I will start off by saying that I have been a die hard civ fan since civ 3, I loved civ 4 before and even played civ rev. I pose a simple question to you is civ 5 a step in the right direction or the wrong direction? I want to base this on the latest patched version. Please keep the conversation on topic and be civil.

Here are the things I think were a step in the right direction.
1. I may be in the minority but I like the idea of 1upt, I think it would have been better to allow the formation of amrys but I like the idea behind 1upt even though its a mess some times I think with a few teeks it could work. I would allow for amrys to be made that way multiple units could fill a tile but not just huge stacks of doom.

2. I like the social policys, I like that they add some to the game.

3. For the most part I like the ua of the civs that came with the game.

4. citys are hard to take untill you get to gunpowder I like this as it should be hard to take citys in anchent times.

Here are the things I think were a step in the wrong direction
1. I dont like the addition of city states as it relates to diplo victory it still just feels like you can just hold on to your money and bribe the cs before the vote and win. I miss how diplo felt in civ 4 it was a hard fought victory not just a bribe.

2. I dont like that you are punished so much for expanding it fine that you get punished for it but it should not be so sever if you pupet nothing, no one is mad but if you anex they are this makes no sense puppets would be just as mad.

3. poor combat ai while I can live with it as it is its still not up to civ 4 standereds.

4. The ai is broken and needs to be fixed I hope they fix it but in general RAs, declorations of freindship, and denouncements are broken. I feel the ai is really in a bad spot.

5.the general sense of the game being dumbed down.

I feel it is the wrong direction but still a decent game.

It doesn't have to be either. Civ IV and Civ V are different games, V is not a step forward or back but sideways.

Depends what part of Civ 5. I mean, hexes are about 5 steps in the right direction, I can't even play civ 4 anymore.

It doesn't have to be either. Civ IV and Civ V are different games, V is not a step forward or back but sideways.

Good remark :).

For me...[x] i don't know. In general changes are needed, else the game developement will stagnate, so adding new stuff is sure the right direction. Implementation is another thing.
The new not-so-optimized features can be made fun, the same as probably every other feature from past iterations (well...besides cleaning up pollution maybe).

:think: maybe i'll also take the "sideways" option :D.


With one thing i'm sure:
The "living world" approach with preset non-civ actors and unique features on the map is the right direction. That should result in more interesting exploration (which the people like) and should theroretically offer more options and more tactial planning with city settlement and other things. Here i'm positive, that's the right choice.

It doesn't have to be either. Civ IV and Civ V are different games, V is not a step forward or back but sideways.

its a sequal so it has to be either a step in the right direction or the wrong direction.;)

I think the step is probably in right direction. Even if you don't like ciV you still have to admit that 1UPT was a revolution in civ series & a HUGE improvement. Other noticeable improvements are UAs & more interesting UUs with their promos carried over.Though these big changes have made rise to new problems such as AI but at the end a fully polished ciV would be superior to ciV Bts.

I think the step is probably in right direction. Even if you don't like ciV you still have to admit that 1UPT was a revolution in civ series & a HUGE improvement. Other noticeable improvements are UAs & more interesting UUs with their promos carried over.Though these big changes have made rise to new problems such as AI but at the end a fully polished ciV would be superior to ciV Bts.

Several good points there... the AI will improve, after all, it did need to be completely rewritten for 1upt, and that will take time, which they didn't have to begin with... I am hoping Fraxis will do some serious work on it soon.

Post the last patch, things have improved considerably too, the game is more of a challenge, and unlike some above, I like CSs, and think they make a big improvement... however, I don't like diplomatic/economic victory as it is, I tend to turn it off these days. Hopefully that will get sorted soon.

I like the concept f 1 UPT, but not the implementation, So I think this is a step back, (I'm for a soft cap where unit strength degrades with number of units, it could even be so ridiculously severe that in battle you have 1upt or die, but the logsitcs with a soft cap would be so much nicer) but Citystates are a nice touch (though not the diplo victory). Overall, I'd go with the Save Ferris and The J and say "sideways"

I like 1UPT combat but I think it suffers from a feeling of being 'small scale' compared to when 2 giant SoDs engage. I want army V army battles in 1UPT to feel more...epic. Deity/Imm level do much better at providing this kind of feeling than emperor or lower but I think it could be more intense.

Its definitely a step in a different direction. I like all the strategy and politics in Civ4, and I feel like they were purposely going more towards combat tactics which I don't like as much so to me, its a step in the wrong direction. Some people might like it more though if they're looking more for a civilization combat game.

I like the hexes, I think that's nice. I don't mind the city states, though I wish that people wouldn't go ballistic if you decide to conquer one. I think that if one is super weak, and you're close allies they should let you annex them peacefully.

I really miss changing governments, I don't like the 1upt. I didn't mind the stacks of doom, I felt that it was more realistic that an army took up the same space on a map. I wish they'd go back more in the direction of combining units in to a single army, I think that works best.

