that. (Later, I would come to understand that these buildings had expensive maintenance! HA, am I to understand that this is a CIV game that wants you to NOT build?!?) Passion -1 (Upgrade that to Passion -3 when I realized the scope of the problem).

There are no buildings that are +1 food. The granary gives +2 food for -1 gold maintenance. The Lighthouse gives +1 food PER water tile worked. I will admit though, I rarely find the granary worth it and only build lighthouses if I find my coastal cities are stagnating.


Found my first actual Civilization (Persia) strung across 2 smallish, very close islands. How fitting for a Greek conquest! Set up my Trieme between the two islands to cut off naval reinforcements as my major offensive sailed towards Island #1. Finally! A chance to turn that Trieme into a useful military unit after that debacle of ineffectively bombarding and inadvertently promoting my enemies' warrior. Blinked repeatedly in disbelief as I found that I couldn't take out their enbarking canoes sailing right under my nose! Great! I get to bombard them but not engage them! PFFFF! If
you can count rage as passion then +2; but really Passion -2!

You can move onto an embarked unit and instantly destroy it, if it is unable to defend itself (Askia's embarked units can defend), which I guess you could consider like a ramming ability.


Oh well, lets hope the land battle is more decisive. And it should be; I've made my first Chariot Archer with movement of 5! I get giddy as I visualize a series of hit-and-run tactics that wear down my enemies and prepare them for my Greek Horseman charge! Huh? If I shoot (range 2 spaces) then I can't further move...but, but, the standard movement of a melee unit is 2? So if I want to shoot I must end up dead? (Scratch head). Doesn't seem very useful to have all that movement. I guess I could rush very quickly to the front lines in order to fire and then die. Yes, very useful for dying fast - not much else.

I haven't played many previous Civilization titles, so I'm not sure if hit-and-run was ever available. From a RISK and other world-conquering strategy game standpoint, it's pretty common that you can't move after an attack. You're fatigued from battle. It would be cheap to be able to run in, attack someone, then run away repeatedly.


Of course, come to think of it I couldn't even rush to the front lines very quickly because some stupid worker is in my way.

That should not be true. Combat units can stack with non-combat units at any time. 1UPT really means 1 non-combat + 1 combat UPT.



Spent couple hours bombarding their city and following up with my Greek Cavlary and Spearman (whatever they're called). Kinda going through the motions once their field army is taken out. Long, slow motions actually. Use my otherwise useless Chariot archers and Trieme to bombard their city, doing almost no damage each time (Settlers rock the military house!) but some until I'm sure that my shock troops can get off a win. Probably could have taken them earlier with more experience. Hmmm, that was pretty boring. I remember facing off in Civ3/Civ4 where you (pre-Catapult) have to worry alot about having enough troops to take their city. You know that you're going to lose some troops, maybe alot. This was like, I know that my troops are going to take damage but not die. So as long as I hit, then pull back, I'm not going to lose any troops. Really took any of the tension away. Passion -2.

Not sure what to say here really. Early game cities are a little on the weak side, but I've definitely lost quite a few units trying to attack cities. Maybe you're just playing on too low of a difficulty?


But thinking about this further: why did they get rid of cottages? Especially for a game that was supposed to move combat outside of the city. Can you imagine the tension as an equal or greater enemy approaches your fertile commercial land? "HOLD THE LINE!" you scream with the realization that even if they don't take your cities they could chop you off at the knees by pillaging the source of the soldiers paychecks! Visions of Hannibal in Rome! This game, who cares? Just build back those "Trading posts" and you're back in business again. Really missed the mark here. Passion -2.

I don't know anything about cottages, but there are still tile improvements and most military units can pillage an improvement (farm, mine, etc). If a city was already depending on that improvement for gold or food, you've just cost them that income.

Sorry, but overall you sound like you're just nitpicking and wishing this was just another Civ 4 expansion. From what I can tell, its a different game. That doesn't make it boring or bad, for me at least.

I was looking so foward to CiV, I've been playing from Civ1 when I still was a kid. I became addicted and played all the Civ games when I had the change, but now I really don't feel the need to even demo CiV. That says a lot personally, I don't even have to restrain myself from trying it. :( I really didn't expect that this ol' song would happen to Civ, a lot of great franchises have bitten the dust, and I guess Civ is among them now. I grow tired of dumping the core fans and trying to aim for a bigger audience. Well, maybe we should be happy that they didn't try to make Civilization: The FPS.

I was looking so foward to CiV, I've been playing from Civ1 when I still was a kid. I became addicted and played all the Civ games when I had the change, but now I really don't feel the need to even demo CiV. That says a lot personally, I don't even have to restrain myself from trying it. :( I really didn't expect that this ol' song would happen to Civ, a lot of great franchises have bitten the dust, and I guess Civ is among them now. I grow tired of dumping the core fans and trying to aim for a bigger audience. Well, maybe we should be happy that they didn't try to make Civilization: The FPS.

While I'm not finding Civ5's current state to be wildly entertaining or highly replayable, I wouldn't dismiss it altogether just because it launched in a less-than-stellar state. Check back in 6-12 months, chances are it will have gotten a few more patches to fix more bugs and improve the AI at the very least. I'm cautiously hopeful, myself.

And you might as well try out the demo, just don't draw too many conclusions from it. ;)

I was looking so foward to CiV, I've been playing from Civ1 when I still was a kid. I became addicted and played all the Civ games when I had the change, but now I really don't feel the need to even demo CiV. That says a lot personally, I don't even have to restrain myself from trying it. :( I really didn't expect that this ol' song would happen to Civ, a lot of great franchises have bitten the dust, and I guess Civ is among them now. I grow tired of dumping the core fans and trying to aim for a bigger audience. Well, maybe we should be happy that they didn't try to make Civilization: The FPS.
civilization: total war awesome shooter strategy fun time!

While I'm not finding Civ5's current state to be wildly entertaining or highly replayable, I wouldn't dismiss it altogether just because it launched in a less-than-stellar state. Check back in 6-12 months, chances are it will have gotten a few more patches to fix more bugs and improve the AI at the very least. I'm cautiously hopeful, myself.

And you might as well try out the demo, just don't draw too many conclusions from it. ;)

Yea, that was my plan. And it's much cheaper that way, but shame that it has come to this, I usually wait a while before I buy a game these days. I sure hope that addon's and mods will bring back the old Civ feeling. But that won't rewind the practice of calling this game Civilization 5, when Civilization: Tactics would be a better wording, or even better, Civilization Revolution 2. That way they wouldn't have as much of disappointment as there is now.

Well, look on the bright side, at least CiV made me post on here instead of lurking in the shadows. :lol:

civilization: total war awesome shooter strategy fun time!

:lol:

Don't forget to add marketing buzzwords, like epic, nextgen, mature and visceral. ;)

Ive played over 100 hours and i am done with it. At least for the next few months. For me this game is so boring that i have no motivation to play it anymore. Every game feels the same (at least at the higher difficulty levels). It gets even more boring the further you advance. I could write several pages why this is the case but i am too lazy to do it. It is discussed among this forum...

Ive played over 100 hours and i am done with it. At least for the next few months. For me this game is so boring that i have no motivation to play it anymore. Every game feels the same (at least at the higher difficulty levels). It gets even more boring the further you advance. I could write several pages why this is the case but i am too lazy to do it. It is discussed among this forum...

i´m at one with you. i´d been a civ addict. so far. this game is not just boring, it´s irksome and exhausting. i can´t even tell why that is, but all the previous civs precluded me from sleeping. now, if i can´t sleep i play two or three turns of ciV and fall asleep immediately.
it´s not sid meier´s civilization anymore. it´s jon shlafer´s soporification.

...when Civilization: Tactics would be a better wording, or even better...


That is actually one of the best descriptions of Civ5, that I have seen. I guess I'm fortunate enough that I really like all Tactics games for the DS (advance wars, FF tactics, etc.)

I can see where the people who know every aspect of previous civ games could feel civ5 just stripped all that was added in prior versions, but I played III and IV (vanillas) as a very casual player. I feel like I'm really just getting into all that is involved in 5. I may have the same feelings as you once I advance my strategies more, but for right now I dig it. Would it be possible that you guys find it boring because you know all the strategies to win every time.

I've played a grand total of 11 hours. Beaten the game on Immortal and Deity. Bored completely. After yesterday's patch, I loaded Civ 5 up again to play as the Mongols. Got about 20 turns in.... Bored. Civ V is going to sit on my hard drive doing nothing for quite some time I think.

Edit: I'd be even happier if someone updated the gfx in Civ IV to V's standard.

Would it be possible that you guys find it boring because you know all the strategies to win every time.

Not at all. I know all the stratergies to win in Civ 4, but that doesn't make it boring because each game is a new set of challenges.
When I start a game of Civ 4, I have to find the best quality land near me and make sure I settle it. Relations with my nieghbours and other ai is important and unique each time, eg. If Montezuma or Ragnar are beside it I'll have to prepare for war, or if Willem Orange or Mansa Musa are beside me, I want good relations for trade etc etc. If there are 2 religions in the area I will have to choose which one to adopt so as to keep relations with people, I have to constantly have the best government types for my people and my current goals.
In Civ 4, knowing all the stratergies doesn't matter because there are so many variables that can change your path that it makes each game unique.

Whereas in Civ 5, it doesn't make much difference if I get the best land for my cities, just that I get land. The ai are all just enemies so it doesn't make any difference who is beside me or what their relations are to each other, if Washingon hates Elizabeth this turn it doesn't mean they won't be best buddies next turn..
Social policies are just anther tech tree really, there's no negatives to any of them and even if they could be changed you wouldn't bother because no situation will ever come up where having a certain SP would be bad for your civ.

The only variable between games of Civ 5 is the map graphics. And that is why it is boring.

Not at all. I know all the stratergies to win in Civ 4, but that doesn't make it boring because each game is a new set of challenges.
When I start a game of Civ 4, I have to find the best quality land near me and make sure I settle it. Relations with my nieghbours and other ai is important and unique each time, eg. If Montezuma or Ragnar are beside it I'll have to prepare for war, or if Willem Orange or Mansa Musa are beside me, I want good relations for trade etc etc. If there are 2 religions in the area I will have to choose which one to adopt so as to keep relations with people, I have to constantly have the best government types for my people and my current goals.
In Civ 4, knowing all the stratergies doesn't matter because there are so many variables that can change your path that it makes each game unique.

Whereas in Civ 5, it doesn't make much difference if I get the best land for my cities, just that I get land. The ai are all just enemies so it doesn't make any difference who is beside me or what their relations are to each other, if Washingon hates Elizabeth this turn it doesn't mean they won't be best buddies next turn..
Social policies are just anther tech tree really, there's no negatives to any of them and even if they could be changed you wouldn't bother because no situation will ever come up where having a certain SP would be bad for your civ.

The only variable between games of Civ 5 is the map graphics. And that is why it is boring.

Wooow, that is a VERY well put reason why I can't get any joy from civ5, while I am still playing a previous part of the series - thank you D_Toccs :goodjob:

I started a civ4 bts game yesterday (emperor, fractal, random leader) and it was like this:

Washington of America... cool i havent played him for a long time. Agriculture is almost always a useful tech. Traits (expansive, charismatic) are good, allow for an early rapid expansion and big cities so lets see if i can focus on that. Starting locations looks good, i have pigs, sugar and some hills, a river. Looks like a potential bureaucracy monster. Copper, horse or iron seems likely in my BFC. Animal husbandry first seems obvious. Worker first to get the pigs online asap and because i can build workers faster (trait). But wait... what can my worker do after the pigs are online. I want to go for bronze working after AH and have no time for roads. Only forested hills... short calculation about research turns says that the worker is idle for 10 or so turns. Thats too much, so warrior first... i need to micromanage to get the warrior out when the city grows. Ok lets go explore. I find a scout in a goody hut. Land looks very good around me, enough food resources + mostly green land... excellent. Turn 10 i meet a scout of Joao. Uhhhhh hello my fellow... where is he... northwest. Ok Joao is an expand-maniac who uses his rapid expansion traits to the max. His cities are too far away for a rush. In addition i dont know if i have copper or iron anywhere around. Maybe i need to pump out the first settler earlier than planed or Joao will grab the best land. Another 5 turns later i meet... uuuuhhh THE SHAKA! This goddamn unit pumping son of a b****. He is too my left with lots of space between us. Anyway this is something i have to worry about it is difficult to make him a friend. Another few turns later: Wang Kong. Where is he. His archer tells me that its most likely that he is to the left of Shaka. Those two wont like each other haha... oh nice they are already worst enemies. Very good, that will keep me out of shaka trouble for a long time. Furthermore Wang Kong will be able to defend against Shakas stacks because he is protective and has a good science rate due to his financial trait. Bronze working shows no copper around. I dont have time for iron working. In addition with fast expanding i should be able to secure stone which opens up the path for some wonders around. So i am going to fast expand with the first settler definitely earlier than happy cap to block some land vs Joao. I can get horse with my second city, too. This allows for skipping archery against babarians... ahh i need to fogbust a little more efficient. Religion is the big unknown in this game. None of my enemies founded a religion yet and it could change the diplomatic situation dramatically if a religion pops out.

This are only the first few turns of a game... god i am addicted again :). When i compare this to what i get from civ5 in the first few turns it is... well... a lot more.

V certainly lacks the replayability. Things that mattered in Civ IV don't matter as much in V, if they matter at all:
-Wonders
-Terrain (all hills are the same)
-Having a city devoted to making a military. Here, you can beat an AI's entire army with just 5 upgraded units.
-Cottages (over time, they grow and become better, having them pillaged in IV was painful)
-Diplomacy. Trade is virtually useless in V, and the AI all attack you anyway.
-Balance of tech v. money making v. building production v. culture (sliders achieved part of this).
-Anarchy (in V you get ONE TURN of anarchy switching from Rationalism to Piety or vice versa, how is that supposed to matter?)

agree with Thorite :/

I also find that the 'alienated micro managers' are also the ones crying loudest about having to micro manage their military. The problem here is that people will never be happy no matter what.

There is a clear difference between having to micro-manage for no gain at all (unit movement) and micro-managing for better city output or whatever.

Agree everything....The only thing i found more interesting of the others chapters is the hexagonal tiles just because i want to find a reason for the money i've spent i don't want to believe that is a sid meyer's game...
WHY, i want to know, WHY this general tendency to make all the games in the last few years for brainless consolle-users? Like Thorite i've played civilization for more than ten years (my opinion is that civ1-2-3 all the way to conquest is like the invention of the game of chess), i play a new civ3-game every three days (when i can). I like the graphic, but i prefer consistent games to shiny ones....and really do they think consolle-users will be still there after ten years?
Surely a two-hours-of-interest-game lead you to buy a new game eventually, so i see the reason..
(excuse my english i'm Italian)

I have now played over 100 hours of Civ 5. I've won all victory types on varying difficulties from Prince to Deity.

Last night I downloaded Rise of Man for the first time and booted up Civ 4 again. My god... what a game. I can't believe I've never noticed this mod before. Don't think I'll be touching Civ 5 for a while.

No, Civ 4 was a lot more boring than Civ 5. Endless stacks of dooms. Yeah, I manage a 120 units stack, that's so cool. No, not really.

I have a lot more fun with Civ 5 than I ever had with Civ 4, so no.

No, Civ 4 was a lot more boring than Civ 5. Endless stacks of dooms. Yeah, I manage a 120 units stack, that's so cool. No, not really.

I have a lot more fun with Civ 5 than I ever had with Civ 4, so no.

Well, that's the fault line in the debate.

Seems pretty clear that you play the series as a wargame. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would suspect that perhaps a slim majority of Civ players probably trend more towards that style of play.

BUT - it certainly isn't a supermajority. A lot of Civ players don't view Civilization as a wargame. Sid himself said years ago that he never thought Civ was supposed to be a wargame.

For the player not interested in solely managing the military and tactical battles -- V is boring.

There is a clear difference between having to micro-manage for no gain at all (unit movement) and micro-managing for better city output or whatever.

How is unit movement no gain? That statement is asinine. There's no difference, its just a different part of empire management.



For the player not interested in solely managing the military and tactical battles -- V is boring.

Speak for yourself. I generally play small empires and late game wars, and don't find it any more boring than Civ 4 was during my "growth" phase.

Speak for yourself. I generally play small empires and late game wars, and don't find it any more boring than Civ 4 was during my "growth" phase.

The early "growth phase" was the best part of Civ IV, IMO while the later part of the game got tedious. The early game drags for me in Civ V. Ah well, different strokes, I guess...;)

Originally Posted by lschnarch
There is a clear difference between having to micro-manage for no gain at all (unit movement) and micro-managing for better city output or whatever.How is unit movement no gain? That statement is asinine. There's no difference, its just a different part of empire management.

There is no gain in having to micro-manage your unit movement. And I am quite sceptical about the "empire management" aspect of having to wake your units every now and then because they may have run into a city, or to give new ordes just because another unit is (for just this one turn) sitting on their intermediate destination hex.

The early "growth phase" was the best part of Civ IV, IMO while the later part of the game got tedious. The early game drags for me in Civ V. Ah well, different strokes, I guess...;)

That's exactly the point. People can't accept it for what it is, but instead want to shed rivers of tears about how the game has personally insulted their deceased mother.
Everybody will bring something different away from the experience of playing it, and its not meant to be Civ 4 2.0.

That's not directed at you, by the way :) Just sayin

There is no gain in having to micro-manage your unit movement. And I am quite sceptical about the "empire management" aspect of having to wake your units every now and then because they may have run into a city, or to give new ordes just because another unit is (for just this one turn) sitting on their intermediate destination hex.

Yea, you're right...clicking one stack of 120 units into XX Enemy Capital was so much more rewarding. :rolleyes:

Obviously there is gain to micromanaging your military, and I'm going to assume you're just arguing for the sake of argument here.

Yea, you're right...clicking one stack of 120 units into XX Enemy Capital was so much more rewarding. :rolleyes:

Obviously there is gain to micromanaging your military, and I'm going to assume you're just arguing for the sake of argument here.

I thought you were claiming upthread to be "builder"?

Builders generally were pretty neutral on stacks - not big fans, but didn't particularly see them as "boring" because military action wasn't the gameplay focus.

I thought you were claiming upthread to be "builder"?

Builders generally were pretty neutral on stacks - not big fans, but didn't particularly see them as "boring" because military action wasn't the gameplay focus.

I am, I generally run small empires and late game wars. I focus on all aspects of the game at some point, including conquest, and yes, I much prefer the 1upt combat system to Civ 4's SoD which to me was incredibly lame and generally boring as all hell. Micro managing military and support units is just another aspect of empire management.

That's exactly the point. People can't accept it for what it is, but instead want to shed rivers of tears about how the game has personally insulted their deceased mother.
Everybody will bring something different away from the experience of playing it, and its not meant to be Civ 4 2.0.


At the same time, a lot of people paid their money for the next iteration in a game series that has thus far given them a certain enjoyable experience, only to find that Civ V is a major unexpected departure.

They come on the forums to discuss their negative experience with Civ V, only to be instantly shot down by Civ V fanboys who act like critics just personally insulted their deceased mother.

There's something to be said about the people can't accept the others have a different opinion of Civ V and feel that they need to defend the game at all costs as well...

That's not directed at you, by the way :) Just sayin

Ditto. :)

At the same time, a lot of people paid their money for the next iteration in a game series that has thus far given them a certain enjoyable experience, only to find that Civ V is a major unexpected departure.

They come on the forums to discuss their negative experience with Civ V, only to be instantly shot down by Civ V fanboys who act like critics just personally insulted their deceased mother.

There's something to be said about the people can't accept the others have a different opinion of Civ V and feel that they need to defend the game at all costs as well...



Ditto. :)

Well, from what I've read, a lot of people paid their money for Civ 4 2.0, and anyone with experience in the Civ franchise knows that's not how it works. Also, the vocal majority on this forum aren't the fanboys, so you can guess where the "shooting down" is really coming from, at least from where I sit. I mean c'mon...its been made painfully clear here that if a review doesn't bash Civ 5 its not a good review.

Yea, you're right...clicking one stack of 120 units into XX Enemy Capital was so much more rewarding. :rolleyes:

Obviously there is gain to micromanaging your military, and I'm going to assume you're just arguing for the sake of argument here.

Well, if you would have just "clicked" your stack of 120 units into an enemy city then you would have done something wrong.
Fighting a battle with so many units would have been quite time consuming if done properly.

But at least you could move them without hassle, and that is what we were talking about.

Well, if you would have just "clicked" your stack of 120 units into an enemy city then you would have done something wrong.
Fighting a battle with so many units would have been quite time consuming if done properly.

But at least you could move them without hassle, and that is what we were talking about.

You're not talking about anything, you're complaining about a feature you don't like. People cry that there's not enough micro management in the economic management of the empire and then turn around and cry that there's too much micro management in the military aspect, when they both go hand in hand. You consider tactical unit management to be a hassle over the simplistic SoD armies of Civ 4, but then everyone decries Civ 5 for being "dumbed down". Amazing.

You're not talking about anything, you're complaining about a feature you don't like. People cry that there's not enough micro management in the economic management of the empire and then turn around and cry that there's too much micro management in the military aspect, when they both go hand in hand. You consider tactical unit management to be a hassle over the simplistic SoD armies of Civ 4, but then everyone decries Civ 5 for being "dumbed down". Amazing.

What I am complaining about is the tediousness of having to move my units one by one while marching in complete safety through my empire.
What I am complaining about is that one "friendly" unit sitting on a rough terrain tile within my own borders can block my army marching from the northern front to the southern one.
What I am complaining about is that if one of these units hits one of my own cities, it will stop there (and I won't be notified), so that I have to check every turn, where they are.
What I am complaining about is the pure fact that if one unit A is sitting on the end hex (for that turn) of unit B, unit B will stop and require new orders.

Nothing of these things adds even the slightest bit to tactical movement. It adds a lot to unnecessary, redundant manual action with no gain.
It is just that simple.

What I am complaining about is that if one of these units hits one of my own cities, it will stop there (and I won't be notified), so that I have to check every turn, where they are.

I have never had this happen to me one single time. I saw you post on this same item recently (yesterday?) and went so far as to try to force this behavior. I was unsuccessful in doing so. My units travelled seamlessly through cities, following their path, even when they stopped on the city in mid-path.

I agree that your other items are definitely tedious. But not game breaking. Grouping/following/rally point functionality would address this.

What I am complaining about is the tediousness of having to move my units one by one while marching in complete safety through my empire.
What I am complaining about is that one "friendly" unit sitting on a rough terrain tile within my own borders can block my army marching from the northern front to the southern one.
What I am complaining about is that if one of these units hits one of my own cities, it will stop there (and I won't be notified), so that I have to check every turn, where they are.
What I am complaining about is the pure fact that if one unit A is sitting on the end hex (for that turn) of unit B, unit B will stop and require new orders.

Nothing of these things adds even the slightest bit to tactical movement. It adds a lot to unnecessary, redundant manual action with no gain.
It is just that simple.

Good lord dude, should the AI just move your units for you? Why do you even bother playing? I bet you automate all your workers too, don't you?

I don't find any of the above tedious, then again, I appreciate having a grasp of the tactical situation at all times, which moving units individually affords you. Like Sketch said above, to each his own.

I also haven't experienced a unit with orders to pass through a city stopping in one, which sounds like a bug. Everything else about your list doesn't bother me in the slightest, with the exception of neutral unit stacking (military and support).

Like Jharii said, unit grouping ( not stacking ) and setting rally points etc would be a good addition, but again, the lack of them is hardly game breaking.

I have never had this happen to me one single time. I saw you post on this same item recently (yesterday?) and went so far as to try to force this behavior. I was unsuccessful in doing so. My units travelled seamlessly through cities, following their path, even when they stopped on the city in mid-path.

Well, I have happened this now several times. And I am quite sure that sometimes I am even not noticing it, as I may have got distracted and just lost kept tracing them.

I don't know what the determining factors are, most probably (but this is just my assumption at the moment) it happens when the unit ends in this city and the next turn the designated next end-hex will have been occupied by another unit.

What I remember now that I am typing is that it happens with mounted units trying to attack an enemy in front of your city, while the mounted unit itself is coming from the backside.
The unit will stop in the city. And even then you cannot directly order it again to attack, but you first have to move it out of the city, and THEN to attack.

Jharii, to be honest it happens to me quite often, i set the movement than i forget them only to discover them hiding in a city on the path... Probably it's a something in the path that blocks them, it not happens ever, so i think it was some other unit passing by, but i'm not sure of that... Maybe is the setting of the path, maybe if some other unit cross-path it set the city as last hex...

Good lord dude, should the AI just move your units for you?

Indeed, it should do so, when I have given a "move to" order. Where's the point in that feature, if I have to correct it all the times manually?

This constitutes a broken feature.

Maybe I am missing some element to the issue. I'll play with it again tonight.

Indeed, it should do so, when I have given a "move to" order. Where's the point in that feature, if I have to correct it all the times manually?

This constitutes a broken feature.

That's odd, I don't have this problem. When I tell them to go, they go. The only time that a unit doesn't go where I tell it to is if another unit lands on that tile first, which, to me, is completely reasonable.

Jharii, to be honest it happens to me quite often, i set the movement than i forget them only to discover them hiding in a city on the path... Probably it's a something in the path that blocks them, it not happens ever, so i think it was some other unit passing by, but i'm not sure of that... Maybe is the setting of the path, maybe if some other unit cross-path it set the city as last hex...

I have seen this problem too. It doesn't happen all the time. I think you are right about the cause - something blocks the unit's path, and because it is in a city it goes to sleep instead of asking for new orders.

That's odd, I don't have this problem. When I tell them to go, they go. The only time that a unit doesn't go where I tell it to is if another unit lands on that tile first, which, to me, is completely reasonable.
"Go to" stops when there's an unit blocking its path, or worse - sometimes my unit tries to go around said blocker, which results in trespassing, barb vicinity or loss of four turns due to rough terrain. Can happen numerous times across the "go to" order, and each time I'd have to repeat the procedure which nullifies the purpose of that feature.

Joys of 1upt I guess, though if only that unit of mine would remember where it's going then it would be fine - I'd click skip turn or sth and that'd be end of trouble.

Im not sure why you would continue attacking an enemy which you're clearly not strong enough to take out. If they're in their own borders, they're gonna heal and if you aren't doing enough damage then you're not going to take them out. Of course they'll gain XP, they're engaged in battle. Maybe its a little lame that they're just sitting there, but they still deserve something for surviving battle. Besides, wasn't your Trireme levelling as well?



The Militaristic CS asked you for a favor and you did it. That makes them your Ally until it degrades. They will occasionally gift you units, and you can ask them to stop whenever you want. I personally haven't seen the rate so extreme that it would be considered an exploit. The production rate is probably on par or slower than what you could produce yourself, but that is entirely circumstantial



I'm not sure what the complaint is here. If you don't want to do a quest, then don't do it? Are you mad that they included extra things to do in the game? :confused:



There are trade-offs to settling a new city. Culture costs rise. Happiness decreases. Maintenance costs rise. Sure, city sprawl is a simple, effective and often used tactic, but I wouldn't consider popping cities up everywhere just to fight a unit. The costs and effectiveness of a simple combat unit that can move and fight are a much better tradeoff. Also, there's tension trying to run a settler through hostile lands. If an enemy even touches your settler, they're gone unless you fight back for them.



There are no buildings that are +1 food. The granary gives +2 food for -1 gold maintenance. The Lighthouse gives +1 food PER water tile worked. I will admit though, I rarely find the granary worth it and only build lighthouses if I find my coastal cities are stagnating.



You can move onto an embarked unit and instantly destroy it, if it is unable to defend itself (Askia's embarked units can defend), which I guess you could consider like a ramming ability.



I haven't played many previous Civilization titles, so I'm not sure if hit-and-run was ever available. From a RISK and other world-conquering strategy game standpoint, it's pretty common that you can't move after an attack. You're fatigued from battle. It would be cheap to be able to run in, attack someone, then run away repeatedly.



That should not be true. Combat units can stack with non-combat units at any time. 1UPT really means 1 non-combat + 1 combat UPT.




Not sure what to say here really. Early game cities are a little on the weak side, but I've definitely lost quite a few units trying to attack cities. Maybe you're just playing on too low of a difficulty?



I don't know anything about cottages, but there are still tile improvements and most military units can pillage an improvement (farm, mine, etc). If a city was already depending on that improvement for gold or food, you've just cost them that income.

Sorry, but overall you sound like you're just nitpicking and wishing this was just another Civ 4 expansion. From what I can tell, its a different game. That doesn't make it boring or bad, for me at least.
I'll reply to your individual points but some overarching themes:
First, you've retorted to individual points in my CiV story. Fine, you're free to do so but you didn't in anyway tell me why this game is interesting/not boring to you. That's the title of this thread so maybe you could retort in a constructive way rather than just trying to "pick at" my story.

Second, please keep in mind this was my first and only game, which will be the majority of my answers to your points. Its my first 6 hour impression with the game certainly not an overall strategy guide.

Third, CiV supports keep writing off complaints saying "looks like you just wanted another BTS" and so try to invalidate your opinion as stuck in the Civ4 mold. My point is this is not an improvement over Civ2, Civ3, and certainly not any version of Civ4. If it had come out after Civ1 maybe I would be impressed. (I can picture it; Civ1 you could stack units but might lose the whole stack; Civ5 you couldn't stack units; Civ2 major improvement you can stack units and NOT lose them all!).

"Not sure why I would continue attacking..." because this was my first engagement of my first war and I actually thought that he might die and I didn't know how the XP system worked. Now that I understand how it works I would not do that again, I would just leave my Trieme sitting there giving their warrior bad looks until the rest of my army arrived. Even more boring than my first impression.

"The Militaristic CS asked you for a favor..." You're right I could ask them to stop gifting me unit. I can't imagine why I would turn down free units in a military oriented game.

"I haven't seen the rate so extreme that it would be considered an exploit". Ok lets pretend that Taiwan is a Maritime CS and its inbetween two empires China and US. Taiwan and US become allies and then Taiwan gifts 2 foods to every city in the entire US! That doesn't seem strange to you?

"I'm not sure what the complaint is here. If you don't want to do a quest, then don't do it? Are you mad that they included extra things to do in the game? "
The problem is that they've made these CS so powerful that you cannot ignore them so yes, you must go on quests! Why have they done this? Because CS were obviously to be the key conflict point in this game. In Civ3 it was pseudo-exponential luxury goods and strategic resources. It was definately worth destroying your BFF to get that next luxury good and you'd have the ability to do it if you acquired strategic resources. Civ4 they watered down luxury goods (you wanted it but not enought to smoke that same BFF) and replaced it with religion; a dynamic, strategy-oriented, non-territory based conflict generator. Brillant I said. What do we have in Civ5? A ridiculously overpowered "City-state" who must be ridiculously overpowered in order to generate the necessary level of conflict and a rabid dog AI. Its hard to consider this "extra things" but more of a band-aid solution to poor game design.

"There are trade-offs to settling a new city." Whatever. In this respect CiV is slightly better than Civ2 or Civ3 but so very, very far behind Civ4. Yes, so long as you find some generic +5 luxury good, then you're free to send off your settler. Not very dramatic.

"There are no buildings that are +1 food. The granary gives +2 food for -1 gold maintenance." Quite possibly I am mistaken. Same diff. +2 food -1 gold and a heck of a lot of hammers still means a stinky rate of return. The point is you'll never build this building to get ahead (strategic investment) but just kindof band-aid a city thats stagnating. City State ally +2 food, 0 gold cost, 0 hammers, oh yeah that's for every city. Granary +2 food in ONE CITY, -1 gold and minus a bunch of hammers. Oh, yes you will be going on quests.

"You can move onto an embarked unit and instantly destroy it, if it is unable to defend itself". I'm not sure that it means that a canoe is able or unable to defend itself against a Trieme. I tried my best to destroy it. I searched everywhere for a menu button that would allow me to directly engage it but to no avail.

"I haven't played many previous Civilization titles, so I'm not sure if hit-and-run was ever available." It wasn't, but in prior versions your base movement was 1, your fast movers were 2, and bombarding was restricted to 1 space and to easily destroyed catapults. Essentially, all other versions were more strategic than tactical. Given that this was 1upt was a major move towards tactical warefare, call me crazy, but I had hoped that since they were going to completely rewrite the combat system it might be good and it might involve things that made warfare tactical (like cutting off naval reinforcements or actually being able to shoot arrows without an automatic death sentence).

Listen, if you like the game that's fine I don't begruge you. Checkers is an ok way to pass the time. Its just not worthy of its title and its a poor strategy game. To be fair, I would like to commend the designers for trying something new. Maybe by Ci_VI it will be worth playing. The idea of a working 1upt, decent 1upt AI tactical combat plus a STRATEGY game that invovled trade-offs, strategic investments and more realistic points of conflict would make me more than happy.

"Go to" stops when there's an unit blocking its path, or worse - sometimes my unit tries to go around said blocker, which results in trespassing, barb vicinity or loss of four turns due to rough terrain. Can happen numerous times across the "go to" order, and each time I'd have to repeat the procedure which nullifies the purpose of that feature.

Joys of 1upt I guess, though if only that unit of mine would remember where it's going then it would be fine - I'd click skip turn or sth and that'd be end of trouble.

Honestly, if you're moving say, 10 units, or even 15, how many does this happen with? One? Two? You guys act as if every single unit runs into this problem every time you move it. :crazyeye:

I'll reply to your individual points but some overarching themes:
First, you've retorted to individual points in my CiV story. Fine, you're free to do so but you didn't in anyway tell me why this game is interesting/not boring to you. That's the title of this thread so maybe you could retort in a constructive way rather than
just trying to "pick at" my story.

Second, please keep in mind this was my first and only game, which will be the majority of my answers to your points. Its my first 6 hour impression with the game certainly not an overall strategy guide.


Sorry man, I don't mean to nitpick. I just feel like you should play more than one game before you conclude it's boring. I also felt like many of your points led you to false conclusions based on your lack of experience with the game mechanics. ie, "can't attack a unit 1:1 from the coast and kill it fast while it heals and fortifies => BORING."


Third, CiV supports keep writing off complaints saying "looks like you just wanted another BTS" and so try to invalidate your opinion as stuck in the Civ4 mold. My point is this is not an improvement over Civ2, Civ3, and certainly not any version of Civ4. If it had come out after Civ1 maybe I would be impressed. (I can picture it; Civ1 you could stack units but might lose the whole stack; Civ5 you couldn't stack units; Civ2 major improvement you can stack units and NOT lose them all!).

I don't see how this impacts the fun-factor of Civ 5. I'm not going to write off your opinion simply because I think you were expecting more of the same, but I will argue that the game is not "boring" simply because its not the same.


"Not sure why I would continue attacking..." because this was my first engagement of my first war and I actually thought that he might die and I didn't know how the XP system worked. Now that I understand how it works I would not do that again, I would just leave my Trieme sitting there giving their warrior bad looks until the rest of my army arrived. Even more boring than my first impression.

Again, sorry I wasn't trying to condescend or anything. I guess my point was once you saw the unit wasn't going to be taken down so easily, you should have waited for more units, as you said you will. I can understand how waiting around can be boring, but I think having to use a larger force to take out units makes it more fun/engaging than just 1:1 battles that you can win easily all the time. That just comes down to a personal preference though.


"The Militaristic CS asked you for a favor..." You're right I could ask them to stop gifting me unit. I can't imagine why I would turn down free units in a military oriented game.

I feel like you're contradicting yourself here. You don't want them to gift you units because it's too powerful/exploiting, but you wouldn't turn down units in a military game. The CS is just boosting your army to give you more units to help fight faster => make things less boring, imo.


"I haven't seen the rate so extreme that it would be considered an exploit". Ok lets pretend that Taiwan is a Maritime CS and its inbetween two empires China and US. Taiwan and US become allies and then Taiwan gifts 2 foods to every city in the entire US! That doesn't seem strange to you?

I was referring to Militaristic CS only. They do not provide food. I agree the maritime CS are a *bit* of an exploit.


"I'm not sure what the complaint is here. If you don't want to do a quest, then don't do it? Are you mad that they included extra things to do in the game? "
The problem is that they've made these CS so powerful that you cannot ignore them so yes, you must go on quests! Why have they done this? Because CS were obviously to be the key conflict point in this game. In Civ3 it was pseudo-exponential luxury goods and strategic resources. It was definately worth destroying your BFF to get that next luxury good and you'd have the ability to do it if you acquired strategic resources. Civ4 they watered down luxury goods (you wanted it but not enought to smoke that same BFF) and replaced it with religion; a dynamic, strategy-oriented, non-territory based conflict generator. Brillant I said. What do we have in Civ5? A ridiculously overpowered "City-state" who must be ridiculously overpowered in order to generate the necessary level of conflict and a rabid dog AI. Its hard to consider this "extra things" but more of a band-aid solution to poor game design.

What about CS do you consider overpowered? I don't think the quests make it too easy, because some of them require you to tick off another CS or AI civ. Granted, some of them make it very simple to get that boost in food/culture/military, but then you have to maintain relations if you desire to keep it and you might piss off the AI by befriending a CS that they liked.


"There are trade-offs to settling a new city." Whatever. In this respect CiV is slightly better than Civ2 or Civ3 but so very, very far behind Civ4. Yes, so long as you find some generic +5 luxury good, then you're free to send off your settler. Not very dramatic.

You make it sound like plopping down a city has 0 repercussion as long as there's a luxury resource near. Not true. AI are greedy for luxuries half the time. You might expand too close to their borders and push them to war with you. If you've already got that luxury, you're not making a net happiness gain so now you need to balance your population to account for it. You could be settling too far away from your own empire to be safe (though, I rarely find that to be a problem :blush:). What if your map doesn't have many luxuries to begin with, or just a few of the same? Makes it a bit harder to expand rapidly.


"There are no buildings that are +1 food. The granary gives +2 food for -1 gold maintenance." Quite possibly I am mistaken. Same diff. +2 food -1 gold and a heck of a lot of hammers still means a stinky rate of return. The point is you'll never build this building to get ahead (strategic investment) but just kindof band-aid a city thats stagnating. City State ally +2 food, 0 gold cost, 0 hammers, oh yeah that's for every city. Granary +2 food in ONE CITY, -1 gold and minus a bunch of hammers. Oh, yes you will be going on quests.

[removed]
Edit: That was a bad explanation I had there and it was pretty much wrong. I agree that maritime city states are overpowered and need to be nerfed. If I'm not mistaken, the food bonus is +2 in the capital, +1 elsewhere. Still powerful, but not as bad. Overall, you're right - there are a lot of buildings in the game that are just not worth it to build and its kind of sad that the way it currently is, building in a civilization game is pretty much discouraged (with exceptions). Hopefully its a simple balance issue that can be patched/modded. That said, however, it does not always mean you have limitless gold and city states available to bribe. Ive had plenty of games with very few to no maritime city states. Ive had several others where missions weren't feasible or easy to complete. Singapore wanted Brussels taken out, and since they were maritime I thought 'heck yes I'll do that!' I sent some units over but it turned out Brussels was stronger than I realized and since it was kind of far away I wasn't able to send enough units (while currently fighting another war) to take them down.


"You can move onto an embarked unit and instantly destroy it, if it is unable to defend itself". I'm not sure that it means that a canoe is able or unable to defend itself against a Trieme. I tried my best to destroy it. I searched everywhere for a menu button that would allow me to directly engage it but to no avail.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "canoe". Is it an embarked land unit? Then you can move ontop of it and it will be destroyed. Is it an enemy Trieme/Galley/Caravel/etc? There is a "ranged attack" button for all naval units that you can use to attack from a distance (left side, topmost action button).


"I haven't played many previous Civilization titles, so I'm not sure if hit-and-run was ever available." It wasn't, but in prior versions your base movement was 1, your fast movers were 2, and bombarding was restricted to 1 space and to easily destroyed catapults. Essentially, all other versions were more strategic than tactical. Given that this was 1upt was a major move towards tactical warefare, call me crazy, but I had hoped that since they were going to completely rewrite the combat system it might be good and it might involve things that made warfare tactical (like cutting off naval reinforcements or actually being able to shoot arrows without an automatic death sentence).

What's the difference between strategy and tactics? I argue that 1UPT adds plenty of strategy/tactics. The problem is that the AI isn't very good with it. But that doesn't make it less boring. Attacking with an archer isn't always a death sentence, if you move some melee units with them and put them between you and the enemy. Or if you wait for the right opportunity/use terrain to your advantage. I've found combat to be the least boring part of the game because I constantly have to determine if a move is safe for a unit, if I'll have the right terrain bonuses to actually win, etc. Also, the extra movement from a horseman/mounted unit/etc can be used to more easily intercept enemies. What if someone tries to flank your catapult? Rush your horsemen over there and attack in the same turn. You may put your horsemen in danger, but then you can use your catapult to defend them until you move again.


Listen, if you like the game that's fine I don't begruge you. Checkers is an ok way to pass the time. Its just not worthy of its title and its a poor strategy game. To be fair, I would like to commend the designers for trying something new. Maybe by Ci_VI it will be worth playing. The idea of a working 1upt, decent 1upt AI tactical combat plus a STRATEGY game that invovled trade-offs, strategic investments and more realistic points of conflict would make me more than happy.

If you don't like the game, thats also fine and I don't begrudge you. I just want to try and sway you to enjoy the game rather than write it off as boring after one game, that's all. I agree the game needs some work and it probably doesn't live up to its reputation. But I also think Firaxis has already done a great job with patching issues and once they get an AI patch out the game should be leaps and bounds better. In the meantime, there are tons of great community mods out there to make the game more enjoyable and tweak the issues that you may find "boring".

Maritime CS provide +2 food in the capital only, +1 in every other city. This may be a bit overpowered, but lets look at some numbers.
When you're allied, you get +4 food in the capital and +2 food in each city.
In addition, you get any resource which the CS currently has access to.