I like that overall tile yields are smaller numbers, makes those numbers more important. I think my favorite change though is the limited resource yield. That is a good change.

I don't like the new happiness system, kinda lame. I love how city expansion works with individual tiles being expanded to and belonging to the city so when they flip the area flips.

I hate how bows are ranged yet gun units aren't. So fake and chincy.

Of the complaints against Civ5, I think more are about implementation than direction. The game seems to be to be a step in the right direction in that regards. The paradigm shifts of the game (1upt, hexes) are looking to solve what were existent problems, so even if the implementation leaves something to be desired, the direction is good.

A bad step in a good direction.

Right direction: more civ

Wrong direction: features that do not function as designed, do not function at all, or are poor by year 2000 standards.

Design changes are fine. For future reference, however, firaxis should actually implement them.

I'd sort of say sideways (although I enjoy V more than IV). I think they were trying to make combat more tactical (good), make the game easier to understand (good) and reduce some of the stuff they thought was overly complex (good/bad, depending on your point of view). I like that this version of Civ is somewhat easier to grasp, unlike Civ IV where I personally felt hopeless till I went through some guides here (and even after that, it's still daunting, which is again, good and bad). I think they just rushed some of the things they were trying to mix up and didn't think all of it through. Diplomacy being more "gamelike" with the AI "trying to win" is a nice idea for example, but the AI also tends to be incredibly obnoxious and unfriendly as a result. My last game was quite great, where I got denounced by all buy one Civ in a 12 player game, with some of those denunciations coming for seemingly no reason. City States are also cool, but at the same time, they have made a diplomatic victory feel even less satisfying than in past games, where it was never really an exciting victory to begin with. It's cool in a way that the AI doesn't just hand you a victory, but now all you have to do is hand out bribes and you're good to go.

If they keep working on things, and (maybe) release an expansion that introduces so more game mechanics (figure they'd be more likely to do it in an expac than patches) then it'll feel more like forward.

A bad step in a good direction.

Fair point, actually. So many things sounded decent before release...and then we saw the game.

civ5 poor diplomacy and AI can't make me say it is going in the right direction.
however, it is still very addictive and it has great graphics.

two steps forward and one step back

There are 4 things that Civilization 5 have stepped forward:
-The combat system,that prioritize quality instead quantity,even with the problems of diversity of units.
-The Cultural Victory,that allows to win with one capital city,instead a huge empire is a good step forward,because in other civilizations,you could never dream to win with only one city.There are problems to choose this victory,but I hope Firaxis fix them.
-City-States.I think City-States is the greatest step that Civilization 5 has done now,because it allows many civilizations to get in this game.They have a great Potencial,that wasn't fully enjoyed.
-Changing Squares to hex.

btw.I agree that civilization have 2 stepped forward and 1 step back.

Right direction, definitely. 1UPT, greater civ diversity, city states are all fantastic additions. Some implementations like diplomacy and the diplomatic victory need more work, but all the major design changes are cool beans

This is a tough question to answer.

On the one hand, I think Civ4 is a far better game than Civ5.

On the other hand, I think Civ5 had the right "big picture" for expanding the series.

The problem is in all the details they got wrong. 1upT didn't quite work out, so the production pacing is all wrong, for instance. Problems compounded problems until the end result was, ultimately, pretty unplayable.

If you had someone like Soren using Shafer's "big idea" you might have ended up with a real improvement.

I now feel that pure 1upT was a mistake, but I still think we need something better than Civ4's combat. Perhaps "Total War lite" armies that avoid both extremes?

A lot of Civ5 haters don't access the Civ5 forums by now, so I think polls like these are not really valid.

Please refrain from using the term "haters" - it is an inflammatory term. Thanks.

A lot of Civ5 haters don't access the Civ5 forums by now, so I think polls like these are not really valid.

Yes, but the polls would be in favor of "step in right direction" if the casual gamers voted, who don't usually visit forums for this and enjoy the simpler attitude.

Too early to tell.

Give Civ V the same time to develop with expansions and more patches as Civ 4 before making this decision.

The Good:
- the hex map works really well
- 1upt combined with the terrain demand better tactical skills of the player on harder levels. That was pretty much non-existent in Civ4.
- more diverse Civs and the addition of city states
- in general some very good ideas implemented poorly/unsatisfactory as others suggest.
- I like how I can choose what content I would like to buy online for expansion instead of buying a complete add-on. You only pay for what you want.

The Bad:
- the AI is poor whether we are talking diplomacy or combat ->
- diplomacy: A swarm of AI's might denounce and declare war on you if you declare war on 1-2 AI's almost by automation (on harder levels - don't know about sub-emperor). Several of those might be AI's you have only met via scouts = no reason for warfare. Overall the diplomacy system seems very rigid with few choices.
- combat: The AI in general uses units and the tactical system poorly. Why develop and implement it if the AI can't use it? There's no tactical improvement in the AI's play while playing deity/immortal when compared to prince/king. Only more units. That sucks.
- while Social Policies are a nice addition, you choose for the remainder of the game which makes it a very rigid system. Lacks flexibility. Civ4's system might have been to easy to change numerous times during the game, but Civ5's system is not the answer.
- cultural victory seems broken to me. You basically have to design the game from start to end to achieve it and even when winning a relatively early cultural victory, it's score completely blows compared to a domination win. All cultural victory games I've played are very similar which means it gets boring very fast.
- I really, really miss a transport for moving land units over sea tiles as one unit.

Overall a step forward in design but a step backwards in implementation.

Yes, but the polls would be in favor of "step in right direction" if the casual gamers voted, who don't usually visit forums for this and enjoy the simpler attitude.

Well pointed out, but I am taking into account the Civ4 players. Casual players tend to lose interest after a while.

Still, your comment makes sense.

(..)

- I like how I can choose what content I would like to buy online for expansion instead of buying a complete add-on. You only pay for what you want.

(..)


I agree with everything you said, except for this. This would be true if the retail price didn't cost as much as a normal game does.

And it's sad that, for me, the game is still unfinished after all this time.

The game was released with just as many civs as Civ IV, for roughly the same price. And the things that were unfinished get fixed in (free) patches, not (paid) DLC. I hear a lot of people complain about them releasing paid DLC, but now that they removed the problem where people doing multiplayer all had to have the exact same DLC, that complaint really doesn't make sense any longer. Your game experience isn't degraded at all from them adding more things that you don't have (yet).

Civ5 is a massive failure at this point.It's not even finished yet.It needs at least 1-2 more years of regular patching.Balance,optimization,new features...
Hexes are nice,1UPT is not that good with that type of AI.If the AI was good - 1UPT is good.
Global happiness is an abomination that needs to be burned alive.Diplomacy is nearly non-existent.Combat AI is stupid but gets better with every patch.Diplomacy AI was always bad.That stupid gimmick "it plays for the win like a real human player" ruins it.MP is broken...and Civilopedia is bad.Now that's a bad omen.
By the way - you have to pay for roads so they won't create "road spaghetti".They nerfed roads so we could look at those fancy graphics.How cute.Too bad that there are other tile improvements.And you need a lot of them.I hope they get skinned alive for that logic.

Good direction :
- hexes, 1upt attempt, city expanding tile per tile, barbs camps


Wrong direction :
- greed : too early release, paid DLC, poor content (squander one of the best licence ever)
- poor epic feeling, boring
- 1upt & AI implementation (just don't work)
- puppet cities
- global hapiness
- commercial roads, religion, spy
- civilopedia


I am back to Civ4 BTS with the lovely mod Realism Invictus

Right for a very simple reason; the wheel was invented in the past and now, we put tires on cars. Or *ANY* innovations create a sense of time passing by too fast. Some fear about having to dismiss all previous knowledge and habits or losing a familiar addiction to control.

But as usual, such polls are *asking* for conflictual opinions. Only the method is changing.

The game was released with just as many civs as Civ IV, for roughly the same price.


I see. In that line of thinking, if they had released Civ 5 with 40 Civs then they could charge, say, 100 USD for it?


And the things that were unfinished get fixed in (free) patches, not (paid) DLC.


I should not have to wait for anything to be finished when I buy a game. I expect to buy it finished the first time I dosh out the money. Another point we disagree on, it seems.


I hear a lot of people complain about them releasing paid DLC, but now that they removed the problem where people doing multiplayer all had to have the exact same DLC, that complaint really doesn't make sense any longer.


I agree with you here. It feels cheap, though, having all this DLC released and people paying for it when so much of the game is still broken (and I doubt will ever get completely fixed, to be honest).


Your game experience isn't degraded at all from them adding more things that you don't have (yet).

This is moot, Lyoncet. My game experience is degraded if the game is unfinished. And after all this time, the game is still unfinished. Don't make me list all the broken stuff in Civ 5, please.

I agree with everything you said, except for this. This would be true if the retail price didn't cost as much as a normal game does.

And it's sad that, for me, the game is still unfinished after all this time.

Well, if you want it all I guess you have a point. But me for instance, I've only bought the Viking and Babylon Civ DLCs so it's fairly cheap for me to get the content I want. It would have been 8-10 times more expensive for me to buy an addon pack with the full content. The Polynesian Civ might be another future purchase, but that's it for me so far.

Agree with your second point - Civ5 seems like a half-finished game, more so than Civ4 vanilla ever did.