And who says you need +food in every city? Maybe some cities are already working all of the valuable tiles and you just want them to stagnate so you dont produce more unhappiness. Well then, the food from the maritime CS is wasted.
Quite easy, the food from the maritime CS will be invested into specialists. Scientists would be something which comes to mind.
The Great Scientist then can be burnt for either a Golden Age or a new tech.

When you're allied, you get +4 food in the capital and +2 food in each city.
In addition, you get any resource which the CS currently has access to.

Quite easy, the food from the maritime CS will be invested into specialists. Scientists would be something which comes to mind.
The Great Scientist then can be burnt for either a Golden Age or a new tech.

Woah, is it really +4 and +2? Dang, my mistake.

Also, totally forgot about specialists

Edit: It is definitely +2 and +1. I just finished playing a game and checked to make sure. Hovering over the "friend" status of a Maritime CS pops up a little tooltip that says something along the lines of "This city state is your friend and will provide +2 food to your capital and +1 to your cities"

Another 5 turns later i meet... uuuuhhh THE SHAKA! This goddamn unit pumping son of a b****.
I find your post amusing.

I decided to give Civ V another chance, I thought that the new patch and the modpack CCMAT would enhance the experience/give more versatily to the game.
Well,sadly for me it still feels like a wargame that just slugs ahead..

I tried to accept it and chose Mongols and went full steam ahead conquering lands, and with my trustworthy(pact of coop, tech pact) friend Hiawatha went to a war against a common enemy... in the middle of the war, suddenly Hiawatha informs me that he will destroy me, and along with GANDHI of all people, started a war. Like it's been said before, there's not much to diplomacy here..

I've played CIV IV alongside with V, and I just feel it much more versatile, rewarding and absorbing.
There's so much going on in IV and loads of options and choices and the world feels more alive and makes more sense.
Even the graphics are cooler, I love how I can just take a glance at city and see that aqueduct is up and running, smoke arises from the chimneys of villages...
In my current game I have enemies but also trustworthy allies, I've managed to avoid the major world wars but have had some "punitive expeditions" and currently my secret privateer fleet is pillaging and starving my enemy along with my cold war of espionage.
I managed to build United Nations and am the secretary general, but with the cost of being militarily a bit backwards.
Still, my close neighbour Frederick is my best ally and has a powerful army, and has even gifted me iron and gold at times..! How about that, Hiawatha of Civ V!:mad:

* * *

I haven't lost all hope of Civ V, there's lots of things that I like, but along with the poor combat AI, weak diplomacy and imho static graphics, my gripe is that there's not enough stuff to do besides fighting and preparing to war.

I've played as Gandhi for cultural victory, and actually managed to avoid more wars than usual, but that gamestyle was sloooow and quite boring, especially with the long waiting between turns. Besides near the end the game started crashing a lot..

I just hope expansions that would give back religion and espionage in some form, bring more flavor and options to diplomacy and bring back apostolic palace and make the United Nations mean something more than it's now.. it would be so cool to hold votes and maybe conduct peacekeeping missions etc.

I first picked up Civ 1 in '93, maybe '94. I was in the US Army serving in South Korea. The game blew me away. Build my own world spanning civilization? Create armies to deal with enemies? Worry about food, gold, science, etc? Freakin awesome. i have played every iteration of the series except Civ 3. I got hooked into Everquest at that time *shudder - never again will I play an MMO - I lost a job, a girlfriend and eventually, my bank account, apartment and.......well, the game ate my life. Ok, back to civ. Civ4 comes out. I am once again floored. I worry about my little budding empire. I feel a need to hurry to get resources and buildings. I keep wringing my hands about what my neighbors are up to. I have invested emotionally into my Empire. Warlords and BTS made it even better. I heard about Civ5 coming out. I was sooooooooooooooooooooooo jazzed. It was all I could think about in gaming for 2 years. Me and my friends started playing Civ4 more and more to get our chops up to snuff in preparation. We new it was going to be awesome and hard. We felt we needed to be ready for it. Then we saw Civ Rev, and a tiny tiny tiny stinker of doubt was planted. But nooooooo, we thought, no, really, Civ5 wont be like that at all, I mean Civ Rev was a silly console game. Civ5 will be a super multi-threading quad+core PC blowing massive game! Right?! We will need to get new PC's just to run it, right?! Its gonna be freakin awesome, right?!



Then I finally got Civ5. It is cold, stale, emotionless. I play and play, and cant care less about my empire. I dont even see my empire as a "group of people" struggling for survival. They are just colors. Resources are mostly meaningless ( i know people will scream about happiness, I worried about it my first 3 games, then realized its meaningless - the ai doenst even care about it ), buildings are a hindrance ( the cost of upkeep vs. the cost/time of construction is a joke ), I have no real control over my land and how its worked (i mean really? no workshops/windmills/watermills? - my land is mostly boring and the resource rewards are, ummm, meaningless mostly, wow, a whole 1 extra hammer now! woohoo my library is only 38 turns now instead of 41, gee thanks, I feel like that really helped......./sarc), my military is ...........to be honest, no word comes to mind that wont make the moderators twitch unpleasantly. On game 4 I realize that CS are useless wastes. Why are they in the game? the bonus' are ok, but the gold requirement to keep them happy is kind of extreme for the reward. Its better to just puppet them, cuz if you dont the AI will. I know consider CS to be the biggest joke in a game I have ever played, I really just find them annoying, it would be better if they were really other AI civs, they are truly nothing more than happiness resource targets. The SP's at first seemed interesting, until I realized they meant very very little. By game 5 the were stale. Always ended up getting hte same ones. By game 5 I had learned how to manipulate my SP's, Golden Age score, Specialist Golden Ages and Taj Mahal into nearly 250 out of 330 turns of golden age. Bored to tears. I kept waiting for this game to get interesting, hard, challenging, I kept looking for depth and complexity, but I never found it. I am so DISSAPOINTED I can barely contain myself. Then I read the interview from Shafer where he says it was purposely less complex, purposely more like Civ Rev, purposely not beta tested to any extent, purposely hoping for the modding community to work its magic, and I thought, FU SHAFER, give me back my money!

:wallbash::wallbash:

civilization: total war awesome shooter strategy fun time!

Only with the "MOAR GORE" mod!!!!!!!!!!!!!

KahunaGod, I really feel with you. It's exactly the same what I experienced, to the last word. I've not played CiV since two weeks now and I'm still so disappointed I can't find the words.

Then I finally got Civ5. It is cold, stale, emotionless. I play and play, and cant care less about my empire. I dont even see my empire as a "group of people" struggling for survival. They are just colors. Resources are mostly meaningless ( i know people will scream about happiness, I worried about it my first 3 games, then realized its meaningless - the ai doenst even care about it ), buildings are a hindrance ( the cost of upkeep vs. the cost/time of construction is a joke ), I have no real control over my land and how its worked (i mean really? no workshops/windmills/watermills? - my land is mostly boring and the resource rewards are, ummm, meaningless mostly, wow, a whole 1 extra hammer now! woohoo my library is only 38 turns now instead of 41, gee thanks, I feel like that really helped......./sarc), my military is ...........to be honest, no word comes to mind that wont make the moderators twitch unpleasantly.

I agree whole-heartedly with your comment about people. My empires do not feel like they are filled with actual people anymore, just numbers. I have no idea why. Maybe the feeling that you aren't really "nuturing" a city and its population anymore? No health, no religion, no civics, resources are underwhelming....I dunno....

Thanks guys, glad Im not out here in the cold alone. Although the fire of my dissapointment keeps me warm.


"Wolverines!" :p

Also, lol @ "I played it for 43 hours and now its boring"

Civilization is a game that it is suppoused to be played for years, it is not an Uncharted / Castlevania / whatever type of game that once you finish it you never touch it again.
I have enjoyed my first 25 hours of the game or so, but that's an incredible narrow lifespan for a civ game.

I do think that the replayability of the title has been heavily damaged due to lot of core poor game design decisions: global happiness homogenizing cities, the impossibility of subjugate a civ in any other way but by sheer military force (no more culture mongering or religion), terrain types being extremely similar, special resources not mattering at all, and a long etc.

Also, I cannot help but feeling that the builders got shafted on this Civ. I can understand that for people that viewed the saga as a wargame mainly, this Civilization V is pretty much the game of their dreams. I have no qualms in admitting that almost every decision that has been took regarding combat has been spot on and vastly superior to the Civ IV's stacks of doom. But for people who liked micromanaging and empire building, this game is boring and almost devoid of any single interesting choice save for the sparse social policy choice.

I've been playing Civ since nr. one came out (got a score on 186% in Civ. 1)...

And THIS VERSION IS THE BEST EVER MADE!!!

..lol, I don't understand ppl complaining about the speed of the game, I run it on my laptop, 1gb graphic card, 2gb ram and dualCore 2GHz 800MHz FSB 2MB cache! (not much really) And it runs like a dream on middle graphics adjustment... I run it by DX11 (don't ask if ya don't know, lol)

EDIT:

Just found out that one is not able to raise capital cities or city-states!!! Without a mod to counter this:

THIS GAME IS USELESS!!! lol..

---------------------------

Kind regards, Killovicz

I first picked up Civ 1 in '93, maybe '94. I was in the US Army serving in South Korea. The game blew me away. Build my own world spanning civilization? Create armies to deal with enemies? Worry about food, gold, science, etc? Freakin awesome. i have played every iteration of the series except Civ 3. I got hooked into Everquest at that time *shudder - never again will I play an MMO - I lost a job, a girlfriend and eventually, my bank account, apartment and.......well, the game ate my life. Ok, back to civ. Civ4 comes out. I am once again floored. I worry about my little budding empire. I feel a need to hurry to get resources and buildings. I keep wringing my hands about what my neighbors are up to. I have invested emotionally into my Empire. Warlords and BTS made it even better. I heard about Civ5 coming out. I was sooooooooooooooooooooooo jazzed. It was all I could think about in gaming for 2 years. Me and my friends started playing Civ4 more and more to get our chops up to snuff in preparation. We new it was going to be awesome and hard. We felt we needed to be ready for it. Then we saw Civ Rev, and a tiny tiny tiny stinker of doubt was planted. But nooooooo, we thought, no, really, Civ5 wont be like that at all, I mean Civ Rev was a silly console game. Civ5 will be a super multi-threading quad+core PC blowing massive game! Right?! We will need to get new PC's just to run it, right?! Its gonna be freakin awesome, right?!



Then I finally got Civ5. It is cold, stale, emotionless. I play and play, and cant care less about my empire. I dont even see my empire as a "group of people" struggling for survival. They are just colors. Resources are mostly meaningless ( i know people will scream about happiness, I worried about it my first 3 games, then realized its meaningless - the ai doenst even care about it ), buildings are a hindrance ( the cost of upkeep vs. the cost/time of construction is a joke ), I have no real control over my land and how its worked (i mean really? no workshops/windmills/watermills? - my land is mostly boring and the resource rewards are, ummm, meaningless mostly, wow, a whole 1 extra hammer now! woohoo my library is only 38 turns now instead of 41, gee thanks, I feel like that really helped......./sarc), my military is ...........to be honest, no word comes to mind that wont make the moderators twitch unpleasantly. On game 4 I realize that CS are useless wastes. Why are they in the game? the bonus' are ok, but the gold requirement to keep them happy is kind of extreme for the reward. Its better to just puppet them, cuz if you dont the AI will. I know consider CS to be the biggest joke in a game I have ever played, I really just find them annoying, it would be better if they were really other AI civs, they are truly nothing more than happiness resource targets. The SP's at first seemed interesting, until I realized they meant very very little. By game 5 the were stale. Always ended up getting hte same ones. By game 5 I had learned how to manipulate my SP's, Golden Age score, Specialist Golden Ages and Taj Mahal into nearly 250 out of 330 turns of golden age. Bored to tears. I kept waiting for this game to get interesting, hard, challenging, I kept looking for depth and complexity, but I never found it. I am so DISSAPOINTED I can barely contain myself. Then I read the interview from Shafer where he says it was purposely less complex, purposely more like Civ Rev, purposely not beta tested to any extent, purposely hoping for the modding community to work its magic, and I thought, FU SHAFER, give me back my money!

:wallbash::wallbash:

Spot on mate, I'm in the same boat. What I would advise you to do is check out the 'Rise of Mankind' mod if you haven't. Then you can throw this 5 in the bin and still have a great new Civ experience.

I would say V definitely WANTS to be a wargame, though... moreso than any previous iteration of the series. I think it's evident in the design decisions, the choices of implementation for non-war aspects of the game, and interviews with the producers and developers.

All that said, personally -- I'm just happy that the OP looks like a promising candidate to recruit for my coming holy war against embarkation.

This may have already been said in this thread, but all that one need do with that Trireme to stop embarked enemy units is move it into the same space that that the embarked unit occupies and it is dead. In effect, you just rammed the embarked unit with you Trireme.

Woah, is it really +4 and +2? Dang, my mistake.

Also, totally forgot about specialists

Edit: It is definitely +2 and +1. I just finished playing a game and checked to make sure. Hovering over the "friend" status of a Maritime CS pops up a little tooltip that says something along the lines of "This city state is your friend and will provide +2 food to your capital and +1 to your cities"

Being allied is a higher level of "friendship" than just being friends and thus provides a higher level of food. When friends, you get the +2 and +1 food and with allied city states you get +4 and +2.

Being allied is a higher level of "friendship" than just being friends and thus provides a higher level of food. When friends, you get the +2 and +1 food and with allied city states you get +4 and +2.

Yeah that struck me when I was laying in bed last night. D'oh!

Yeah that struck me when I was laying in bed last night. D'oh!

And the bonus grows quite substantively with later ages.

I've read with interest people's opinions in this thread. I can see where people are coming from, on both sides of the argument.

My experience has been one of enjoyment. I've clocked up 200 hours thus far.

I loved Civ BTS and I played countless hours. But I was a poor player (Warlord diff.) as I'd neglect my military. (I really don't miss those stacks of doom.) Civ V forces you to look at your military and I like this, because I never did before.

Yes, it is too easy at the moment. I can finish it on Deity without too much difficulty. Maritime CS are ridiculously overpowered. The AI is pathetically stupid.

But in spite of these things, I feel that the overall balance and gameplay will be improved with patches and expansion packs. Look at the difference b/w Civ IV vanilla and BTS for example. And these days, it's just how the software world works. Developers release sub-standard, buggy, crashy products and let their massive user community identify those problems so they can fix them. It happens across all sorts of software. This will be no different. If this practice bothers you, then you shouldn't be using fresh software. Give it time to mature before you jump in.

In the meantime, crank up the difficulty to Emp or Deity and see how you go. It can be a lot of fun.

My experience has been one of enjoyment.<snip> Developers release sub-standard, buggy, crashy products and let their massive user community identify those problems so they can fix them.

No further questions. Your witness.

I found it boring and not fun at all, I went back to playing Elemental:cry:

I have had every Civ (1 to 5) and the best has been Civ2. I try to play 2 at times but the graphics are rather dated. I would love the next Civ to be like 2 with the superb graphics of Civ5 I read all the letters of this post with much interest. This Civ takes some getting used to.

I think this may be the single best post I've seen on this forum; it mirrors my own feelings almost exactly.

I agree. And here's why:

My First Ci_V experience: Went over to a friends place who had purchased it.

Picked Greeks, Marathon - major mistake. In C_IV I didn't like the overly fast pace of technology relative to unit movement. Epic or Marathon beautifully fixed that and turned it into a truly epic feeling game.

Immediately started sweating out my city placement, almost despaired that the terrian seemed relatively barren except for a couple of key resources. Oh well, can't re-role my first game. Pursued technology to harvest what resources I had - wtf, I got 1 extra production? Hmmm. By the end of the game I got the message that it really didn't matter where you placed things. Very odd, this was one aspect that created immediate tension in most Civ games and especially in C_IV. Passion - 1.

Noticed that the city screen doesn't really give you the feel that you're looking at a city. Hard to get the feeling that "ITS ABOUT TO GROW!" or "MY CRITICAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT IS ALMOST DONE, so I can move onto other vital production!" Passion -2.

Found out that I couldn't hurry production but I could outright buy it? Gone is the tension of finishing production so you can start the next desperate need. Passion -1.

Received a quest from a Military City state: take out my neighbour! The victim city state had resources that I presumed were valuable so I went for it. Made a Trieme and sailed it over to their island. Spent 10-20 or so turns bombarding a warrior before I realized that all I was doing was giving him 1/2 dozen promotions! Ok, that's a little strange that his warrior is now uber strong from sitting there getting arrows in the head and then recovering. Oh well, what ever doesn't kill you clearly makes you stronger. Passion -1.

Finally had an army sufficient to tackle this city. Sailed them across the lands. Had my super Greek Horseman (or whatever it is) take out the uber promoted warrior with Archer assist. Passion +1.

Fought my way through a choke point towards the city state. Difficult to say the least. Passion +1.

Finally, took the city state. Received an allied status for Military City state instigator. Started receiving military units. wtf again! He's gifting me units almost as fast as I could produce them if I was on a full war setting with my 4 cities? Kindof scratching my head as to why he needed help in the first place. Seems to be (more than) a little out of balance. Ok, fine. Actually not fine! What the heck, I'm not playing an RPG here - I don't really want to go on quests to find the sacred sword of a Thousand Truths! (Later I would find that the Military City states might be the least of problems). Passion -1 (and -3 when I learned of the degree of this exploit).

Through my attack on my first city (state) the city bombardment made me realize that a Settler might be my most powerful military unit in the early game. Run into barbarians? No problem, just plop down your settler (location doesn't seem to matter much) and start bombarding. He can't hurt you! Where's the tension of taking a risk of making a settler early run and daring to cross hostile lands to rush to that critical city location! And the Settler is relatively cheap too!
Passion -2 + an angry scowl!

Built my first building. WTF, am I interpreting this correctly, +1 food. Thanks alot! That took forever to build! What a pitiful rate of return if you can call it that. (Later, I would come to understand that these buildings had expensive maintenance! HA, am I to understand that this is a CIV game that wants you to NOT build?!?) Passion -1 (Upgrade that to Passion -3 when I realized the scope of the problem).

Found my first actual Civilization (Persia) strung across 2 smallish, very close islands. How fitting for a Greek conquest! Set up my Trieme between the two islands to cut off naval reinforcements as my major offensive sailed towards Island #1. Finally! A chance to turn that Trieme into a useful military unit after that debacle of ineffectively bombarding and inadvertently promoting my enemies' warrior. Blinked repeatedly in disbelief as I found that I couldn't take out their enbarking canoes sailing right under my nose! Great! I get to bombard them but not engage them! PFFFF! If
you can count rage as passion then +2; but really Passion -2!

Oh well, lets hope the land battle is more decisive. And it should be; I've made my first Chariot Archer with movement of 5! I get giddy as I visualize a series of hit-and-run tactics that wear down my enemies and prepare them for my Greek Horseman charge! Huh? If I shoot (range 2 spaces) then I can't further move...but, but, the standard movement of a melee unit is 2? So if I want to shoot I must end up dead? (Scratch head). Doesn't seem very useful to have all that movement. I guess I could rush very quickly to the front lines in order to fire and then die. Yes, very useful for dying fast - not much else. Of course, come to think of it I couldn't even rush to the front lines very quickly because some stupid worker is in my way. DOH. Major loss here, my giddy bubble of excitement was definately popped. Passion -3 due to the fact that it got my hopes up. To be fair, Passion -1 without my hope.

Spent couple hours bombarding their city and following up with my Greek Cavlary and Spearman (whatever they're called). Kinda going through the motions once their field army is taken out. Long, slow motions actually. Use my otherwise useless Chariot archers and Trieme to bombard their city, doing almost no damage each time (Settlers rock the military house!) but some until I'm sure that my shock troops can get off a win. Probably could have taken them earlier with more experience. Hmmm, that was pretty boring. I remember facing off in Civ3/Civ4 where you (pre-Catapult) have to worry alot about having enough troops to take their city. You know that you're going to lose some troops, maybe alot. This was like, I know that my troops are going to take damage but not die. So as long as I hit, then pull back, I'm not going to lose any troops. Really took any of the tension away. Passion -2.

But thinking about this further: why did they get rid of cottages? Especially for a game that was supposed to move combat outside of the city. Can you imagine the tension as an equal or greater enemy approaches your fertile commercial land? "HOLD THE LINE!" you scream with the realization that even if they don't take your cities they could chop you off at the knees by pillaging the source of the soldiers paychecks! Visions of Hannibal in Rome! This game, who cares? Just build back those "Trading posts" and you're back in business again. Really missed the mark here. Passion -2.

Overall, this is like some dude telling a lifetime Chess player how they've redesigned chess by removing all those complicated pieces and all their complicated moves and "look my red and black pieces can 'jump over' the other piece". So cool eh! You'd be like yeah its an 'ok' game, but it ain't Chess - Chess involves real strategy and tradeoffs.