Another bad thing not mentioned so far:
- in Civ4, powerful and influential nations (especially in recent times) such as USA, Russia, England, Germany and France had some pretty decent Civ features, traits, units etc. In Civ5 I feel that all of them got severely shortchanged. None of them range on my personal top 10 list of the best Civs. What's up with that? Why are they so bland? :blush:

I feel like I was pretty clear that I was talking about content (like maps and civs) and not patches. Your gripe was that the game felt unfinished*, and since you'd already paid full retail price, you don't like having to pay to get the polished product. My point was that you don't pay more to get the fixes you're talking about; you're conflating paid DLC with free patches, which muddles the issue and is an inaccurate representation.

*I'm assuming that when you say "unfinished" you're talking about fixing things that are broken based on that last line.

Absolutely the wrong direction. I hate 1upt, hexes are good but not necessary, I hate global happiness, and I dislike social policies. I also hate the emphasis on removing "bad" features instead of improving them.

That's why I don't think Civ5 will ever be better than Civ4, even after a ton of patches and a few expansions. The core features are fundamentally bad. My opinion of course.

I feel like I was pretty clear that I was talking about content (like maps and civs) and not patches. Your gripe was that the game felt unfinished*, and since you'd already paid full retail price, you don't like having to pay to get the polished product. My point was that you don't pay more to get the fixes you're talking about; you're conflating paid DLC with free patches, which muddles the issue and is an inaccurate representation.

*I'm assuming that when you say "unfinished" you're talking about fixing things that are broken based on that last line.

Yes, you were pretty clear. I decided to mix things and base an overall opinion. Although I lose accuracy as you stated, I can convey my overall feelings better :P

And yes, I don't pay extra to get the game fixed. But the game is not fixed, and never will be (I say this based on development progress - on everything that has been fixed from release date 'till now). So I feel very much frustrated.

Ah, well now we're on the same page. :)

I agree that the game will probably never be fixed in its entirety, but at least for me it's to the point where I can really enjoy it (Baldur's Gate 1 is one of my favorite games ever, and it's still one of the buggiest games I've ever played). But I'm still really disappointed in 2K for pushing the project through way before it was finished, so I agree with you on that one.

Ah, well now we're on the same page. :)

I agree that the game will probably never be fixed in its entirety, but at least for me it's to the point where I can really enjoy it (Baldur's Gate 1 is one of my favorite games ever, and it's still one of the buggiest games I've ever played). But I'm still really disappointed in 2K for pushing the project through way before it was finished, so I agree with you on that one.

Civ IV is very strong evidence that V will never be finished in its entirety:

1. Skeleton UN code (say hello to picking resolutions at total random and voting yes even when it is ludicrously obvious doing so is detrimental to the yes voter)
2. Vassal state nonsense like having a vassal makes your enemies think they're stronger
3. Tech trades balanced against other empire output features (oxford + library university is a 150% capitol multiplier and 50% elsewhere; tech trading with 3 AI is a 200-300% multiplier in all cities). Note that this joke tradition is continued with RA where gold is multiplied into beakers at 3:1 or more (there is no other way to come close to those returns on gold by investing it elsewhere, ever).
4. The Apostolic Palace auto-win minority religion
5. Unit selection hotkeys. Stack management hotkeys. UI disgraces are neither new nor unique with V.
6. Random event balance is a mess and has ruined competitions
7. Bugged overflow (that was known after a patch and never patched)

and more. Note that all of the above are 3.19 bts issues, not vanilla issues. Some of them are gameplay 101 failures, others allow players to break the game for autowins, others are simply poor design that probably shouldn't have seen vanilla. Some of V's mechanical issues will eventually be addressed in patches or DLC, but if history is any indicator to us, we'll be having control/UI/design issues with civ V 5-6 years from now, or forever.

It's a step in the right direction because 1upt is the future. It's too bad Civ 5 is not up to par, but it's the first game in the series like this. Once Firaxis has had time to make good AI, the AI should be just as good as Civ 4. The other problems with Civ 5 I pretty much attribute to the game being rushed. Civ 6 should be better. If it's not any better, only then could I maybe say it's the wrong direction. But then it could just be that Firaxis is incapable of the job and maybe another developer can handle it. Too many variables.

Another thing comes to mind - the game crashes much more often than Civ4 did. It's not a problem with my machine, hardware, software (Vista), settings etc. I have a laptop as well with Windows 7 and the problem is exactly the same.

I don't know whether the problem is caused by the game or Windows or both, so it's hard to address the blame but never the less, it's frustrating.

And - production is generally to weak. There are several buildings/units, especially in the late game not worth the hammers by a long shot.

A lot of Civ5 haters don't access the Civ5 forums by now, so I think polls like these are not really valid.

Not haters. A lot of Civ-gamers simply do not find Civ5 worth spending their time.