So not a fan and I won't be spending money on this game. And, FYI Firaxis or who ever is responsible for this mess, I have been a hopeless CIV addict for the past 15+ years. I have bought-destroyed-bought again probably 6-8 copies of every game Civ2, Civ3, Civ4 spending at least $300 per version (Civ1 was pirated, sorry but I've made up for it) because I simply have no ability to control how much I play and cannot keep the darn game in my house without risking my
life/wife/career. So I figure playing like crazy and then destroying the game is way cheaper than losing my job! Rinse-and-repeat.

So I wish you well in finding 8+ console users who will replace an addicted player like me. I'm sure those console players will still be there 10-15 years from now.

mannn


do any of you guys never stop for a moment and think that its not the game, its YOU.


You have changed.


maybe your attention cant be held so easily or whatever. youve got older whatever.


depressing threads, the likes of this one are.

mannn


do any of you guys never stop for a moment and think that its not the game, its YOU.


You have changed.


maybe your attention cant be held so easily or whatever. youve got older whatever.


depressing threads, the likes of this one are.

No, it's the new direction that Firaxis has took in order to get more money, not me.
Target audience has changed this time, so if I would've changed then I could probably like it with the rest of the ppl loving the game. But I haven't.

I've tried Civ4 recently and had a blast - I could start telling you story about it - that's how immersive it was.
Then I've tried another game of Civ5 and it was boring and broken.

well this is Firaxis right. its their ball after all!



the sig says it all, sorry, we dont own Civ.

Although I really miss some of the former Civ 4 features such as religion etc.

I really like the new combat system and the other new ideas.
Would be awesome if they have just added the new civ features.

But altogether I have to say playing Civ 5 is acutally quite fun!

Interesting. Anything that saves me one night at the bar is not a waste. :)

One night at the bar = $50.
Two nights at home instead of at the bar = Priceless.

And this is why civ5 is a success. It attracts players who are used to games only lasting them a few days. Civ 5 is fun for a few weeks, so it musst be great.

But civ fanatics want civ games to last 5 years, not 5 weeks

And this is why civ5 is a success. It attracts players who are used to games only lasting them a few days. Civ 5 is fun for a few weeks, so it musst be great.

But civ fanatics want civ games to last 5 years, not 5 weeks

Sorry you missed the tongue-in-cheek there.

I've logged well over 100 hours into Civ5, by the way. It's potential and longevity is readily apparent to me. I am sorry if you fail to see that or if you feel differently. No one is able to release a game that pleases everyone inclusively.

What Thorite wrote very much mirrors my feelings towards Civ5.

I am more of a builder type than a warmonger, so I was actually excited by losing the stack of doom, and being an old hex-game player, I also looked forward to this change.

Regrettably, as a builder what totally puts me off is that it matters fk all where you actually build things. City placement, which was an integral part of making Civ4 so much fun for me, is all but gone. The effects of buildings and wonders are so cut down as to make them all but irrelevant. And being able to buy things from the get go, but not rushing something, how silly is that?

To me, the current Civ5 feels more like Battle Isle 2010 than an actual Civilization game. I see a lot of potential in the groundwork laid out in this game. I fully support the introduction of 1upt and hexes, and I don't even mind losing religions and civics. And as ridiculous as they may be, I can even forgive (given enough time) the major bugs and balance issues in the release.

But unless they do some serious polishing to make all resources (not just strategic ones) more important again, to make city placement seriously matter, to make buildings and wonders be actually important or even crucial to success, I am afraid I will have wasted my money for good.

And anything resembling trust I might have had in Firaxis is rather nonexistant after they actually did two of the things I hate most in the gaming industry: dumbed down a game to cater to the masses instead of the fans (I realize this is economically desireable, but that doesn't mean I have to like it...), and tried to reinvent the wheel instead of just tweaking it. All I have left is hope that I am wrong in my assessment of them as unscrupulous moneygrubbers with some detached form of vision.

I mostly agree with Thorite, the game is boring... but there are parts of Civ V I like.

1UPT, Hex tiles, range units actually being able to kill things from a distance, I can't remember any ranged units attacking from a distance or even nukes being able to kill units in Civ 4 (this is from memory I could be wrong).

If modding the game wasn't beyond my ability, I would make a Civ 4 version of 1 Combat Per Tile, (I like stacking my workers for speedy improvements and have all my Great people on 1 tile eg-capital, so I know where they are) disable diaginal movement, grant all units double movement points and give archers and other ranged unit like Siege, the ability to do ranged damage and see how the game balance would work out.

The combat would be similar to advance wars on the DS i guess, but there's still the problem of friendly units blocking your army, I once had an AI unit that i wasn't at war with block my army from attacking another AI that I was at war with.... :S

mannn


do any of you guys never stop for a moment and think that its not the game, its YOU.


You have changed.


maybe your attention cant be held so easily or whatever. youve got older whatever.


depressing threads, the likes of this one are.
True Blue,

I'll admit that my expectations might have changed, but like other people have posted BTS still retains their interest.

Also, Chess boards and pieces are still being made around the world. Strategy games are good because you need new strategies to get better and better - this is what makes them interesting. While starting Civ4 I tried to build too many cities, rushed to get a religion, build missionaries, built temples...doomed myself to bad economy and alot of enemies. I then adapted to fewer cities, financial leaders for more commerce and pursued less religion. Some runaway, vassal dominating civ beat me up for having too little production. Strategies adapted again - more production, less commerce for the win! Then switched out of financial leaders and had to adapt again. Next game(s) I went back to trying to win WITH religion without the feeling that I'm intentionally NOT playing to win (like turning away CS military units or not pursuing maritime CS).

Civ5 you just can't say this. Produce units, produce cities, go to/stay at war. Done. That's what we're lamenting here.

No, it's the new direction that Firaxis has took in order to get more money, not me.
Target audience has changed this time, so if I would've changed then I could probably like it with the rest of the ppl loving the game. But I haven't.

I've tried Civ4 recently and had a blast - I could start telling you story about it - that's how immersive it was.
Then I've tried another game of Civ5 and it was boring and broken.

Civ 4 was probably my least favorite of the entire franchise. Different strokes all around, Civ 2 being my all time favorite and Civ 3 a close second, until Civ 5, which is my favorite yet.

It has been more than 3 weeks since I have even turned CiV on. I haven't even tried the patch yet. I also find it extremely boring.

I view the game as a choice between warring with every other CiV for conquest victory, or grinding though 4-5 hours of mid-late game "next turn" clicking for the other victory types. The problem is that the AI is awful in battle, so a conquest victory is easy and thus boring.

So I have a choice between 2 boring victory paths. My reward? A picture and a couple sentences.

No thanks.

I would say V definitely WANTS to be a wargame, though... moreso than any previous iteration of the series. I think it's evident in the design decisions, the choices of implementation for non-war aspects of the game, and interviews with the producers and developers.

All that said, personally -- I'm just happy that the OP looks like a promising candidate to recruit for my coming holy war against embarkation.

I'm in. Just point me and my Naval Tradation where ya need 'em.

No, it's the new direction that Firaxis has took in order to get more money, not me.
Target audience has changed this time, so if I would've changed then I could probably like it with the rest of the ppl loving the game. But I haven't.

I've tried Civ4 recently and had a blast - I could start telling you story about it - that's how immersive it was.
Then I've tried another game of Civ5 and it was boring and broken.

I suggest you reinstall Civ4 from scratch, with no patches and no expansions and see if you can relive the initial release moments again. It was a while ago and I can't remeber specifics myself, but I know I was less than impressed with the initial release.
As they patched it and added expansions, Civ4 become much more engaging and enjoyable for me. I'm hoping Civ5 can eventually get there. I'm going to give it some time to settle in and develop before making any final judgements on the game.

Respect to those of you who managed 100+ hours before realising CiV was not for them.

Once I finally got the game working (can't run in fullscreen on my 2560x1600 monitor), I managed a 5 hour session, a 2 hour session armed with advice from CivFanatics and few half-hearted starts.

I can't get over the fact the terrain doesn't seem to matter (hence city placement is irrelevent), I can't build roads everywhere (so movement is tedious), the buildings are largely irrelevent etc. The CS just piss me off, but I can't ignore them.

CiV just bores me.

I've never thought about what it is I enjoy about Civ IV, but I'M A BUILDER AND I'M PROUD.

I've played more Civ IV BTS this weekend just past than I have played CiV total.

I've set a calendar appointment for 1 years time to remind me to try it again (I hope the Steam doomsayers are proven wrong & I can still play it!).

I'm enjoying the recently released BloodBowl (Legendary edition), and I think for my Civ fix I'll try the 'Rise of Man' mod mentioned above.

Good luck and best wishes to all the people who do like CiV - you bug test & balance test it to death so I can play the new improved CiV next year.

I'm enjoying the recently released BloodBowl (Legendary edition)

Excellent game!! Check the general games section on CFC (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=395433). There is a small conversation on Blood Bowl.

And the AI in Blood Bowl is pretty damn good, imho. An example of how tactical/1upt can be done successfully.

At age 59, I am a long term CIV fan starting with Civ2. Civ5 is such a major departure from the Franchise I have come to know and like. It should not be called CIV...Call it "Risk Wannabe". I feel betrayed...it is like waking up in the morning and expecting to see my beautiful bride of 33 years and instead I find the 250 lb. version of Kelly LeBrock.

Come on Firaxis...Come on Sid...bring back the Kelly LeBrock we know and love!!

At age 59, I am a long term CIV fan starting with Civ2. Civ5 is such a major departure from the Franchise I have come to know and like. It should not be called CIV...Call it "Risk Wannabe". I feel betrayed...it is like waking up in the morning and expecting to see my beautiful bride of 33 years and instead I find the 250 lb. version of Kelly LeBrock.

Come on Firaxis...Come on Sid...bring back the Kelly LeBrock we know and love!!

Ironically enough, this all says more about you than it ever could about Firaxis and Civ.

Ironically enough, this all says more about you than it ever could about Firaxis and Civ.

C'mon, man. That's a little too personally insulting to be considered constructive discussion, isn't it? I can understand getting a little hot under the collar if someone's arguing with you personally, but you're just sniping at someone else because of their opinion about a video game. You're better than that. ;)

Ironically enough, this all says more about you than it ever could about Firaxis and Civ.

Really. Would you care to elaborate further? Because from my intrepretation from your comment in regards to his post, it comes periously close to age discrimination.

C'mon, man. That's a little too personally insulting to be considered constructive discussion, isn't it? I can understand getting a little hot under the collar if someone's arguing with you personally, but you're just sniping at someone else because of their opinion about a video game. You're better than that. ;)

Nope, more on their opinion on overweight people, and if his wife ever became overweight. :)

This thread is boring :mischief:

This thread is boring :mischief:

Must be the reason why you are here, hm?

I haven't purchased CiV and I have been checking in here often to help me make a decision. I got into CivIII and played a lot, and played tons of CivIV and still do. I can't offer an opinion on how boring the latest version is or isn't. I think the poster who mentioned that people's tastes change over time is correct. I have always enjoyed lurking succession games and was disappointed to see a number of avid CivIII players drop away when CivIV came out. And I'm seeing the same thing now, maybe more so. I think there are those that invest heavily in the game they love and then when things change, they are not willing to change their playstyle to accomodate the new version. Others are more inclined to roll with the changes and make the adjustments necessary to be able to enjoy the latest itteration. There will be a new crop of terrific players to come along, but right now, the Community has lost it's sense of, well, community.

For me, since CivV came out there has been such a majority of unhappy CivIV players, and I suspect I would be among them. That doesn't make this a bad game necessarily, just so different that many can't make the leap and be satisfied. I don't like that it appears that the developers turned their backs, in such a profound way, on what made this series great, but if they are happy with their bottom line, then I guess that's all that matters, at least to them. I'll hold on to my cash and see how it goes, but right now I can't see me buying this game in it's current state.

Shall we get back on topic without "phat" metaphors, which I was not consciously doing?? The game is boring, you can spend turn after turn just hitting next with nothing to do. With Civ4, there was always something to tweak or experiment with. This game is just not a CIV!

Ironically enough, this all says more about you than it ever could about Firaxis and Civ.
I thought I read that you were getting tired of the flamewars?

I thought I read that you were getting tired of the flamewars?

You are more than welcome to report me, and that doesn't mean I am immune to making mistakes when responding to absurdity.

i only spent 17 hours playing the game. i hated most of the stuff in that game. the positives is the hex shape, city bombard ability, ranged attack. everything else i just hate. even the one unit per tile.

The best way to play CIV V IMHO is the following: Duel Map, no barbarians or city states, just ONE AI. Start in Modern Era.

That gets you early to the best weapons including nuclear missiles and atom bombs.

Its exciting on every move and turns go zippo. Less AI's mean real fast turns.

I like playing the USA versus the AI as Arabia. Then every turn is like reading the real world headlines as I nuke Damascus, etc. LOL.

So far I've got 119 hours in of SHEER ENJOYMENT. America has the hitech and the Arabs have huge manpower on the Imperial AI Level which I use.

Only downside with this scenario: extreme will power must be used to stay away from Civ V for a few days to do other things.

I've clocked in 52 hours. I haven't played in in 2-3 weeks. The game is emotionless like another poster pointed out. its as stale as sh*t.

I feel like I'm just going through the motions when I start the game up. The turn speed isn't as fast as civ4, so that kills my momentum. production is lame and the AI diplomacy is dumb.

The best way to play CIV V IMHO is the following: Duel Map, no barbarians or city states, just ONE AI. Start in Modern Era.

That gets you early to the best weapons including nuclear missiles and atom bombs.

Its exciting on every move and turns go zippo. Less AI's mean real fast turns.

Umm ... if that's the best way to play Civ5, than I indeed have absolutely no reason to play it. I enjoy Civ games the most when playing on super-huge maps, with 30+ rival civilizations, and on very slow speed, to appreciate every era to its fullest. This creates the feeling of actively participating in a complex alternative world history as it unfolds. I think in 19 years of playing Civ games, I only played 5 games on the smallest maps, and I never played a map with only a single opponent. It would be pointless for me, what's interesting about a world history with only two nations on a small island?

Of course, if you draw your enjoyment from nuking Damascus, then there's little overlap in our preferred playstyles. ;) This might also explain why you are enjoying a game that I found rather boring so far.

I've clocked in 52 hours. I haven't played in in 2-3 weeks. The game is emotionless like another poster pointed out. its as stale as sh*t.

I feel like I'm just going through the motions when I start the game up. The turn speed isn't as fast as civ4, so that kills my momentum. production is lame and the AI diplomacy is dumb.

You need to think about it differently. This is a new direction in the series, after all. It's your fault for having such unreasonable expectations. ;)

(I'm totally kidding. No offense intended, just making some jokes in good humor. Hopefully it gets patched and modded soon!)

The best way to play CIV V IMHO is the following: Duel Map, no barbarians or city states, just ONE AI. Start in Modern Era.

That gets you early to the best weapons including nuclear missiles and atom bombs.

Its exciting on every move and turns go zippo. Less AI's mean real fast turns.

I like playing the USA versus the AI as Arabia. Then every turn is like reading the real world headlines as I nuke Damascus, etc. LOL.

So far I've got 119 hours in of SHEER ENJOYMENT. America has the hitech and the Arabs have huge manpower on the Imperial AI Level which I use.

Only downside with this scenario: extreme will power must be used to stay away from Civ V for a few days to do other things.


Ahahah. Indeed.
Sarcasm is our friend :lol:

The best way to play CIV V IMHO is the following: Duel Map, no barbarians or city states, just ONE AI. Start in Modern Era.

That gets you early to the best weapons including nuclear missiles and atom bombs.

Its exciting on every move and turns go zippo. Less AI's mean real fast turns.

I like playing the USA versus the AI as Arabia. Then every turn is like reading the real world headlines as I nuke Damascus, etc. LOL.

So far I've got 119 hours in of SHEER ENJOYMENT. America has the hitech and the Arabs have huge manpower on the Imperial AI Level which I use.

Only downside with this scenario: extreme will power must be used to stay away from Civ V for a few days to do other things.
Well that interesting, and I can kind of see why that could be a bit fun. Essentially, you've turned CiV into a completely tactical game. Or perhaps more fairly Firaxis did that for us and you've found the best way to enjoy it.

I think that, for those of you who rushed to buy (not I), that this approach might help you get some value out of your purchase where you otherwise don't feel you're getting.

In a way, your post both provides a way to have fun with CiV but also completely highlights what everyone else is complaining about; no strategy.

PS: I did assume that you were being serious! Its so hard to read sarcasm from text.

this is what happens when you let a f'en 20 year old make a game. Sid didn't even make this game, he just overlooked it.

give me a game made by sid himself, then were talking. Alpha Cintauri 2, make it happen sid!!!

this is what happens when you let a f'en 20 year old make a game. Sid didn't even make this game, he just overlooked it.

give me a game made by sid himself, then were talking. Alpha Cintauri 2, make it happen sid!!!

This makes no sense.

Brian Reynods designed Alpha Centaury if my memory isn't failling me. Actually I think CiV 1 was the only game in the Civ family designed by Sid Meier.

seriously, It just isn't a whole lot of fun.

It takes a lot longer to get through turns. I've got a beast of a computer, but even the loading times from the start of the game are ridiculously slow from the start. I loved in the other civs how I could zip right through the turns if I was just building. Now its like waiting for a child to be born.

production takes a long time and i honestly don't feel rewarded for building wonders anymore.


I guess the civ formula is just over done at this point. I'd had a blast with all of the other games in my past. I liked civ rev, was fun.

I'll wait for some expansion packs and maybe the game improves in the next couple years.


Then you are playing the game wrong.

Then you are playing the game wrong.

How does your quoted response above answer the below?

It takes a lot longer to get through turns. I've got a beast of a computer, but even the loading times from the start of the game are ridiculously slow from the start. I loved in the other civs how I could zip right through the turns if I was just building. Now its like waiting for a child to be born.

These are issues with the design of the game. How are you "playing the game wrong" because the game itself is very unoptimised?

production takes a long time and i honestly don't feel rewarded for building wonders anymore.

Even on quick difficulty it feels that quick equals standard speed in Civ IV terms. I personally like longer games myself but the time between things being built in Civ V is at times excessively long, even on quick speed. How is this "playing the game wrong"?

Wonka is talking about design decisions that probably need to be tweaked. And hell, the game definitely needs to be optimised so it will be a little more speedy on top hardware.

Then you are playing the game wrong.

Sarcasm tags?

Agreed Wonka.

Any ideas how to get a huge map on marathon exiting AND build a HUGE Empire, instead of watching at a more then 50% undeveloped land for most part of the game ?
I must be donig something wrong here, since it is 300AD now, and not much have happened sofar. 6 cities and a handfull of units....

While it's nice that the next patch is going to be about A.I. and diplomacy fixing, it isn't enough to get me back into Civ V.

They would need a huge add-on pack like BTS that would give the game a new world of strategies and variety. They need to bring back religion and espionage in some cool form, the apostolic palace with even more intrigue, United Nations at least like it was in Civ IV and not this current joke where it only allows the victory vote.

The A.I. and diplomacy are problems but I think the biggest for me is that it's just tedious clicking, like a chore, and everything is about war.

Also I'd like to change the terrain graphs to include more animation, and I'd like to see different ethnic graphics for some units like it's in Civ IV BTS.

This makes no sense.

Brian Reynods designed Alpha Centaury if my memory isn't failling me. Actually I think CiV 1 was the only game in the Civ family designed by Sid Meier.

Yep. Really looking forward to BRAC II!

Any ideas how to get a huge map on marathon exiting AND build a HUGE Empire, instead of watching at a more then 50% undeveloped land for most part of the game ?
I must be donig something wrong here, since it is 300AD now, and not much have happened sofar. 6 cities and a handfull of units....

Same issue i have, but its not a map issue. There just isnt enough to make me feel like the game is anything but boring in the early eras. I do not think that you can point to any one thing as saying its the root cause. Its just really comes down to the overall mechanics and all the various aspects. I am just disconnected from the game for a very lenghty period early on.

I do not think civ 5 is a bad game, it just does not hold up to what i expect from a civ game, and after beating it in most of the victory modes, at higher levels, there really feels like there is nothing left for me to do.

Even after taking 2 weeks off from Civ, i just cant get past that initial feeling of boredom, and the feeling that i have beaten the game. Mabye its the illusion that i know how the game is going to proceed every single time.

I really tried to give this game a chance, but I'm sorry Civ IV to me is the better game. In Civ V a lot of the immersion I used to be able to feel with IV has been removed, all cities are the same with little to no thought put into where I place my cities since they all turn out the same in the end. The AI plays like a bunch of Monty's from IV. Something seems off as I watch Gandhi steam roll the world. Nothing happens on most turns and where in IV as time progressed my economy would grow in this I watch as I spiral into debt. You can't build most buildings due to money constraint and wonders are very unexciting. I honestly don't care if I capture a city with 4 wonders in it the way they are designed. Really though the biggest flaw of this game is the game speed. I bought a high spec computer mostly to play Civ V. Why the hell is their so much god damn slow down? Sure I can play with less computers but why should I have to? I'm sick of buying unfinished games and dlc from day one. Finish the game for god sake that's what I'm paying for!

I agree. And here's why:
Spent couple hours bombarding their city and following up with my Greek Cavlary and Spearman (whatever they're called). Kinda going through the motions once their field army is taken out. Long, slow motions actually.