Good direction :
- hexes, 1upt attempt, city expanding tile per tile, barbs camps


Wrong direction :
- greed : too early release, paid DLC, poor content (squander one of the best licence ever)
- poor epic feeling, boring
- 1upt & AI implementation (just don't work)
- puppet cities
- global hapiness
- commercial roads, religion, spy
- civilopedia


I am back to Civ4 BTS with the lovely mod Realism Invictus

Words. I`m going back to Civ4 RI too.

I love civ 5, it's pretty fun. I found it much easier to grasp than civ 4. My main annoyance has been the crashes, it almost seemed like there was a rule that said 1 crash per game. I haven't had a crash since the last update though.

Good direction :
- hexes, 1upt attempt, city expanding tile per tile, barbs camps


Wrong direction :
- greed : too early release, paid DLC, poor content (squander one of the best licence ever)
- poor epic feeling, boring
- 1upt & AI implementation (just don't work)
- puppet cities
- global hapiness
- commercial roads, religion, spy
- civilopedia


I am back to Civ4 BTS with the lovely mod Realism Invictus

Excellent post.

I'll have to check out that mod. Never tried it before. :)

Not haters. A lot of Civ-gamers simply do not find Civ5 worth spending their time.

Alright, a lot of Civ5 unlikers, then. :rolleyes:

Excellent post.

I'll have to check out that mod. Never tried it before. :)

I am trying this mod as well, started this weekend. It has been fun and well balanced so far, I think.

Wrong direction.

- Diplomacy is horrible and a huge step backwards from the innovative Civ4.
- The economy is nowhere near as interesting. The removal of commerce seems like a mistake to me. Science from population is not the way to go.
- Tech tree is a step backwards. My advice would be to go back to OR-arrows and again allow dead-end techs.
- The idea that small empires should be just as powerful as big ones.
- Puppet cities. What and awful concept. It's like playing a first person shooter where you're not allowed to shoot.
- City states. Some strange mini-civ that plays by completely different rules than the rest. How fun is that? Not much. CS is so badly integrated into the game that you should think it was an expansion-pack feature. CS will hopefully be axed in Civ6.
- Removal of religion. Of course that's a step in the wrong direction. Even if you didn't like the exact implementation in Civ4, removing it can't be called a step in the right direction (in the real world however...)
- Global happiness. Well it's not entirely global anymore, but Civ4s maintenance and local happy/health was a much better system.
- Removal of foreign trade routes. Really doesn't need any comments does it?
- Research agreements. I'm not quite sure about this one. In one way, I like removing tech trading and bringing in a new mechanic. Shared research does make some sense, but the implementation of RAs is just so horrible that it's hard to call it a step in the right direction. Tech trades ala Civ4 was a lot better than Civ5-RAs.

The game was released with just as many civs as Civ IV, for roughly the same price.

While both Civ IV and Civ V were released with 18 civilizations, many of the civilizations in Civ IV had more than one leader. The difference in leader abilities could strongly affect how a civilization played.

While both Civ IV and Civ V were released with 18 civilizations, many of the civilizations in Civ IV had more than one leader. The difference in leader abilities could strongly affect how a civilization played.
In V, civs are actually unique and different.

While Civ V contains individual ideas which have a lot of merit, the game as a whole must be said to be a step in the wrong direction.

While Civ IV needed a streamlining and a gentler treshold for beginners, Civ V ended up being less streamlining and more a decimation. "We should fix the problems in Civ IV" should make you think "improve", not "castrate."

The greater focus on tactical combat sounds like a good idea initially, but a game can't be both a deep strategic game and an intense tactical game at the same time. A Civilization game where you spend more time worrying over troop dispositions than over city management and production queues isn't much of a Civilization game to my eyes.

The game has also lost its sense of history. While the Civiliopedia has always contained errors and have never been something you could mistake for a serious historical work, the one in Civ V is just beyond tragic. Add to that the removal of wonder movies, the very game-y introduction speeches for each leader, the low quality of the technology quotes and the over-simplified technology tree, and you end up with a feeling that to Civ V "history" is just a flat theatre backdrop rather than something the game takes a serious interest in.

More importantly, it's lost its balance. Civilization used to have a near-perfect mix of micro-decisions and micro-rewards which gave the games the infamous "One. More. Turn." feel. Civ V has lost this.

In V, civs are actually unique and different.

*shrugs* Maybe -- but seems to me that their differences actually matters a whole lot less to the way you play the game in CIV V than in Civ IV.

*shrugs* Maybe -- but seems to me that their differences actually matters a whole lot less to the way you play the game in CIV V than in Civ IV.

Er. Nope. Try Civ5 again. They have dramatic effects actually.

Er. Nope. Try Civ5 again. They have dramatic effects actually.

I think Leif has a point.

Like, a game played for cultural victory is essentially the same in Civ5 no matter the civ you choose. Almost the same with diplomatic victory - get allies and tech rush towards United Nations and not much else...

A cultural victory in Civ4bts could be entirely different from game to game and the civ you chose, could mean a big difference in the way you played for that win.