:lol:

so totally true, I agree with the rest too, but this part really describes the pace of what were once interesting decisions... no more in CiV

After reading a ton of Civ5 "hatred" posts (or, more accuratly, saddened posts) on this forum I just wanted to share my own experience.
I'm new to the Civilization franchise and began right after Civ5's release, playing it for over 150 hours. Then after reading a lot here I started playing Civ4 for an equally long time (just lost my job).

Just wanted to say a very simple thing, not expanding my opinion atm : I do prefer Civ4 A LOT, for A LOT of reasons.

Just trying to show it's not just a matter of old gamers trying to resist to change.

After reading a ton of Civ5 "hatred" posts (or, more accuratly, saddened posts) on this forum I just wanted to share my own experience.
I'm new to the Civilization franchise and began right after Civ5's release, playing it for over 150 hours. Then after reading a lot here I started playing Civ4 for an equally long time (just lost my job).

Just wanted to say a very simple thing, not expanding my opinion atm : I do prefer Civ4 A LOT, for A LOT of reasons.

Just trying to show it's not just a matter of old gamers trying to resist to change.

Interesting hearing that perspective from someone just coming into the series for the first time, because you're effectively the target audience for Civ 5. While completely anectodal and subjective, it's interesting that you opted to move on from it within the first couple months. Did you stop playing 5 altogether? If so, what made you decide to do so? Just curious.

(Sorry to hear about your job, btw. But welcome to CFC and the Civ series!) :)

@Jay

Yeah, I completly stopped playing C5. I first just wanted to give a try to C4, having read all those complaints on this forum and willing to make my own view. It took some hours but I finally got hooked by C4, more than C5.


There are two sets of reasons for this, the first (but the one of least importance in my decision) being the lack of polishment of the game, software-speaking : tons of bugs, turns sometimes taking ages to end and adding to the emptiness feeling of the game, broken features (general IA, diplomacy).


The second was summarized on this forum as the dead of the "one more turn" feeling.
Here is the highly subjective part : one cannot demonstrate which is better between rushing building or just buying them, doing transports or just embarking, loving C4's civics or C5's policy system. But in average I love C4 better.

My personal feeling is that there are not so much things to do in C5, choices aren't that important (tech order, city placement,...), the enjoyment per turn being lowered and, given the length of turns, the enjoyment per minute having drowned^^.

I think this is not only a result of some lack of features compared to C4 (which is real, but not SO HUGE, and I will not spend ten paragraphs whining on the death of religions that nicely intricated diplomacy, gold and culture, and other feats) : most of the feats are there, but you just don't use them.
IMHO it's more a consequence of the non-existence of AI, which turns the game into a warmongering shooting feast that is the same in every game I created after the first ones where I took time to discover the mechanics. 1 upt is really great, but the IA don't get it.
So in every game I end up founding only 1 to 3 cities, puppetting the rest of the world while getting huge amouts of science and gold for this, and having medium culture production but low new policies costs and thus being able to go for any victory type.
In addition, a feeling of playing alone in the middle of brainless bots in a soulless game due to the lack of a true diplo system.
Of course, the game will probably be wargame-oriented in MP too, but it should be more interesting.


In a few words, less feats, no IA, one way to play, less immersion, lots of bugs. That's what I discovered about C5 trying C4, and will stick to the latter unless a major update shows up (but, more realistic, this will probably need a full expansion).

I want to thank everyone for their views on civ-v. I made the hard decision not to buy it based on the fact that I only have dial-up internet connection and would probably have a hard time handling the whole "Steam Thing". Now after hearing all the negative remarks I don't feel too bad about my decision.
I was somewhat (though not totally) disappointed with civ iv.
I still choose civ III as my favorite.
Maybe if a version of civ-v comes out (minus steam), I'll give it a try.

I just forced myself to finish my first game on Civ5. And I got the game on the first day it was released.

For someone who used to complete 1 standard game per day or 1 marathon game per 2 days for Civ4, that says a lot about Civ5. I just cannot bear to continue...

Just.. One.. more.. Turn?? Are you kidding?

The OP summed up the sentiment very well. I really hope the developers sees it.

Civ 5 is not a bad game but compared to previous versions it has disappointments. It has some good improvements like limited resources and tile by tile cultural expansion. But why make worse diplomacy and trade? Those things should be improved from previous versions, not restrict. WHY? Now Civ 5 more boring than Civ 4. I haven't played Civ 5 anymore. It's not hooking like Civ4. Perhaps I wait more improvements or I change back to Civ4.

I want to thank everyone for their views on civ-v. I made the hard decision not to buy it based on the fact that I only have dial-up internet connection and would probably have a hard time handling the whole "Steam Thing". Now after hearing all the negative remarks I don't feel too bad about my decision.
I was somewhat (though not totally) disappointed with civ iv.
I still choose civ III as my favorite.
Maybe if a version of civ-v comes out (minus steam), I'll give it a try.

Having a bad Internet connection is not a reason to not buy civ 5. I play it often (always) offline, too. People seem not to understand how steam (can) works...
My AntiVir actually needs the same ressources as civ 5...


You can set Steam to be offline all the time.

/// Of course hating steam is a reason(I do not mean it in a sarcastic way), but ever1 who is capable of playing civ will also manage to:
1.Create an account (and remember the data)
2. pressing "go offline" in the menu.

After reading a ton of Civ5 "hatred" posts (or, more accuratly, saddened posts) on this forum I just wanted to share my own experience.
I'm new to the Civilization franchise and began right after Civ5's release, playing it for over 150 hours. Then after reading a lot here I started playing Civ4 for an equally long time (just lost my job).

Just wanted to say a very simple thing, not expanding my opinion atm : I do prefer Civ4 A LOT, for A LOT of reasons.

Just trying to show it's not just a matter of old gamers trying to resist to change.

Here, here...

that only means you have what it takes to become a hardcore civver. Welcome! Of course it is not anything related to "fear of change", that is a weak argument coming from weak-minded people (the representatives of the mass market that Firaxis targeted this time, perhaps?)...

Again, welcome to the true Civ, and enjoy it, as it has a long life in front of it judging by the latest iteration...

Oh, and when you are comfortable with the depth and rules of Civ4BTS, get the BUG mod asap, and if possible, Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn... both masterpieces.

cheers,

rjg

I've read a lot of people's perspectives re: C5 compared to C4. I thought Sulla wrote a great review. But, I think the most interesting perspective I've read so far is from ProximaCentauri above....

C4 evolved the franchise to new heights and much of the growth was driven by the community itself. That's the biggest reason that I am so disappointed by this vanilla C5. By throwing the baby out with the bath water, it feels like a slap in the face to the community who have poured so much love into this franchise.

In most people's opinions, including C5 developers, fresh graphics, an overhall of the combat system, and serious dedication to the AI and diplomacy were the priorities.....instead the developers, under Schafer's direction, tore away much of the foundation of what made C4 great, and then produced a game in which the AI and diplomacy are terrible, there are huge exploits written into the game (read Sulla), the UI is more clunky and difficult to navigate, city screens are cluttered, less info is available upon mouse-overs, and basic details seemed neglected (such as unit movement), and blah blah blah....

Besides the improved combat (arguable) and nice graphics (though lifeless and cluttered with TPs), IMO the developers misplaced their energies, leaving it up to the community to wrestle control of the direction of this franchise away from the Shafer-ites. Not to say that C5 doesn't have something to offer -- it does. But, C4 was a wonderful game -- and there was no need to make C5 the enemy of the already good.

Having had my rant, I feel confident in the future of C5 because I have full faith in the civ community. I know that C5 will eventually be great. Just wish I had the urge to 'CIV out' in the mean time. But I don't.

Just thought I'd add another vote here:
Fully agree with the OP.

I probably spent thousands of hours on Civ4 (Yes, modded with Rise of Mankind, but before that I enjoyed Vanilla, Warlords and BtS just as well).
Civ5 started to become boring somewhere in the 3rd game, and has now been replaced by Civ4 again.
Really hoping for some good mods...

I have not played since my first 4 games or so. Waiting for a miracle patch I imagine will never come.

Unfortunately you're right.

Oh, and when you are comfortable with the depth and rules of Civ4BTS, get the BUG mod asap, and if possible, Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn... both masterpieces.


Thanks. I'll try that a bit later, as I was playing the standard C4 and just got BTS.
Damn, this expansion is a whole new game, and it just makes my previous feelings about C5's emptiness worse !

I don't normally get involved in the online yak-a-yak, but my experience with CIV-5 is making me angry enough to add to the confusion.

Background: I am an ol' guy (63 ans is just a blink away) and I only have experience with CIV-4. I got hooked 2 years ago after playing a computer magazine demo of CIV-4, and after quickly buying the game proceeded to go sleepless for 72 hours! I have dabbled in Civ Fanatics game of the month and found I was addicted to this CIV-4. I even gave it up for 3 months but lured myself back after proper sleep. When the noise about CIV-5 came out I said "OH Boy, can't wait!"

Bought the store CIV-5 game- frigged with @~!! Steam and have been playing for 3 weeks. Horrible experience. My current game is 4 days long. The time for turn is a game killer. I have no clue why there are City States ( Warts is what I call them), and frankly there is nothing to do but "war". i will wander the halls of CIV-5 for another couple weeks but if i see no substantial upgrade in the game I will go back to "BTS".

If the franchise isn't listening they have as we say "screwed the pooch!"

crusty

Thanks. I'll try that a bit later, as I was playing the standard C4 and just got BTS.
Damn, this expansion is a whole new game, and it just makes my previous feelings about C5's emptiness worse !

Welcome... and yes, BTS alone is probably worth more than this Panzer General experiment... don't wait more to get the BUG mod, as B.U.G. stands for "Beyond the Sword Unaltered Gameplay", in the sense that it does not change any rules of the game, but presents the information in a brilliant way (information that "is there", but you would have to check every single turn and calculate by yourself without BUG).

If you are in for more challenge, you could also try to hibrid BUG/BetterBTSAI compiled together by Fuyu (look in the true Civ forums)... BetterAI makes the BTS AI even more of a challenge (and believe me, compared to Shafer's Artificial Lollypop, the BTS AI is Skynet)...

And please, don't listen to the naysayers... I know it is hard to accept one's own mistakes and try to justity them, so just be patient with them, but trust your instincts... they are telling you which version remains true to the core of the franchise.

Most of all, enjoy! And welcome to the vice...


rjg

Pretty much spot on Thorite.

The saddest part is that they dont care about history anymore. Example : Trireme. Bombarding but not ramming/boarding. Really???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trireme

Tactics

In the ancient world, naval combat relied on two methods: ramming and boarding. Artillery in the form of ballistas and catapults was widespread, especially in later centuries, but its inherent technical limitations meant that it could not play a decisive role in combat. Rams (embolon) were fitted to the prows of warships, and were used to rupture the hull of the enemy ship. The preferred method of attack was to come in from astern, with the aim not of creating a single hole, but of rupturing as big a length of the enemy vessel as possible. The speed necessary for a successful impact depended on the angle of attack; the greater the angle, the lesser the speed required. At 60 degrees, 4 knots was enough to penetrate the hull, while it increased to 8 knots at 30 degrees. If the target for some reason was in motion in the direction of the attacker, even less speed was required, and especially if the hit came amidships.[50] Another method was to brush alongside the enemy ship, with oars drawn in, in order to break the enemy's oars and render the ship immobile, to be finished off with ease. In any case, prior to engagement, the masts and railings of the ship were taken down, hindering any attempt at using grappling hooks. The Athenians especially became masters in the art of ramming, using light, un-decked (aphraktai) triremes.

Call me old and grey (34) but the hole DLC seem like scamming to me. In the "old days" when a game needed a patch it was because of hardware configurations. Not because the game was half finished. Nowadays people seem to actually accept 0 day DLC's. Jesus! If it was finished why wasnt it part of the game. Also the scheming to remove working functions only to add them later in "Extra Addons packages" seems scruples.

Just my 50 cents
In civ iv, civs researched animal husbandry, agriculture, archery and hunting after 4000 bc, even though they were founded earlier than that particular time frame in real life. I can name more inaccuracies than that. Don't forget cannons first coming in during the industrial age during gameplay, when they were supposed to come around during the medieval/renaissance age, and immortals being horseback riders when they were actually foot soldiers.

Oh, and don't forget buddhism being founded in the stone age.

In civ iv, civs researched animal husbandry, agriculture, archery and hunting after 4000 bc, even though they were founded earlier than that particular time frame in real life. I can name more inaccuracies than that. Don't forget cannons first coming in during the industrial age during gameplay, when they were supposed to come around during the medieval/renaissance age, and immortals being horseback riders when they were actually foot soldiers.

Oh, and don't forget buddhism being founded in the stone age.


Cannon unit in 18 century make sеnse to me,immortals are cavalry units in later Persia(Sassanid dynasty).But Trireme to fire arrows and never to engage/ram? to another ship....:crazyeye:

I ended up making another thread because I couldn't find this one (doh). I'll just post what I said here.

:)

I have been with the civilization series since the very start, and even liked Civ III to the point that I almost failed my senior year because of it. I still play Civ IV a few times a week.

Being an avid fan--I have gone as far as to try and get my friends to jump on the civ bandwagon, and have made numerous scenarios in Civ IV--I'd have thought I'd really enjoy CiV. I didn't enjoy CiV though.

I never tried Civ revolutions because so many called it a step down in quality and complexity from the civilization series as a whole. Possibly that's when I should have stopped dipping into civilization, if the developers were lowering their standards.

Now about CiV, I just find it painfully boring. I got through a few games, and never once could say I was engaged or very interested in anything going on. It felt like there were a lot of pretty lights, but it was all very shallow in the end, like some fireworks show that's ten times more enjoyable when you're drunk, and just as forgetful when you're sober. I barely made it to 60 hours of playtime according to steam. This is pathetic, since Civ IV gets more play time a month still than CiV has made since release, and I don't see the play time going any higher.

I am not the only one that's found it boring. Two of my friends who I got into the civilization series a few years ago, also found CiV boring, and one only got to 18 hours playtime before uninstalling it and heading to better pastures. That's made me a little -sad-, because it seems the Civ franchise lost three loyal or developing to be loyal costumers at once, and it makes me wonder just how many more were lost in the bigger picture.

I found CiV so boring, I can't see myself buying an expansion. I might buy the next civilization, but even with that I am on the edge. The CiV franchise to me has turned into some hypothetical wonderful girlfriend, who cooks you an excellent meal and makes amazing love to you each night, but suddenly on the 5th night, she's had a lobotomy, is suffering from amnesia, lost her sense of smell, and is partly paralyzed, but she makes a strong attempt to cook you dinner and make love with you anyways, even though she has no idea what she's doing. In other words, I've never been so bored and disappointed about a Civ game ever. CiV's dinner is bland, and after you finish it, you just want to go to sleep and forget that it ever happened.

Hey guys, if you like IV so much more, why don't you go talk about it in the IV forum, or better yet, stop arguing and go play IV.

I last played the game one month ago today. I didn't even have the urge to play after the patch came out.

What a waste of money.

Hey guys, if you like IV so much more, why don't you go talk about it in the IV forum, or better yet, stop arguing and go play IV.

Why post this (again)?

I have not played since my first 4 games or so. Waiting for a miracle patch I imagine will never come.

This is the new term I will be using from now on: "The Miracle Patch". Nice.

Hey guys, if you like IV so much more, why don't you go talk about it in the IV forum, or better yet, stop arguing and go play IV.

Hey friend,
If you really like Civ5, why don't you go playing it instead of trying to stop people from posting their feel of Civ5 here? They are comparing Civ4 and Civ5, so putting their post here is as appropriate as putting it in Civ4 forum. Putting it here, at least can save many who have not yet bought Civ5 from wasting their money (if Civ5 is really that bad)

Hey guys, if you like IV so much more, why don't you go talk about it in the IV forum, or better yet, stop arguing and go play IV.

Because this is the general discussion forum for Civilization V and I bought Civilization V. Just because I do not like the game in it's current state doesn't mean I cannot post about why I do not like it or why I think it is boring.

But in the same vein, if you enjoy Civilization V, then good on you - I don't understand why you feel the need to post in a thread that has nothing to do with how you're feeling about the game to which you add nothing to the discussion. :rolleyes:

Yes, it is boring. Besides the things you talk about, its simply becomes boring when you reach the industrial era. I dont know why. It may be the fact that the AI is so stupid that you dont get any real challenge, it may be the combat system and the units that way too much benefits the attacker while the defender is treated unfair by the game. Civ4 had its many flaws in the beginning as well but it still was a game that made you want to play more. It doesnt matter if they fix all the technical issues of Civ5. It wont solve the fact that the game seem to have lost its soul.

Imo,its only boring because it doesn't have as much as Civ 4 has now. In a year or two it will probably have as much or more than Civ 4 has and then when Civ 6 comes out, it will be 'boring' because it doesn't have as much as Civ 5 has. Personally, I think it'd be nigh impossible for games of this kind of scope to release as fully fleshed out as its predecessor without having to wait years and years.

My take on it, anyway. And for those of you feeling nostalgic, dig up some of the forum posts from Civ 4 launch.

You'll be surprised at what you find.

There was a chat going on in another thread and the duplication with this one had not been realised - apologies to the moderators. So I have copied one of my posts from it to here, as I believe its the core issue in Civ5, and very pertanent to those who think Civ5 is boring. No matter what version of Civ you look at, there will always be balance issues, and things needing tweeking. But Civ 5 has totally changed the whole core tenants of the Civilisation Franchise. It is now a wargame as another poster on this thread put it. To Empire Builders Civ5 is boring, period. To warmongers is fine because its now a shoot-em-up that trys to convince you that you are being terribly strategic. As to why ..... here's my previous post on the other thread:

Not dumbed down ..... rofl. You cant get more dumb than have a central tenant to game than "buying" culture, how utterly stupid.

With military resources, how did the City States get the wherewithall to make 'em? We spend the whole game with the concept that CS are weak and dont take too many or the AI will be hissed off, and then watch the AI take em at will - take the very organisations that magically produce weapon systems out of thin air, yet cant defend themselves ? Its a nonesense and an obvious game mechanic.

As for food, come on, its ridiculous. A small city state magically produces enough food to feed a global world wide empire ..... its utterly ridiculous, another obvious game mechanic bowing to shoot em up mentality and reduce the need to use the brain.

Then we have that freakin Robot at the end of the game .... where did that come from? Its clearly driven by drama needs for dorks. As one dev put it on a polycast "I always felt it needed the big super weapon to finish the game off" .... huh? .... dont tell me thats being driven by a concept of immersive empire building, its pure shoot-em-up.

From a developer viewpoint, having got rid of the complexities of Culture, Food, and manufacture of weapons systems, they can concentrate far less resource on building a shoot em up at a cheaper cost, and pandy to individuals thinking they are being terribly "strategic" manipulating so called "strategies" like "warrior rush", "horse rush" et al. Strategies my fiddlesticks, its game mechanics, nothing near military strategy. Pure tosh.

The Civ Franchise up to Civ IV was far from perfect, would always butt up against the complexities of real life, but it was "believable", certainly had the immersion factor, and could still be played as a shoot-em-up if the player wanted to. Civ5 has dumped Immersion Empire building, and gone for simplistic shoot-em-up because thats the bigger commercial market.

They will live off the Franhcise past reputation for the duration of Civ5 as people can still be conned into believing they are empire building - because thats traditionally what the Franchise did, so they play with that assumption. It will not be long before the simplistic structure of the game comes through after many tries with it, and it dawns on people the shallow level of the game now. Goodbye Civ6, will never happen, the shoot-em-up Brigade will either finally desert the Franchise, or push it into ever more stupid robots and super heros.

As it is currently, it will always suit the shoot-em-up genre of player, and thats fine, nothing wrong with shoot-em-ups if thats what you want. But as empire building - Civ5 is not. I dont blame Sid for letting go to commercial interests and taking a back seat, life is for living, and he put his heart and sole into the Franchise for over 20 years, he deserves his reward and I hope his opportunity to take more leisure time and a more self orientated life is successful, he has earned it.

Meanwhile back at the Franchise, the shoot-em-up developers are tearing down his creation because they know 70% of the market place out there wants simplistic dramatic shoot-em-ups. Using the brain to play sophisticated genuine strategy games is not commercially popular. Its been a great 20+ year ride, but its a shame that dumb commercialism has taken over and not allowed the Immersive Empire Building tenants to be built on and further improved. It was a great ride while it lasted.


Nothing wrong with shoot-em-ups if thats what you want. Its just real sad that the last game Franchise in the marketplace that was slowly developing ever better genuine strategy and empire building games has now bee taken over by shoot-em-up mentality. I hope in the end we see another come to market, it certainly will not be Civ6, the latter will never be built - shoot-em-ups have short time spans as they have little to hold long term loyalty, and have to descend into mega robots and super heros to sell the next version.

Sid did a marvellous job for over 20 years and has my undying respect for what he did. Its sad to see his creation butchered, but he does deserve some life to himself, and I dont blame him for selling out to commercial interests and letting them mess with the Franchise. I hope he enjoys his more abundant free time and personal choice he now has, he deserves it after his fantastic contribution to the gaming world.

Regards
Zy

Nothing wrong with shoot-em-ups if thats what you want. Its just real sad that the last game Franchise in the marketplace that was slowly developing ever better genuine strategy and empire building games has now bee taken over by shoot-em-up mentality.
Regards
Zy

I really think you're massively overexaggerating the difference between the two games.

Vandyr, I completely agree with you. But, if it were for the criticism, critique, suggestions, then the designers and modders wouldn't get nearly the input they require for improving the game. Yes, in a year or two, in all likelihood, C5 will be a radically different and improved game (we hope!). But, until then, wah! ;)

Vandyr, I completely agree with you. But, if it were for the criticism, critique, suggestions, then the designers and modders wouldn't get nearly the input they require for improving the game. Yes, in a year or two, in all likelihood, C5 will be a radically different and improved game (we hope!). But, until then, wah! ;)

Yea, no doubt about that. Of course, I don't think hugely exaggerating the game's problems really helps as far as criticisms go, but at the same time, I think there's a reason a lot of people feel bored by Civ V compared to IV and that's because right now IV has a ton more content and fluff than V, and that's to be expected. But yea, I'm hoping for some nice xpacs and mods in the future that will make Civ V every bit as fleshed out and awesome as IV was/is/has been. I just can't go back to IV because of 1upt, so I'll stick with V until VI comes out :)

For me any boredom i experience while playing civ 5 comes from the lack of diplomatic options and the dissatisfying interactions with the AI leaders, add to that no espionage, no sabotage, no vassalage, no long term allies, no international trade routes, no emergent factions of AI leaders, and there are indeed quite a few whistling/ thumb twiddling moments.

I really think you're massively overexaggerating the difference between the two games.

We all have our perspectives, it what makes the world turn round.

Mine is based on a central part of Civ5, you sit on a Gem or other "happy" resource, press the enter button enough times to generate cash to buy whatever food, weapons and culture you want, then go destroy someone.

Culture is pointless anyway as it only expands borders certainly has no relevance to what culture actually is, and is primarily used as a game mechanic to drive so called "Policies", conceptually its a joke. In any case the game balance discourages settling anywhere near someone elses border, and when you are next to one, chances are you are expected to wipe them out anyway. They even give a "stop spawning units" button in the MS states to prevent too many units being given out from santa's freebie factory. Its more akin to the Wizzard of Oz Fantasy games, than the Strategy genre.

No one will ever convince me thats all deep strategy, not going to happen.

Regards
Zy

I tend to agree with Zy's post on things, IF Firaxis do not take any steps to reverse what at the moment is a combat game (not simulator) with no soul. I'm happy to give them as much time as they need - like another six months of development time - to see it happen as I'm not playing Civ V anymore.

It is a shame though that a great franchise, which I've followed since 1991, has been reduced to the shambles that is Civ V today. New players of Civ V won't agree but I don't care. Civilization has always had a special place as being a game I knew would be a challenge, a rewarding game and one of the most addictive. Firaxis ruined all that with Civ V.

Civ5 is rather Civ [Panzer] General, than true Civ, for now. Combat plays major role in the game, while empire building is almost unimportant. It surely fits Schafer's declared playstyle, as he prefers to have up to 3 cities only, so management doesnt bother him too much.
However, if someone goes that way, is that really need to have technologies, cities, whatever - at all? It only distracts player from most immersive aspects of game.
IMO, pure Panzer General, without strategic issues is better than what Civ5 tries to be. It is more streamlined, so player can focus on tactical elements, without going into detail, thus achieving maximal joy. Being great game in the past, Panzer General genre is little bit outdated. There is now a lot of very good tactical games, more visually appealing, who won hearts of its former fans, and pushed PG into non-existence.
Thats why I feel that Firaxis made fundamental mistake, going into simplicity. They targeted new audience, which in fact prefer other playstyles or genres (especially RTS-es), and sooner or later will abandon Civ franchise. Simply put, I think they can have the same or bigger ammount of pleasure with other titles, with less effort.
Of course, future Civ can evolve following the need of its new fanbase, but it will not be a Civ game any more.
In the same time, someone still could earn his money on ours - possibly not as popular but still significant in numbers - tastes. What a shame 2k decided not to.

It is sad, I agree. Fireaxis will have to dump the Civilisation genre if they dont fix this mess, because even as a shoot-em-up, it cant compete with other games designed from the base up as combat games. Its the old story, commercial interests target the majority market - in this case the 70% combat dorks - and ignore the rest. They have destroyed the most famous and long lasting Franchise in the Gaming World to make a quick buck by minimising developer time by restricting it to simplistic shoot-em-up - failed miserably at that intent - and I will never forgive them for that, they can put whatever game they "sponsor" in the future in their pipe and smoke it, Fireaxis get no more of my dosh..

New to the Civilisation Series players will not recognise all this, they do not know in depth the 25 year Franchise history and attached games. It will take a while for it to surface, then the shallow nature of this "version" (abomination) will become evident, and they will quietly drift away. Fireaxis will go seek another popularist combat game driven by a fast buck and leach off that, leaving the most famous game Franchise in the world, wrecked and in the dust. It makes me spit.

Regards
Zy

I would just like to add that I was sick on Monday so I thought I'd try Civ V again. It has been about a month since I last played it. My story is identical to many others here. Long time Civ fan. Played hundreds and hundreds of hours on Civ IV and it's various incarnations.

But this one? Dullsville. I tried to have fun. I thought it was just a new learning curve... but there is really nothing to look forward to turn after turn. Someone just missed the boat.

Thanks for starting this thread and making me feel that it isn't just me.

Yea, no doubt about that. Of course, I don't think hugely exaggerating the game's problems really helps as far as criticisms go, but at the same time, I think there's a reason a lot of people feel bored by Civ V compared to IV and that's because right now IV has a ton more content and fluff than V, and that's to be expected. But yea, I'm hoping for some nice xpacs and mods in the future that will make Civ V every bit as fleshed out and awesome as IV was/is/has been. I just can't go back to IV because of 1upt, so I'll stick with V until VI comes out :)

The problem with V is that it has been streamlined or simplified to excess.The changes have had for many negative side effects that do not appear to be realized by the developers during development. The removal or simplification of happiness management, Religion, Tech choices, city placement, tile improvements, City improvements, empire building etc is a problem for me, because it leads to a game where my path to success is going to revolve around a minority of choices. everything outside of those few choices has no real impact on how the game unfolds, unlike previous civ versions.

All computer games, and games in general generally have some "best choice" options that will give you success. The difference between Civ 5 and previous Civ's, is that there is a lack of other "choices" that will lead to success, because the game mechanics are simplified and lack depth. This limits the player to a few strategies, or composition of strategies, which in turn leads to boredom because most players feel as if they have "won" after a few times.

City states are just one glaring example of a mechanic that has simplified the game extensively.

I agree it's boring, very stale

Can someone cry me up a river? I need to settle a new city.

/sorry

I've been holding on to this for a couple days. Just share a laugh. :)

Something my roommate has mentioned a few times to me, is that the game lacks the 'game within the game' feel that C4 had.

In C4 -- there was a early religion rush, and that religion contest remained relevant through most of the game (maybe too much so).

then there was the espionage game -- even if you had nothing else to do except hit enter -- you could always use your spies to have a look around, maybe conduct a mission.....the was even more fun with the "Superspy mod."

then there was the first around the world challenge -- always pleasing if you succeeded!

then there were the corporations -- very pleasing if you founded one and then there was a little rivalry game going on against rival corps that effected trade, war, and peace. The random events sometimes gave you additional challenges based on the corporations....

And of course, there's no random events anymore, which add some random spicing and an element of surprise....not always positive!

The global effects of things means that individual cities are just another face in the crowd.....I liked the local effects because I would take pride in each city for its individuality -- not as just some part contributing to a whole. I don't know if that makes sense.....it's such a subjective feeling!

As it is now, without these little games to play during the course of the game, you don't get the frequency of the anxious to reward loop....you don't get the feeling of pride as you achieve success in one of these small areas......there aren't as many highs anymore -- and the highs you do get are limited to just a few elements and they're much more delayed because buildings, units, and esp. wonders take forever to build.....As my roommate put it, he spends so much time feeling like, 'this is taking forever!', that he just ends up feeling like it isn't worth it for such small and infrequent highs.....

I tend to agree with Zy's post on things, IF Firaxis do not take any steps to reverse what at the moment is a combat game (not simulator) with no soul. I'm happy to give them as much time as they need - like another six months of development time - to see it happen as I'm not playing Civ V anymore.

It is a shame though that a great franchise, which I've followed since 1991, has been reduced to the shambles that is Civ V today. New players of Civ V won't agree but I don't care. Civilization has always had a special place as being a game I knew would be a challenge, a rewarding game and one of the most addictive. Firaxis ruined all that with Civ V.

Since China will soon have a larger share of asset wealth than the US and as they do have a great culture and civilization it only makes sense that Firaxis should have hired some Chinese to advise them on how a game of civilization should have been implemented. Its almost ironic that the decline of western civilization and the decline of the civ franchise are occurring at the same time. Now if I only spoke Chinese and they had a freer society I'd be set. So will it be Confucianism or Buddhism and the bureaucratic state.... or .... sorry, is this a game or real life....O.... that religion and civic stuff isn't in Civ V. Sigh, I guess they'll never change to democracy....:rolleyes:

Decline of the civ franchise??? Now this is funny :lol: Calling the fact that some people don't like the game a decline of the franchise is a gross exaggeration :)

I tend to agree with Zy's post on things, IF Firaxis do not take any steps to reverse what at the moment is a combat game (not simulator) with no soul. I'm happy to give them as much time as they need - like another six months of development time - to see it happen as I'm not playing Civ V anymore.

It is a shame though that a great franchise, which I've followed since 1991, has been reduced to the shambles that is Civ V today. New players of Civ V won't agree but I don't care. Civilization has always had a special place as being a game I knew would be a challenge, a rewarding game and one of the most addictive. Firaxis ruined all that with Civ V.

I must say this is sadly the conclusion I've come to too.

Been playing Civ since the demo of Civ I came out and every version since a LOT. definitely the most disappointing version in the franchise so far. Looks so badly thought through.

Unless there are some good mods coming out soon that do away with things like City States for a start I think I'll get a more rewarding experience trying out some of the many excellent mods that the community has made for Civ4

I think Firaxis are making a big mistake in alienating their core community. We're the ones who buy every version the game and all the expansions and that's because we've known what to expect from the franchise

Call to Power 3 anyone?

Can someone cry me up a river? I need to settle a new city.


I would, but it would just be dull & lifeless.

Because this is the general discussion forum for Civilization V and I bought Civilization V. Just because I do not like the game in it's current state doesn't mean I cannot post about why I do not like it or why I think it is boring.

But in the same vein, if you enjoy Civilization V, then good on you - I don't understand why you feel the need to post in a thread that has nothing to do with how you're feeling about the game to which you add nothing to the discussion. :rolleyes:

I don't have, or have played 5. There have been tons of topics like this one, it's getting old.

It's time to remind people of a little quote from the very first Civilization game ever.

Conquer the World: If you succeed in eliminating all other civilizations in the world, the game automatically ends. This is the ultimate achievement possible by a civilization. You are shown your civilization score and may be entered into the Hall of Fame. You may review a replay of the world's history.

Now that we've gotten this whole "Civ 5 is the first wargame in the series" out of the way . . .

Not dumbed down ..... rofl. You cant get more dumb than have a central tenant to game than "buying" culture, how utterly stupid.

As opposed to:

A central tenet of destroying your own population in order to build axemen? Where are the people coming from if you're killing them to make the weapons? (Civ 4)

A central tenet of cities far away from your capitol being unable to build a darn thing? (Civ 3)

A central tenet of trade caravans building wonders for you? (Civ 2)

A central tenet of carpeting the ground with cities? (Civ)

Never mind that you're not buying the culture, you're buying the land. It's happened a few times in history. Offhand, the Louisiana purchase qualifies as a real-life example.

With military resources, how did the City States get the wherewithal to make 'em? We spend the whole game with the concept that CS are weak and don't take too many or the AI will be hissed off, and then watch the AI take em at will - take the very organizations that magically produce weapon systems out of thin air, yet cant defend themselves ? Its a nonsense and an obvious game mechanic.

As opposed to:

Magically producing axemen by annihilating large portions of your population? (Civ 4)

Magically producing swordsmen by annihilating large portions of your population? (Civ 3)

Ugh, I'm already getting tired of this . . .

Magically producing wonders with a trade caravan? (Civ 2)

As for food, come on, its ridiculous. A small city state magically produces enough food to feed a global world wide empire ..... its utterly ridiculous, another obvious game mechanic bowing to shoot em up mentality and reduce the need to use the brain.

As opposed to:

Magically feeding a global world wide empire with a single source of fish located just off antarctic? (Civ 4)

Magically feeding a global world wide empire with a bunch of burial tombs? (Civ 3)

Then we have that freakin Robot at the end of the game .... where did that come from?

Most likely the same people who gave us a Freakin Spaceship capable of going to Alpha Centauri. :crazyeye:

From a developer viewpoint, having got rid of the complexities of Culture, Food, and manufacture of weapons systems

You mean the culture that didn't exist until Civ 3 and was barely worthwhile until Civ 4, the food that was "build Granaries first in every city," and the rushbuy that has been available since practically forever?

they can concentrate far less resource on building a shoot em up at a cheaper cost, and pander to individuals thinking they are being terribly "strategic" manipulating so called "strategies" like "warrior rush", "horse rush" et al. Strategies my fiddlesticks, its game mechanics, nothing near military strategy. Pure tosh.

Anybody who claims building a few horsemen in Civ 5 is any different than building a stack of Axemen in Civ 4 or a stack of pick-your-offensive-unit-of-choice in Civ 3 is, I agree, spouting pure tosh.

The Civ Franchise up to Civ IV was far from perfect, would always butt up against the complexities of real life, but it was "believable", certainly had the immersion factor, and could still be played as a shoot-em-up if the player wanted to. Civ5 has dumped Immersion Empire building, and gone for simplistic shoot-em-up because that's the bigger commercial market.

Actually, none of the Civ games have been particularly believable to me. You just don't want to believe Civ 5 for some obscure reason that has nothing to do with the concerns you have listed, which can be applied with equal validity to any previous game in the series.

The previous games did not "certainly" have the immersion factor because that is entirely subjective. As a counterexample, watching units wander across my borders in Civ 3 pretty much broke immersion right there, and realizing that under its corruption model San Fransisco would be one of the least productive cities in the United States -- well, I won't describe my reaction to that.

Now you claim that Civ 5 has dumped Immersion Empire building. How? It can't be because of building maintenance -- that's been in since the beginning. It can't be because ICS is possible -- that's been in since the beginning. It can't be because of Giant Death Robots, because those come at the end of the game and can be completely skipped if you want a culture or spaceship victory. It must be because there are Maritime City-States that you can get before you could get Sid's Sushi in Civ 4 or The Pyramids in Civ 3. And if that breaks immersion (as far as Empire Building) for you, what exactly was it that immersed you in the previous games that is demonstrably and definably absent in Civ 5 in regards to Empire-Building?

They will live off the Franhcise past reputation for the duration of Civ5 as people can still be conned into believing they are empire building - because thats traditionally what the Franchise did, so they play with that assumption. It will not be long before the simplistic structure of the game comes through after many tries with it, and it dawns on people the shallow level of the game now.

If that were true there would never have been a Civ 4. I've never played a game that punished Empire-Building on the scale Civ 3 did.

Meanwhile back at the Franchise, the shoot-em-up developers are tearing down his creation because they know 70% of the market place out there wants simplistic dramatic shoot-em-ups.

You keep mistaking Civ 5 for Civ 3. You remember Civ 3, right? Spam Settlers, but you can only really build anything in the first 3 or 4 cities, and buildings will cost you maintenance when you finally manage to build them, so you're better off just spamming military units because every city you conquer allows you to build more military units, and the AI will always declare on you unless you devote yourself to building military units, which you can't do in peripheral cities because of waste, which means that the cities you'd like to have building things because they actually generate hammers will need to be building military anyway even if you want to play a peaceful game . . .

Using the brain to play sophisticated genuine strategy games is not commercially popular. Its been a great 20+ year ride, but its a shame that dumb commercialism has taken over and not allowed the Immersive Empire Building tenants to be built on and further improved. It was a great ride while it lasted.

I must have missed that one. Surely it's not the series that spawned this?

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ2/aistupidities/

A sophisticated genuine strategy game without a sophisticated, genuinely strategical opponent?

Immersive Empire Building, forsooth. The series abandoned immersion after Alpha Centauri.

I agree with you 100%. Thanks for taking the time to write this out, but I'm sure it will fall on mostly deaf ears.

It's time to remind people of a little quote from the very first Civilization game ever.



Now that we've gotten this whole "Civ 5 is the first wargame in the series" out of the way . . .



As opposed to:

A central tenet of destroying your own population in order to build axemen? Where are the people coming from if you're killing them to make the weapons? (Civ 4)

A central tenet of cities far away from your capitol being unable to build a darn thing? (Civ 3)

A central tenet of trade caravans building wonders for you? (Civ 2)

A central tenet of carpeting the ground with cities? (Civ)

Never mind that you're not buying the culture, you're buying the land. It's happened a few times in history. Offhand, the Louisiana purchase qualifies as a real-life example.



As opposed to:

Magically producing axemen by annihilating large portions of your population? (Civ 4)

Magically producing swordsmen by annihilating large portions of your population? (Civ 3)

Ugh, I'm already getting tired of this . . .

Magically producing wonders with a trade caravan? (Civ 2)



As opposed to:

Magically feeding a global world wide empire with a single source of fish located just off antarctic? (Civ 4)

Magically feeding a global world wide empire with a bunch of burial tombs? (Civ 3)



Most likely the same people who gave us a Freakin Spaceship capable of going to Alpha Centauri. :crazyeye:



You mean the culture that didn't exist until Civ 3 and was barely worthwhile until Civ 4, the food that was "build Granaries first in every city," and the rushbuy that has been available since practically forever?



Anybody who claims building a few horsemen in Civ 5 is any different than building a stack of Axemen in Civ 4 or a stack of pick-your-offensive-unit-of-choice in Civ 3 is, I agree, spouting pure tosh.



Actually, none of the Civ games have been particularly believable to me. You just don't want to believe Civ 5 for some obscure reason that has nothing to do with the concerns you have listed, which can be applied with equal validity to any previous game in the series.

The previous games did not "certainly" have the immersion factor because that is entirely subjective. As a counterexample, watching units wander across my borders in Civ 3 pretty much broke immersion right there, and realizing that under its corruption model San Fransisco would be one of the least productive cities in the United States -- well, I won't describe my reaction to that.

Now you claim that Civ 5 has dumped Immersion Empire building. How? It can't be because of building maintenance -- that's been in since the beginning. It can't be because ICS is possible -- that's been in since the beginning. It can't be because of Giant Death Robots, because those come at the end of the game and can be completely skipped if you want a culture or spaceship victory. It must be because there are Maritime City-States that you can get before you could get Sid's Sushi in Civ 4 or The Pyramids in Civ 3. And if that breaks immersion (as far as Empire Building) for you, what exactly was it that immersed you in the previous games that is demonstrably and definably absent in Civ 5 in regards to Empire-Building?



If that were true there would never have been a Civ 4. I've never played a game that punished Empire-Building on the scale Civ 3 did.



You keep mistaking Civ 5 for Civ 3. You remember Civ 3, right? Spam Settlers, but you can only really build anything in the first 3 or 4 cities, and buildings will cost you maintenance when you finally manage to build them, so you're better off just spamming military units because every city you conquer allows you to build more military units, and the AI will always declare on you unless you devote yourself to building military units, which you can't do in peripheral cities because of waste, which means that the cities you'd like to have building things because they actually generate hammers will need to be building military anyway even if you want to play a peaceful game . . .



I must have missed that one. Surely it's not the series that spawned this?

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ2/aistupidities/

A sophisticated genuine strategy game without a sophisticated, genuinely strategical opponent?

Immersive Empire Building, forsooth. The series abandoned immersion after Alpha Centauri.

Bandrobas makes valid points. But, just as he is willing to criticize past versions for their shortcomings, so are people prepared to criticize C5 for its many shortcomings. It is by pointing out the weaknesses that the game will be improved.

By the way, anyone check out the list of changes for the upcoming patch? A good solid list!

Posted by 2k Greg:

AI
• Worker AI improvements .
• Update to tactical AI pillaging code. Additionally, always check to make sure it’s not trying to pillage in an enemy dominance zone.
• AI victory emphasis improvements (more efficient end-game when focusing on Science and Diplo victories).
• AI should colonize other continents regularly.
• AI will emphasize production of an Ocean going explorer unit when the time comes.
• Adjust Napoleon to make him more likely to go for culture.
• More aggressive second wave expansion (mostly off shore) after initial empire building and consolidation has occurred.
• Optimization when finding routes (pathfinder improvement).
• Multiple tweaks and bug fixes.
• AI will now build ranged and mobile units more in line with the flavor settings.
• Multiple defensive AI tweaks.