Er. Nope. Try Civ5 again. They have dramatic effects actually.

Yes, but, in my opinion, on quite narrow areas of the gameplay whereas the differences between civilizations in Civ IV appears less dramatic but affects almost all the gameplay to some degree. If you will, where Civ V civilizations make an impact like a splash of colour, the civilizations in Civ IV appeared as a general tint of the entire game.

While the Civiliopedia has always contained errors and have never been something you could mistake for a serious historical work...

What, are you telling me that a single unarmed Navy SEAL isn't more dangerous than an entire platoon of soldiers? :p

What, are you telling me that a single unarmed Navy SEAL isn't more dangerous than an entire platoon of soldiers? :p

hahaha, thanks for making me spill my coffee on my keyboard :p

A lot of Civ5 haters don't access the Civ5 forums by now, so I think polls like these are not really valid.

haters never left. they are lurking, watching, and skewing polls :cool:

We try to stay away from the word "haters" on this site (much like we don't allow terms like "fanbois' either). It is seen as a little bit too inflammatory. Thanks.


Too early to tell.

Give Civ V the same time to develop with expansions and more patches as Civ 4 before making this decision.

you mean the Civ:World expansion?



Civ IV is very strong evidence that V will never be finished in its entirety
[...]

every game has a finite lifecycle. imho the length of civ5's lifecycle is heavily dependent on how many more DLC 2K plans to sell. after that count reaches zero, civ5 will be forgotten


the on topic part:
the biggest problem with civ5 is that it is simply not fun.
too much stuff got "streamlined" that there is really nothing to do on a turn by turn basis -> definitely a step in the wrong direction.

and firaxis wanted civ5 to appeal to the casual crowd? really? :lol:

What, are you telling me that a single unarmed Navy SEAL isn't more dangerous than an entire platoon of soldiers? :p

Depends. Does he have a radio?

(After all, the second-most most dangerous thing in the world is an infantry soldier with a radio.)

hexes are the only improvement for me. add them to civ 4 and it's a finished product. you don't need to improve anything. civ 5 as it is now it's a lame product if it's considered to be a part of the civilization series, if is not then is a very good game, too bad that i don't like it at all

give it 12-15months.
its an unfinished early release pressured by greedy ###s
once the game is somewhat complete in 12-15months it'll be awesome.
i'm willing to give the game at least 12months to see how they will improve it seeing as since its release it has improved a lot, but then it had a lot of room to improve...

once the game is somewhat complete in 12-15months it'll be awesome.

I've heard similar songs too many times before to give them much credence. In most cases cries of "it's just teething problems" is a sign that a computer project is in dire straits indeed. To paraphrase Bob the Angry Flower (http://www.angryflower.com/schrod.gif) "I can't play possible games. I need actual games."

give it 12-15months.
its an unfinished early release pressured by greedy ###s
once the game is somewhat complete in 12-15months it'll be awesome.
i'm willing to give the game at least 12months to see how they will improve it seeing as since its release it has improved a lot, but then it had a lot of room to improve...

Hopefully Firaxis won't make the errors they made in Civ IV and will produce fixes for old issues instead of ignoring the old issues in favor of releasing even more broken mechanics. :lol:

But given how many things they're at least making improvements on if not outright fixing, it seems they're on track. Now we just need to hope they don't decide to introduce peace-vassals and magic fairy dust. :p

Remember people, people thought IV was a step in the wrong direction in the beginning, but it was given time, and look what a gem it is now.

I feel like it's 5 steps in the right direction and 4 in the wrong, so it's hard to say. Overall, some of the wrong direction steps are much worse, and my opinion changes daily.

give it 12-15months.
its an unfinished early release pressured by greedy ###s
once the game is somewhat complete in 12-15months it'll be awesome.
i'm willing to give the game at least 12months to see how they will improve it seeing as since its release it has improved a lot, but then it had a lot of room to improve...

Your post made me laugh. Seriously.

I think you are being sarcastic here, but I still don't know. :)

those are some surprising poll results up there.

I think combat was a step in the right direction.everything else feels like a basic foundation to be built upon later. *crosses fingers* hopefully.

5.the general sense of the game being dumbed down.
Civ III had a level higher than deity called Sid. Civ IV removed the Sid level. More people seem to able play deity in Civ V than previous versions. This might be a logical progression.

Your post made me laugh. Seriously.