GAMEPLAY
• Cities heal more quickly.
• Only allow one upgrade per unit from a goody hut.

UI
• Tweaked the single-player score list to hide the civs of unmet ai players.

DIPLO
• AI's attitude towards you is now visible in the diplo screen and diplo drop-down.
• Added info tooltip for an AI leader's mood. Lists things that are making an AI player happy/upset.
• New diplo system: Declaration of Friendship (public declaration with diplomatic repercussions).
• New diplo system: Denounce (public declaration with diplomatic repercussions).
• New custom leader responses (Serious Expansion Warning, Aggressive Military, Luxury Exchange, Borders Exchange, Gift Request).

MODDING
• Parent category counts now include counts of child categories.
• Selecting/deselecting a category now automatically selects/deselects it's children and its parent.
• Tweaked category name truncation to better fit names.
• Hide categories w/ no children and a count of 0.
• Added support for fallback languages (if mod is not translated, fall-back to English so text keys are not showing).

MISC
• Fixed save format which causes saves to increase the memory footprint of the game drastically when loading frequently over the course of the game.

DIPLO
• AI's attitude towards you is now visible in the diplo screen and diplo drop-down.
• Added info tooltip for an AI leader's mood. Lists things that are making an AI player happy/upset.
• New diplo system: Declaration of Friendship (public declaration with diplomatic repercussions).
• New diplo system: Denounce (public declaration with diplomatic repercussions).
• New custom leader responses (Serious Expansion Warning, Aggressive Military, Luxury Exchange, Borders Exchange, Gift Request)

YES!! :goodjob:

Bandrobas makes valid points. But, just as he is willing to criticize past versions for their shortcomings, so are people prepared to criticize C5 for its many shortcomings. It is by pointing out the weaknesses that the game will be improved.

Yup - and whether or not past Versions had their shortcomings, which has been correctly pointed out they certainly did, it still has no baring on whether or not Civ5 has remained true to the Franchise Foundations of Empire Building. At present in my view, it has not, the main tenant of the game now is kill your neighbour, with a few add on's to play lip service to Empire Building.

Wargamers should try a tech or cultural victory and take a view, I suspect it will change.

This is the first time in 12 years of playing the Franchise I have seriously slammed a Version, usually its just a case of letting the Version settle with bug fixes tweeks et al, its a complex Franchise and time to settle a new version is always the case. Few months later we fly again.

Time will tell, but on present showing, we are a long way off "Building an Empire to stand the test of time", and well into "Kill off your neighbour to win the game".

Regards
Zy

This may very well be one of the most disappointing games ever released. I am not saying that in terms of content, add-ons, or modifications. What gets me (probably with everyone else who disagrees) is how can Firaxis take up a successful formula that made CivIV great and drastically change it to the monstrosity that is CiV?

A common term I use when such franchises pull such a stunt is a "Jump the Shark" moment. I bought the game a couple weeks ago, didn't even spend 10 hours on it. It's disappointing on so many levels that I truly think that we had a bunch of monkeys develop the game.

Sadly, I think the video game market is drastically changing. With the release of Black OPS yesterday, it's very apparent what this generation of gamers is addicted to. Straight up FPSers. As a person in his late 20s, I feel terribly ashamed. If somebody already slammed CiV for being a huge downer, I am going to go ahead and slam it once more.

There is a lack of content, variety, and down-to-earth gameplay strategies. Military is the sole power in this game. Managing your cities and trying to succeed in Diplomacy seem almost pointless. I only built three cities before I had a pretty good idea of what was going on. In BTS there was a lot of activity going on, so I carefully had to manage resources while hoping that Montezuma next to me isn't suddenly going to declare war and bring 20-30 units in a stack to take over my border city. That there was the challenge, trying to manage a big empire while your rivals weren't all going to declare war, eventually having to settle as a vassal state (which was pretty much game over).

AI now seems to favor war in place of diplomacy. I can't say enough with how bad and poorly manipulated the computer AI is. There is also a general lack of thought in the 'Civilopedia' section of the game. In past titles there was a lot to read about and I certainly felt entranced and pulled through with all the detail provided in the game. Here in CiV, it's just meh, who cares?

I can say more but most of it has already been said. If this marks the beginning of a downhill trend within the Civilization franchise, then we should admit that Firaxis Games made a huge mistake. It tried to be revolutionary and provoking. All it did was appeal to a newer, younger audience and receive a slap in the face for discrediting past titles.

Unfortunately a lot of gaming franchises I have come to see and cherish have taken a turn for the worse. A few years ago I had eagerly awaited Super Smash Bros. Brawl to come out after years of playing Melee. After that title came out, I was feeling awfully disappointed for knowing that the mechanics and gameplay that made the predecessor great were dumbed down for Brawl. Here in Civilization V, the same situation applies, but on a much larger scale because Brawl didn't turn out to have such subtle changes.

As for franchises like Sonic the Hedgehog, well, let's just say that that franchise succeeds in only to gain profit and keep the diehard fans waiting. MTV (Music Television) is nothing but a cesspool of reality TV shows that the new generation follows because they are too stupid and too ignorant to realize that the station played music videos at one time.

It feels as though there was hardly any beta testing for Civilization V. I've seen so many titles take a formula that worked well and completely demolish it, that is exactly what has happened in this title in the series.

I want my refund...

Civilization Series says, "Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."

Civilization Series says, "Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."

That quote couldn't be better applied than the one here...

It takes a lot longer to get through turns. I've got a beast of a computer, but even the loading times from the start of the game are ridiculously slow from the start. I loved in the other civs how I could zip right through the turns if I was just building. Now its like waiting for a child to be born.


That's the main reason I stopped playing Civ V
I browse the forums once in a while to see if a patch or something is gonna fix this

Just to respond to the previous post about making axemen and swordsmen... when you whip... you could be literally forcing slaves to fight for you. You aren't making axes and swords... you are whipping the people into your military. That always made sense to me.

The patch sounds like it fixed a few things... and when/if it comes out, I'll give it another try. Someone said to eliminate city states... I agree. They are probably a big reason the game isn't as fun. They are a constant burden/obstacle/annoyance.

It's time to remind people of a little quote from the very first Civilization game ever.



Now that we've gotten this whole "Civ 5 is the first wargame in the series" out of the way . . .

As opposed to:

A central tenet of destroying your own population in order to build axemen? Where are the people coming from if you're killing them to make the weapons? (Civ 4)

(...)

Immersive Empire Building, forsooth. The series abandoned immersion after Alpha Centauri.

I don't get your post, you write the flaws of previous versions as something that justify the flaws of Civ 5.

Someone said to eliminate city states... I agree. They are probably a big reason the game isn't as fun. They are a constant burden/obstacle/annoyance.

You know the answer:
Just set their number to zero, when starting a new game. It's that easy!

I really hope (and I'm pretty sure, this hope will come true), city states will NOT be patched out, as I like them!

So different are personal tastes...

I agree. And here's why:

My First Ci_V experience: Went over to a friends place who had purchased it.

Picked Greeks, Marathon - major mistake. In C_IV I didn't like the overly fast pace of technology relative to unit movement. Epic or Marathon beautifully fixed that and turned it into a truly epic feeling game.

Immediately started sweating out my city placement, almost despaired that the terrian seemed relatively barren except for a couple of key resources. Oh well, can't re-role my first game. Pursued technology to harvest what resources I had - wtf, I got 1 extra production? Hmmm. By the end of the game I got the message that it really didn't matter where you placed things. Very odd, this was one aspect that created immediate tension in most Civ games and especially in C_IV. Passion - 1.

Noticed that the city screen doesn't really give you the feel that you're looking at a city. Hard to get the feeling that "ITS ABOUT TO GROW!" or "MY CRITICAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT IS ALMOST DONE, so I can move onto other vital production!" Passion -2.

Found out that I couldn't hurry production but I could outright buy it? Gone is the tension of finishing production so you can start the next desperate need. Passion -1.

Received a quest from a Military City state: take out my neighbour! The victim city state had resources that I presumed were valuable so I went for it. Made a Trieme and sailed it over to their island. Spent 10-20 or so turns bombarding a warrior before I realized that all I was doing was giving him 1/2 dozen promotions! Ok, that's a little strange that his warrior is now uber strong from sitting there getting arrows in the head and then recovering. Oh well, what ever doesn't kill you clearly makes you stronger. Passion -1.

Finally had an army sufficient to tackle this city. Sailed them across the lands. Had my super Greek Horseman (or whatever it is) take out the uber promoted warrior with Archer assist. Passion +1.

Fought my way through a choke point towards the city state. Difficult to say the least. Passion +1.

Finally, took the city state. Received an allied status for Military City state instigator. Started receiving military units. wtf again! He's gifting me units almost as fast as I could produce them if I was on a full war setting with my 4 cities? Kindof scratching my head as to why he needed help in the first place. Seems to be (more than) a little out of balance. Ok, fine. Actually not fine! What the heck, I'm not playing an RPG here - I don't really want to go on quests to find the sacred sword of a Thousand Truths! (Later I would find that the Military City states might be the least of problems). Passion -1 (and -3 when I learned of the degree of this exploit).

Through my attack on my first city (state) the city bombardment made me realize that a Settler might be my most powerful military unit in the early game. Run into barbarians? No problem, just plop down your settler (location doesn't seem to matter much) and start bombarding. He can't hurt you! Where's the tension of taking a risk of making a settler early run and daring to cross hostile lands to rush to that critical city location! And the Settler is relatively cheap too!
Passion -2 + an angry scowl!

Built my first building. WTF, am I interpreting this correctly, +1 food. Thanks alot! That took forever to build! What a pitiful rate of return if you can call it that. (Later, I would come to understand that these buildings had expensive maintenance! HA, am I to understand that this is a CIV game that wants you to NOT build?!?) Passion -1 (Upgrade that to Passion -3 when I realized the scope of the problem).

Found my first actual Civilization (Persia) strung across 2 smallish, very close islands. How fitting for a Greek conquest! Set up my Trieme between the two islands to cut off naval reinforcements as my major offensive sailed towards Island #1. Finally! A chance to turn that Trieme into a useful military unit after that debacle of ineffectively bombarding and inadvertently promoting my enemies' warrior. Blinked repeatedly in disbelief as I found that I couldn't take out their enbarking canoes sailing right under my nose! Great! I get to bombard them but not engage them! PFFFF! If
you can count rage as passion then +2; but really Passion -2!

Oh well, lets hope the land battle is more decisive. And it should be; I've made my first Chariot Archer with movement of 5! I get giddy as I visualize a series of hit-and-run tactics that wear down my enemies and prepare them for my Greek Horseman charge! Huh? If I shoot (range 2 spaces) then I can't further move...but, but, the standard movement of a melee unit is 2? So if I want to shoot I must end up dead? (Scratch head). Doesn't seem very useful to have all that movement. I guess I could rush very quickly to the front lines in order to fire and then die. Yes, very useful for dying fast - not much else. Of course, come to think of it I couldn't even rush to the front lines very quickly because some stupid worker is in my way. DOH. Major loss here, my giddy bubble of excitement was definately popped. Passion -3 due to the fact that it got my hopes up. To be fair, Passion -1 without my hope.

Spent couple hours bombarding their city and following up with my Greek Cavlary and Spearman (whatever they're called). Kinda going through the motions once their field army is taken out. Long, slow motions actually. Use my otherwise useless Chariot archers and Trieme to bombard their city, doing almost no damage each time (Settlers rock the military house!) but some until I'm sure that my shock troops can get off a win. Probably could have taken them earlier with more experience. Hmmm, that was pretty boring. I remember facing off in Civ3/Civ4 where you (pre-Catapult) have to worry alot about having enough troops to take their city. You know that you're going to lose some troops, maybe alot. This was like, I know that my troops are going to take damage but not die. So as long as I hit, then pull back, I'm not going to lose any troops. Really took any of the tension away. Passion -2.

But thinking about this further: why did they get rid of cottages? Especially for a game that was supposed to move combat outside of the city. Can you imagine the tension as an equal or greater enemy approaches your fertile commercial land? "HOLD THE LINE!" you scream with the realization that even if they don't take your cities they could chop you off at the knees by pillaging the source of the soldiers paychecks! Visions of Hannibal in Rome! This game, who cares? Just build back those "Trading posts" and you're back in business again. Really missed the mark here. Passion -2.

Overall, this is like some dude telling a lifetime Chess player how they've redesigned chess by removing all those complicated pieces and all their complicated moves and "look my red and black pieces can 'jump over' the other piece". So cool eh! You'd be like yeah its an 'ok' game, but it ain't Chess - Chess involves real strategy and tradeoffs.

So not a fan and I won't be spending money on this game. And, FYI Firaxis or who ever is responsible for this mess, I have been a hopeless CIV addict for the past 15+ years. I have bought-destroyed-bought again probably 6-8 copies of every game Civ2, Civ3, Civ4 spending at least $300 per version (Civ1 was pirated, sorry but I've made up for it) because I simply have no ability to control how much I play and cannot keep the darn game in my house without risking my
life/wife/career. So I figure playing like crazy and then destroying the game is way cheaper than losing my job! Rinse-and-repeat.

So I wish you well in finding 8+ console users who will replace an addicted player like me. I'm sure those console players will still be there 10-15 years from now.

A post worthy of quoting. My overall view of the game is that I don't necessarily disagree with any of the changes, but I do end up very, very bored. Where is the fun?

One point not covered in Thorite's post is how landmasses end up unclaimed for so long - I like the slow build up, but at some point you have to have every square km of land claimed, surely???

Anyway - CivV is officially for me the only Civ game since CivI that has not hooked me. It doesn't enrage me or annoy me as much as it saddens me.

Decline of the civ franchise??? Now this is funny :lol: Calling the fact that some people don't like the game a decline of the franchise is a gross exaggeration :)

I don't think so. I think he was right, even tho I still have fun playing civ5. (sometimes)

Let me make an example. In the last years I have played diablo type games like sacred2, deathspank, titan heroes, and more I can't remember. I would absolutly play them over diablo2 now. And that doesn't make them better games by any means (seriously :P)

What I'm trying to say, is that a new game always has the advantage of time. So, even though many players switched to civ5, me included, that doesn't mean by any means that civ5 is a better game.

Like the player you quoted said, it was a decline in the franchite. BUT the game is new, with the advantages that this brings, new graphics, new things to try out, even some new gameplay features. And that's why it's still a cool game and I will play it instead of civ4.

But what we have lost in 4 games of development and lots of experience during it, is a lot

It's disappointing on so many levels that I truly think that we had a bunch of monkeys develop the game.

Well, you may have a good point there... certainly, comparing, Soren Johnson (a Stanford graduate) with Shafer (a "University of Life" graduate) might be similar to comparing a human with a monkey...

Well, you may have a good point there... certainly, comparing, Soren Johnson (a Stanford graduate) with Shafer (a "University of Life" graduate) might be similar to comparing a human with a monkey...

A little harsh...I don't like the game either but we don't need to call the guy a monkey.

A little harsh...I don't like the game either but we don't need to call the guy a monkey.

yeah... you are right.

Monkeys deserve respect.

referring to other human beings as monkey is rude and is unacceptable on the forums

yeah... you are right.

Monkeys deserve respect.

I'd love to play the game that you created. Where can I buy it?

Well, you may have a good point there... certainly, comparing, Soren Johnson (a Stanford graduate) with Shafer (a "University of Life" graduate) might be similar to comparing a human with a monkey...Where did you go to school?

Comparisons of people to monkeys, comparing developers education, asking other posters education contributes nothing to the discussion. Stay on topic.

This situation seems to repeat itself every time a new Civ comes out. I have been a Civ-man since the first days of Civ2. When Civ3 came out I didn't like it at all, and stayed with Civ2 for a long time until I finally switched completely to Civ3 (and loved it). Same thing when Civ4 came out, I remained loyal to Civ3 for a very long time until finally Civ4 won me over and I switched again. And now here we are back again..

And it is not like I'm the only one. Whenever a new Civ is out there are massive threads here about how much better the previous one was, and how rubbish this new Civ feels. But consider older Civs have been patched to kingdom come... Taking civ4 as reference the game improved significantly with BTS, and this was 2 years after the original game. But when civ4 first came out I was very disappointed: from the wonderful scale and complexity I was used to in civ3 the very simplified civ4 did not hold much of an appeal to me. But slowly with more content and features being released for civ4.. I finally uninstalled civ3 from my computer.

I don't like Civ5 as much as Civ4 right now (how odd!). In my case is mostly a case of historical inmersion, as somebody else posted in a previous post. I don't like the fact you cannot play real world 'scenarios' and I hate it that some basic civs are missing from Civ5 vanilla. The rest, for better or worse, is just a different game. I personally love the completely new city states feature (ok, maybe not completely new but a bit of an evolution from Civ4 vassal states), I am ambivalent about other things like single military unit/tile and limited strategic resources.

I will end up playing Civ5 only eventually, same as before, if only because of lack ot time. I will probably keep Civ4 installed at the very least until the first civ5 expansion (1 year from now?). I would expect that expansion to be sort of 'colonisation' themed, considering the missing civs in vanilla, and should include some cool real world scenarios. Probably new city state types as well. It could make me and many others cross over civ5 for good.

nvm
blabla

Alan, for every thing you can tell us that civ 2-4 lost from his predecesor, I'm sure we can tell you 4 things that civ5 lost from civ4

[QUOTE=Guardian_PL;9824514]
Eh, what a disappointment - it's all about max money with the least possible effort...

Correct.
It's that simple and no more....

It is vanilla, give it time..
As I said I won't be uninstalling civ4 any time soon myself!

My 2 cents :

I just uninstalled CiV and went back to Civ IV, beyond the sword.
I can happily accept that major game elements are reworked, like hex tiles and one unit per hex, but the overall functionality has been significantly reduced.
Further more, 'stupid' bugs like the missing file name suggestion when saving, shows that even the minimal alount of testing has not been done. I mean : that bug is not important by itself, but it's so easy to spot - it just means they didn't even look. Just as an example.

I'm going to play the game that gives me most fun, and for me that's civ IV.

Why didn't you just leave both installed, and let V keep itself updated? Do you have a really small HD? I have both installed and I still play both.

My 2 cents :

I just uninstalled CiV and went back to Civ IV, beyond the sword.
I can happily accept that major game elements are reworked, like hex tiles and one unit per hex, but the overall functionality has been significantly reduced.
Further more, 'stupid' bugs like the missing file name suggestion when saving, shows that even the minimal alount of testing has not been done. I mean : that bug is not important by itself, but it's so easy to spot - it just means they didn't even look. Just as an example.

I'm going to play the game that gives me most fun, and for me that's civ IV.

Where did you go to school?

I don't need to go to Stanford to appreciate it as a top school. That is what separates ignorants from other Weltanshauungs...

I'd love to play the game that you created. Where can I buy it?

I didn't (yet), but in any case, I won't charge you full price if it is not finished, or if it is of poor quality. But hey, that's me, an idiot that believes in honesty.

I didn't (yet), but in any case, I won't charge you full price if it is not finished, or if it is of poor quality. But hey, that's me, an idiot that believes in honesty.

For all we know, Firaxis (or "the developers") didn't want to release Civ V when they did. However, Take-Two (or "the publisher") get final say in this department and to semi-quote you, they're idiots who believe in making money over anything else. They're a business with a bottom-line.

Don't get me wrong - the state of the games industry for years has been and still is disgustingly ignorant of their customers. EULA's should work the other way as well - i.e. release an unfinished broken product and the consumer can demand/complain/or sue to get their money back. Instead we get looking upon with suspicion because we might want to return a game (but we could have made a copy first, right?!)...

I blame Firaxis for certain design decisions in Civ V. But I blame the publisher for releasing Civ V when they did as it feels completely unfinished and rushed out the door. Typical behaviour for a publisher, really. :rolleyes: This "release first and then patch later" mentality just has to stop. But then again, the sheep-gamers of the world seem to want their games before quality anyway.

Apologies if this has already been said (I'm not about to muck through 11 pages to find out), but there's been quite a lot of activity from modders (myself included) to try and bring out a better experience within CiV. Go look at the modpacks forum; a lot of modders have been building small, modular mods which will allow you to cherry pick the changes you'd like to make to the game, while others are working incrementally on mods that make more sweeping changes to the game.

Altered city-state mods, combat mods, 1UPT-killing mods, etc etc...if you think something needs tweaking, it's probably already been thought of and modded if possible through XML/LUA alone.

Before giving up on the game entirely, why not look to the mod forums what some of your fellow players are doing to try and rectify the situation ahead of Firaxis...

I didn't (yet), but in any case, I won't charge you full price if it is not finished, or if it is of poor quality. But hey, that's me, an idiot that believes in honesty.

I can't think of many games outside of console games or stand alone single player games (rpg, sports) that were sold 'finished'.

I can't think of many games outside of console games or stand alone single player games (rpg, sports) that were sold 'finished'.

Before the internet became mainstream it used to happen all the time. The mindset these days is "Just ship it, we'll fix it later".

Back in the early-mid 90's.. there was no later.