I think you are being sarcastic here, but I still don't know. :)

no sarcasm. i really do think CivV will be awesome in 12months.
only question is will the Modders beat them to it or will the developers improve it

but the last part i said how they had a lot of room to improve.
if you bought the pre-ordered the game and played it the day of the release or even beta...it was pretty bad and they couldn't really do much more wrong :D
they left the only option which is to improve because they honestly exhausted the "how can we screw this up" option

no sarcasm. i really do think CivV will be awesome in 12months.
only question is will the Modders beat them to it or will the developers improve it

but the last part i said how they had a lot of room to improve.
if you bought the pre-ordered the game and played it the day of the release or even beta...it was pretty bad and they couldn't really do much more wrong :D
they left the only option which is to improve because they honestly exhausted the "how can we screw this up" option

I did pre-order the game, but I don't think it improved all that much. It's playable, but not enjoyable. :cry:

Right direction, absolutely. The game is also far superior right now to what it was at release. Very happy with the support/updates.

The Idea is a step the right dirrection but it is bad made currently.
i love the combat system just like chess but then in civilization. Olso the hexes are a great improvement...

Hower i dont thinx it is currently going to the right direction know because of the many bugs and extremely rondom AI. Olso the denouncing system is really anoying and i personnaly find it that it makes a less cool gameplay experience

Currently i dont thinx it is going to the right dirrection because of the bugs and the diplomacy system But it could be improved by patches !!!

Sow we shall see in time

you mean the Civ:World expansion?



No, I mean the Civ V expansion.

I'll guess you're trying to be clever and imply that Civ V has been abandoned for Civ World, which is very disputable considering that Civ V still has another patch coming out (and probably many more).

The fact that people compare a game which had years of patching and expansion to a game that had a few months of patches is silly. If you don't like the game now, that's your opinion. However saying that it will never be anything better is pointless in my opinion.

(..)
The fact that people compare a game which had years of patching and expansion to a game that had a few months of patches is silly. If you don't like the game now, that's your opinion. However saying that it will never be anything better is pointless in my opinion.

alright, no need to go that far. Compare it to Civ 4 Vanilla ;)

Right:
- graphics
- hexes
- 1upt
- single hex cultural expansion
- global happiness
- happiness golden ages
- great people (not random, better golden ages)
- culture spent on social policies
- strategic/operational ai split (although this is an under the hood thing)
- diplomacy design philosophy

Wrong:
- poor quality: performance, crashes, balance, combat ai, skitzo diplomacy ai
- missing content

Wish List:
- like to see a 1 army per tile 1apt system rather than a 1upt: army attacks as single unit, limited number of armies (generals), soft cap on number of units per army (general's command ability)
- foreign trade routes based on a trade agreement
- cultural exchanges (like cultural CS but with civs)
- more city state interaction beyond bribes
- a civic system integrated into the social policy system with civics unlocked based on SP selection

civilization was never a war game and shouldn't be made into one. I play very few games, but I loved civ 4. It was like they got everything right. The ai can beat me, if I get annoyed by certain rules I can turn them off, and so on. Civ 5 is a horrible game. One unit per tile is awful- it's an artificial limit that clutters the game and makes it tedious to play. I don't care what opions anyone for it has, it's broken and those who support this system are fools lacking the intelligence to handle stack composition. Civ is not a war game; it simulates a civilization growing through the ages- not a 6000 year way. Screw Schafer and whoever else made this piece of crap I spent half a c note to own. I'm glad the bastard left civ and I hope he repeatedly gets fired and ends up begging on the corner. I still can't fathom that he came up with beyond the sword- maybe he was struck by lightning that day or his girlfriend broke up with him and he decided he was going to try an ruin the series. Social policies? Another joke for retards and little kids because it takes away from the purpose of the game. And since most intelligent people left the forum and don't play or care about what 60 IQ fanboys say about the game, I'll remind everyone what the purpose is again: simulating a civilization growing over 6000 years. If you can't figure out why civ 5 sucks or don't think it does, you are the audience that ruined our game. Thanks a lot

This post is trolling/flaming. Not a good start to posting here...

So wait, explain to me again how you have to be an idiot to like V? It's not just a war game.

I'll remind everyone what the purpose is again: simulating a civilization growing over 6000 years. If you can't figure out why civ 5 sucks or don't think it does, you are the audience that ruined our game. Thanks a lotTell that to the 107 people who voted that it's a step in the right direction.

So wait, explain to me again how you have to be an idiot to like V? It's not just a war game.

This. Really, if many IV-fanatics would give it a serious chance, especially after the continual patches, they'd realize it does have a lot of potential. I loved IV, and i'm really enjoying V. It has a lot to offer.

This. Really, if many IV-fanatics would give it a serious chance, especially after the continual patches, they'd realize it does have a lot of potential. I loved IV, and i'm really enjoying V. It has a lot to offer.

Ive given it a chance every single patch, every single dlc. Its still a sad pathetic joke compared to 4. If 100 hours logged on this garbage doesn't equal a serious chance, then I can't give it anymore then that. Its not a matter of patching that will fix it, the very base concepts its developed on are its flaw.

So wait, explain to me again how you have to be an idiot to like V? It's not just a war game.