Before the internet became mainstream it used to happen all the time. The mindset these days is "Just ship it, we'll fix it later".

Back in the early-mid 90's.. there was no later.

Yea, and you were dealing with games that could run on your average calculator you buy at wal mart these days.

Can someone cry me up a river? I need to settle a new city.

/sorry

I've been holding on to this for a couple days. Just share a laugh. :)

Do rivers made from tears appear as ugly as the regular rivers in CiV?

I don't have, or have played 5. There have been tons of topics like this one, it's getting old.

You have the amazing power of not needing to click on threads you don't want to read.

I don't need to go to Stanford to appreciate it as a top school. That is what separates ignorants from other Weltanshauungs...That's funny. Shafer, being a monkey and all, was able to answer this question at some point, considering he did go to college and earned a bachelors. So while monkeys can answer simple questions, you are unable to. Sorry, I am just trying to apply your logic to find out exactly what you are, but you seem to be undetectable.

That's funny. Shafer, being a monkey and all, was able to answer this question at some point, considering he did go to college and earned a bachelors. So while monkeys can answer simple questions, you are unable to. Sorry, I am just trying to apply your logic to find out exactly what you are, but you seem to be undetectable.

well, I wish I could have gone to Stanford... as for your question, I don't think many here care where I did go to University... but for your own sake, let's say I have to name three of them, and three different countries, to picture it to you...

Anyways, I am not selling my "brilliant" product, so where I went is irrelevant. When it comes to game producers, OTOH, it makes a huge difference, as we can attest from the product of one vs the other in the case of Civ 4-5...

Now, undetectable... :lol::lol::lol: I am probably the single biggest idiot that uses his real name in this forum, yet you call me undetectable... funny, very funny.

Go back to your game, boy, you are one of the many(?) that are enjoying it, aren't you? What the heck are you doing here then?

well, I wish I could have gone to Stanford... as for your question, I don't think many here care where I did go to University... but for your own sake, let's say I have to name three of them, and three different countries, to picture it to you...

Anyways, I am not selling my "brilliant" product, so where I went is irrelevant. When it comes to game producers, OTOH, it makes a huge difference, as we can attest from the product of one vs the other in the case of Civ 4-5...
Then maybe you should stick to judging the product instead of the other human beings. Although your judgement is really already in question, considering your standards on which you judge people.

Curious. Where did John Carmack go to college and did he earn a degree before bringing us Doom, one of the most revolutionary computer games in history?

Now, undetectable... :lol::lol::lol: I am probably the single biggest idiot
I was wondering about this, even without the additional reasoning you provided. But thanks for adding to the list and clearing it up for us.

Go back to your game, boy, you are one of the many(?) that are enjoying it, aren't you? What the heck are you doing here then?Wow, this really does say so much about you. I guess when you don't really have any actual point or logic, you simply go back to the brainless "old faithful" argument that really has no logic behind it to begin with. Throwing a "boy" in there is a nice touch, though. It's almost as if its in your nature to try to inflict your ego onto others in each post you make.

Cover up. Your narcissism is showing again.

Do not attack other players with your post, attack their arguments only

Awww, this thread is a disappointing read for a Mac user awaiting his pre-ordered copy of Mac civV.

I'm an empire builder who loved managing resources, tweaking city tiles and choosing city improvements. It sounds like the new civ is no longer my type of game. Hmmm. I'll hold out hope but suspect I'll likely be one of those people lamenting the complex empire simulation and management that was CivIV.

Awww, this thread is a disappointing read for a Mac user awaiting his pre-ordered copy of Mac civV.

I'm an empire builder who loved managing resources, tweaking city tiles and choosing city improvements. It sounds like the new civ is no longer my type of game. Hmmm. I'll hold out hope but suspect I'll likely be one of those people lamenting the complex empire simulation and management that was CivIV.

Don't listen to the propaganda here, you'll find all the game elements that you like in Civ5, and there are many mods that enhance the empire building experience if the vanilla version is not good enough for you (I think the XML/LUA mods will work on Mac, won't they?)

Don't listen to the propaganda here, you'll find all the game elements that you like in Civ5, and there are many mods that enhance the empire building experience if the vanilla version is not good enough for you (I think the XML/LUA mods will work on Mac, won't they?)
I'm assuming the PC mods will work on the Mac. My rather naive hope is that the mods are just parsable files for settings simulation parameters. Is this correct?

The reason these reports are worrisome though is that in CivIV, I spent most of my game time in the city management screen, agonizing over what improvements to build, how to improve workable tiles, and how to distribute the populace. To me, civilization was a resource management game.

Civ5 may turn out to be awesome for me, but it appears that it won't/can't be awesome for the same reasons.

The distinction probably doesn't exist for some people though. For instance, when visiting my cousins I learned that they played CivIV completely differently than me. To them, it was a military conquest game. They pursued different technology and unit priorities. This was fascinating to watch. Observing their strategies for victory revealed just how great that version of civilization was. It provided a nicely balanced simulation or model such that there were multiple viable paths to victory.

Too funny.

Quit with personal attacks! It is offensive and it contributes nothing to the critique of C5. If you want a better game, direct your feedback toward the game....

Quit with personal attacks! It is offensive and it contributes nothing to the critique of C5. If you want a better game, direct your feedback toward the game....

This post is only valid if you went to Stanford or an equivalent.

My problem with this game is that it is missing a lot of features with little to no explanation. As people already said, the game feels rushed and incomplete. I knew that within the first two hours of playing this game.

Sure, a lot of people were a bit disappointed when CiIV came out, but it greatly expanded upon it's innovative features. I got that game in 2006 when it already had been years since I last played the predecessor. It took me a little while to adjust, and by then I had already gotten the civics and the religion feature down.

Both of those have been completely removed. The interface has been torn apart and rebuilt, so what we're getting is a flawed system that is missing important hotkeys and vital shortcuts. The only thing I like is no more stacks of armies approaching your defenseless little city. But as it turns out, that wasn't much of a problem.

Firaxis should of known better. CiV had a lot of potential, and it was clear by the time BTS was released. Franchises should look back at what made them great, build and expand, and remove features that were deemed too frustrating or useless. CiV reworks everything and tries to build from the ground up, with failed results.

However, as another person said, fault should also be placed on Take-Two Interactive. As a publisher, I get the dire feeling that they wanted Firaxis to ship the game out when it was still in beta testing and needed tweaks to make the game more workable for the customer. I still see a lot of bugs they need to sort through, even if it's just the original.

I just hate it when companies pull stuff like this on us.

Previous post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9843719&postcount=162

Okay, Ricardo. I'm really warming up to you. You have an inherent wisdom that I really like.

Latest post:

Then maybe you should stick to judging the product instead of the other human beings. Although your judgement is really already in question, considering your standards on which you judge people.

Curious. Where did John Carmack go to college and did he earn a degree before bringing us Doom, one of the most revolutionary computer games in history?


I was wondering about this, even without the additional reasoning you provided. But thanks for adding to the list and clearing it up for us.

Wow, this really does say so much about you. I guess when you don't really have any actual point or logic, you simply go back to the brainless "old faithful" argument that really has no logic behind it to begin with. Throwing a "boy" in there is a nice touch, though. It's almost as if its in your nature to try to inflict your ego onto others in each post you make.

Cover up. Your narcissism is showing again.

Do not attack other players with your post, attack their arguments only


Don't you despise hypocrits? I do. There is perhaps nothing more insidious than hypocresy. I am harsh sometimes, many times perhaps, but at least I am frank, straightforward and honest.

See you around, boy :D

rjg

Any more off-topic or posts about other players will lead to this thread being closed and server infractions for the offending party's

Enjoy your day.

i for one love civ 5,it's way more user friendly.I caught on in a few games and adjusted quickly to the new style.I like the titles better and the way units work.having one unit per tile makes for new and refreshing strategy's .early game war's are just as fun as late game.city states throws in the 3rd world feeling and adds something new to think about.Not just the other civs.

i like it so far, looking forward to any expansions .

one thing i don't get is why we need to play it through steam,but i already have a steam account for some of my FPS games so no biggie.

hopefully we get an expansion pack next year. I'm still not feeling it. Maybe they can bring religions back. Its just not fun building stuff anymore.

hopefully we get an expansion pack next year. I'm still not feeling it. Maybe they can bring religions back. Its just not fun building stuff anymore.

The question is, would you be prepared to pay another $30-40 U.S for an expansion pack that may not add anything that "fixes" the "current problems" with Civ V? I put them in quotes as some may not feel that there needs to be any fixes to Civ V.

Ok, if they added religions, would that be enough to bring you back into the "I'm a fan" club of Civ V? For me, I feel they need to make the product more reminiscent of Civilization - I don't feel the addictiveness of Civ V as I did in practically every other version before it. Maybe the only way to add this is with Civ VI - start from the ground up and develop new ideas. I don't know.

Firaxis have made me think about purchasing their games now. Before, I knew they'd be addictive, fun games so just bought them without thinking. Now, their new ideas about what makes a game fun and addictive don't strike me as being compatible with what I think is fun and addictive. Sorry Firaxis, but you're now in the same heap with 99% of other developers.

Firaxis have made me think about purchasing their games now. Before, I knew they'd be addictive, fun games so just bought them without thinking. Now, their new ideas about what makes a game fun and addictive don't strike me as being compatible with what I think is fun and addictive. Sorry Firaxis, but you're now in the same heap with 99% of other developers.
I feel exactly the same, which adds to my sorrow - Firaxis was the only name in the gaming industry I had trust in, now it's gone.

I'm that sort of old-gamer person who grew up on playing Civilization 1 (and Pool of Radiance a-la SSI - if you know what I mean). I was a great fan of Sid Meyer, didn't even know who he is, but perceived him as legendary person creating a legendary game (I always thought he programmed it himself, is it true?). Since then I've played Alpha Centaury and Civ 4, all perfect games despite my initial thought that Civ I cannot be surpassed (I skipped everything in-between though). So, I was very surprised with my own experience after playing Civ 5 about 50 hours or so. I mean, I was surprised to find, that the famous "just one more turn" feeling has suddenly gone... I usually have television going in the background while playing civ4 games sitting in my bed, but the game is so immersive that I end up unable to even look up from the computer or eat my dinner and end up playing until morning comes. With Civ 5, the farther I got the more bored I've got. Then I've ended up watching the television longer and longer, including even commercials and TV shop, then I've fell asleep at 11 pm. Rarely did I fall asleep so early, except when I came home drunk, and since then I simply do not have the mental power to play again (Back to Elder Scrolls!). I didn't read through the whole thread, but I enjoy reading it better than the game itself :) When I'm done reading I'll add my own concrete concerns. On the positive side, I'm open to believing that some patches and expansions may completely overhaul this game and make wonders...

Edit: oh it's my first post, but I am actually a great fan of Civfanatics community. Fall Further simply Rules! I'll get back to it or try Rise of Mankind.

I agree 100% This game is boring but has a huge potential for improvement.

Don't listen to the propaganda here, you'll find all the game elements that you like in Civ5
You're telling an empire builder that he will find all the elements he likes in Civ5 ? :eek:
That's practically criminal disinformation.

You're telling an empire builder that he will find all the elements he likes in Civ5 ? :eek:
That's practically criminal disinformation.

I'm an empire builder, and I find all the elements that I like in Civ V...I think IV: BTS is still the stronger game, but V is good too.

I'm an empire builder, and I find all the elements that I like in Civ V...I think IV: BTS is still the stronger game, but V is good too.
Well, you're far too lenient then. And anyway, you still point the main thing : Civ4 is better for an empire builder, so it's pointless to buy the 5.

I agree 100% This game is boring but has a huge potential for improvement.

Yeah, when you start out with what I consider a 2 star rating at best, you always have "potential".

I rushed out to buy this game the day it came out. After about 3 days of playing it, I went back to EQ2 and have not played it since. They had a winner in the CIV4 model, this is like a whole new (much more boring) game with far too much missing, and military way over emphasized at the expense of... almost everything.

Reading through the whole thread I concluded that the reasons behind this game being a Total Boredom has been very well explained so there is not too much to be added. I should though somewhat agree with Civ 5 fans: that if you force a new kind of a way of thinking into your own mind and onto yourself then you will probably start to enjoy the "innovative features". Probably some meditation could help as well... But I, for one, don't want to do this, since I buy games to enjoy them without first having to learn how to enjoy them. The game is empty and without a soul as correctly put by several here. Although to be more precise, the game is only boring for those who buys this game for the genre it belongs to. Because that not all people like all genres or types of games, it is just quite natural to expect from them - , long time gamers, who believe that a certain company manufactures certain types of games under a certain brand and game title, - to expect a game of the type they like to play. On the other side, to be sincere, it's hard to imagine a completely new game which outperforms Civ4. The outperforming should have happened, IMO, in the fields of visualization and graphics. In my experience, however, this graphical upgrade was at most minor. As several posters mentioned (and adding some of my own):
1) The look and feel of the visuals is static. There is a lack of animation that made Civ4 so vivid and gave the feeling of a living and a breathing world.
2) The cities look all the same. You do not have the impression that they are growing. The city has no interior representation, it's just a zoomed in perspective of the land framed with control panels. Although not present in Civ4 as well, this would have been a logical field for improvements. And it was there in Civ 1!
3) The improvements on the lands are unremarkable and IMO inferior to those in Civ4.
4) The human armies have too much troops, which makes them small and unremarkable. I could barely distinguish between them. IMO they should have remained of a symbolic quantity, since 10 troops are as unrealistic as 3 or 4 for an army.
5) The zoom level seems to be same as in Civ4 or inferior.
So where is the praised "improved graphics"? The leaders, ok, but after you've seen them they get boring and just increase the load time of the diplomacy screen.
PS: And I am all for complete removal of City States and the fifth generation "Innovative RPG" aspect. Or create something similar, just not this. It is very wrong... I love RPG but it feels very odd and irritating in this game.

Its amazing !!! :eek:

Some say try my MOD others a PATCH WILL FIX IT and others an EXPANSION WILL FIX IT....

the game is boring, unfinished, untested, unpolished...

and i have PAYED 59€ for the game with the extra content.

AND NOW I SHOULD WAIT FOR SOMEONE TO FINISH THE GAME!!!!

LOL

AMAZING...

did i mention that CIV V AI should be renamed to CIV V AS (ARTIFICIAL STUPIDITY)

did i mention that CIV V AI should be renamed to CIV V AS (ARTIFICIAL STUPIDITY)
Should be Artificial Stupidity Supreme. Abbreviate that yourself ;)

Don't be surprised luis, industry moguls are breeding us consumers for decades to gobble up easy-to-make turds with a smile, using various tools at their disposal to convince us that turd is a new cocoa. No wonder that nowadays whenever ANYTHING is done there'll be people happy about it:

Because it could be worse. Because it's fun regardless. Because you don't have to think too much. Because it is WRONG to expect quality and that proves that you're a bigot. Because it didn't cost much and if you say it did than you're poor and I'm rich so I'm better than you. Because it's normal that some things don't work the way they should. Because good things come to those who wait.

All of the above are industry slogans repeated and put into our faces to make us into sheep with wallets. And it works, I bet that some would argue that some/all of that "Because..." sentences are valid, and if you don't think like that then you must be some conspiracy theory loonie.



Like great Bill Hicks once said:

"Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their f****** skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do as we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!"

:(

Should be Artificial Stupidity Supreme. Abbreviate that yourself ;)
(

Funny, because I was thinking how to reach that very same abbreviation (because it is the best definition of the joke that the civ5 algorithms are), but the only way that came to my mind was something like Artificial Shafer's Stupidity... :D

Because it could be worse. Because it's fun regardless. Because you don't have to think too much. Because it is WRONG to expect quality and that proves that you're a bigot. Because it didn't cost much and if you say it did than you're poor and I'm rich so I'm better than you. Because it's normal that some things don't work the way they should. Because good things come to those who wait.


Now this is worth pure gold...

You just defined the civ5's targeted mass market, while at the same time defining one of the viruses that is killing western civilization: mediocrity.

The other virus, of course, is political correctness.

Almost two months on and i'm really starting to miss stuff from Civ 4, i miss the way culture used to work, spreading out and making warmongers cities look rubbish, i miss the religions, i miss vassals, i miss international trade, i would have missed espionage had it been any good in the first place, other than war i just can't find anything else to do in this game, i miss the complexity that used to keep things interesting.

It's only due to mods that i'm even playing at all, i agree with the main title of this thread more with each day that passes.

Because it could be worse. Because it's fun regardless. Because you don't have to think too much. Because it is WRONG to expect quality and that proves that you're a bigot. Because it didn't cost much and if you say it did than you're poor and I'm rich so I'm better than you. Because it's normal that some things don't work the way they should. Because good things come to those who wait.


Wow. Way to sum it all up, man. :lol: It's kind of depressing how often we hear those exact responses around here. I don't blame anyone for enjoying the game (hey, more power to em!) but when the best you can say is something like "it could be worse" or "it has potential," that's what we call damning with faint praise.

And +5 Pepsi points for the Bill Hicks quote.

It's only due to mods that i'm even playing at all, i agree with the main title of this thread more with each day that passes.

What mods are you playing with that make it more enjoyable? I haven't tried the Better Balance or Better Economy (?) mods, but I hear they can be helpful. Just wondering what other bored fans are using to make the game more engaging?

What mods are you playing with that make it more enjoyable? I haven't tried the Better Balance or Better Economy (?) mods, but I hear they can be helpful. Just wondering what other bored fans are using to make the game more engaging?

I use 2 mods, if i want mainly balance changes i use Thalassicus collection of balance mods, if i feel like a tough challenge i fire up Slowpoke's Megamod, it's quite tough and has a more realistic approach, they both offer something fun and different.

there are of course many other cool mods out there but i have'nt tried them yet, perhaps someone else could wade in and say which ones they like :)

I use 2 mods, if i want mainly balance changes i use Thalassicus collection of balance mods, if i feel like a tough challenge i fire up Slowpoke's Megamod, it's quite tough and has a more realistic approach, they both offer something fun and different.

there are of course many other cool mods out there but i have'nt tried them yet, perhaps someone else could wade in and say which ones they like :)

Cool, thanks. May try and give those a shot next time I fire up the game - maybe after the next patch or so. I don't want to entirely give up on Civ5, but it's getting harder to keep trying it only to keep being disappointed. :p

Anyone else who isn't thrilled with the out-of-the-box condition of Civ5 find specific mods that make the game feel more engaging? I'm hoping to get some more feedback on this, but if I start a new thread it'll probably just get locked.

The rubbish that is 'Civ 5' is so blatantly coming out in the wash now. I remember when the *cough* 'game' was first released and people with ligitimate criticism were being insulted and there were ridiculous excuses such as "people just like to whine when a new game comes out on how the previoius one was better."
Well, no. Civ 5 is just a terrible, BORING, game.
Good to see the average consumer still has sense, and the majority are using the Civ 5 CD as a coaster.

I remember when the *cough* 'game' was first released and people with ligitimate criticism were being insulted and there were ridiculous excuses such as "people just like to whine when a new game comes out on how the previoius one was better."
You can skip the past tense, there is still people parroting the same excuses non-stop these days.

Unistalled. Returning to Civ BTS. Hopefully Civ 6 will be a Civilization game, not a Blitzkreig game with minimal empire building.

Good to see the average consumer still has sense, and the majority are using the Civ 5 CD as a coaster.

I tried to use my Civ 5 CD as a coaster, but it keep telling me I had to login to Steam before I could do so. Then when I said screw it, I paid for you, I'll use you as a coaster if I like, they came to my house and took all my coffee away!

I actually like Civ 5 somewhat, but I've also been playing a bit of Civ I lately. There are things I like from both. Basically I think the map layout of Civ V is greatly improved graphically, and hexes were a long time coming, but the social policy tree replacing governments is terrible, especially with the new change that isn't going to let you save up policies.

I don`t think this product is a total piece of crap, but I kind of wish I didn`t buy it. On the other hand the UI was easy enough and the game was simple enough that I got my girlfriend introduced to Civ when she`s not really a computer gamer, and she likes it a lot, so maybe we just have to face that if we want a rich complicated immersive environment we need to play a mod, the vanilla gaming experience needs to be accessible and comfortable for people who have never played Civ before.

Some of the mods for Civ 5 actually make the game quite interesting.

Also Civ 5 is much better than Civ 4 (comparing both games in unexpanded, unmodded form with patches up to similar times of release). Yes its not a finished game, that`s typical these days in the gaming industry, at least they are trying to balance it (which they suck at). But I`d rather they release a game that`s functional with the bad design and the Civ5SDK early and let the modders have at it, than hold on to the game until its heavily tested (say 2 more patch iterations) and if you don`t like vanilla you have to wait even longer for mods.

Thorite - you accurately summed up a lot of my feelings about Civ5. In short, it's not a game I feel immersed in. With Civ4 + BTS, I was able to maintain the illusion that I was running a civilization and created a historical narrative for my civ in every game, explaining its development and its interactions with rivals. In Civ5, I definitely feel like I am just playing a game. It just feels so... soulless.

I really agree with this statement. I think CiV lost that key component with the new development.