Could have fooled me. Since there's with no religion, real diplomacy, espionage or anyway to solve anything besides war war war. I spend about 5x as much time fighting in this game then any previous civ and I don't even play for conquest victories, 95% of these wars wouldn't have even occured in the previous as the AI leaders are now all paranoid bi-polars with a dash of schizophrenia and a whole lot of chronic backstabing syndrome.

No, I mean the Civ V expansion.

I'll guess you're trying to be clever and imply that Civ V has been abandoned for Civ World, which is very disputable considering that Civ V still has another patch coming out (and probably many more).

The fact that people compare a game which had years of patching and expansion to a game that had a few months of patches is silly. If you don't like the game now, that's your opinion. However saying that it will never be anything better is pointless in my opinion.

1st, there won't be a expansion. We'd have heard MONTHS ago if one was being made, and theres nothing to add, everything in 4 that's not in 5 Sid himself said he didn't like in his developer confrence speech. Actually, we'd already have heard news of the SECOND expansion by now if we went by 3 and 4's timetable.

2nd, like I said earlier, the very base concepts 5 is built on is what makes it so bad. The patch isn't going to remake the game, at best they can polish flawed concepts but they'll never be much more then that are now.

I am a big fan of 1UPT, that's perfect, I love this game!

I start playing Civ from Civ 2, and I definitely believed that Civ 5 is in a right direction.

I am a big fan of 1UPT, that's perfect, I love this game!

That's the one argument I really don't get from the people who like Civ V. I mean, I love hexagonal, tactical war-games too -- Panzer General, Battle Isle, The Battle for Wesnoth, Advanced Strategic Command et al -- and compared to what's already out there (and has been for ages) Civ V's tactical combat just isn't up to snuff. As a hexagonal war-game, Civ V is mediocre at best. So why all the praise?

Right:
- graphics
- hexes
- 1upt
- single hex cultural expansion
- global happiness
- happiness golden ages
- great people (not random, better golden ages)
- culture spent on social policies
- strategic/operational ai split (although this is an under the hood thing)
- diplomacy design philosophy

Wrong:
- poor quality: performance, crashes, balance, combat ai, skitzo diplomacy ai
- missing content


I agree with this. I really love 1upt as I hated stack of doom in cIV.

However, I miss being able to culturally take over a city. Those were the days.

A few months ago I probably voted wrong direction. But after a week of one more turning until 2 a.m. on work nights... I have to say Civ V is fun again. I'm not sure if its the updates or the fact that I bought a machine that can handle the bloated nature of this beast, but I am having fun.

I have been reading up on the strategy board and playing the Mac GOTM. I am addicted to trying to get 1000 beaker city online... and by doing so, I've learned so much about the little things.

I do have the feeling that there might not be enough complexity to the game as I've found myself slipping into a pattern of production, SPs, and tech... but I'm sure I'm only scratching the surface as to how the game can be managed and won.

Fun game... that's the bottom line. I no longer feel like I am not getting my $$$ worth.

1st, there won't be a expansion. We'd have heard MONTHS ago if one was being made, and theres nothing to add, everything in 4 that's not in 5 Sid himself said he didn't like in his developer confrence speech. Actually, we'd already have heard news of the SECOND expansion by now if we went by 3 and 4's timetable.

2nd, like I said earlier, the very base concepts 5 is built on is what makes it so bad. The patch isn't going to remake the game, at best they can polish flawed concepts but they'll never be much more then that are now.

3rd - opinions do not equal facts.

Why can't there be an expansion pack? There's no reason to assume they would be on any set schedule from 6 years ago. Civ V was clearly released in a state which needed a lot more patches just to get to where it is now.

Civ V has had a steady number of players on Steam since release, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't want to sell an expansion pack to that market.

Also, I think it is just overly negative to say the game is "beyond hope". Each patch has improved the game significantly, and there is still at the very least one more patch to come. People act like Civ V was dumped and that there is zero support for it, when quite the opposite is the case.

That's the one argument I really don't get from the people who like Civ V. I mean, I love hexagonal, tactical war-games too -- Panzer General, Battle Isle, The Battle for Wesnoth, Advanced Strategic Command et al -- and compared to what's already out there (and has been for ages) Civ V's tactical combat just isn't up to snuff. As a hexagonal war-game, Civ V is mediocre at best. So why all the praise?

You're conflating hexagonal tiles/1UPT with being a war game. Just because (in your opinion) those two coincide doesn't mean one caused the other.

You're conflating hexagonal tiles/1UPT with being a war game. Just because (in your opinion) those two coincide doesn't mean one caused the other.

Well, if it's not the tactical wargame aspect of Civ V's hexagons and 1UPT that has people enthuse about them, what is it about them that some people love some much?

Why can't there be an expansion pack? There's no reason to assume they would be on any set schedule from 6 years ago. Civ V was clearly released in a state which needed a lot more patches just to get to where it is now.

Like I said, under Sid's current gaming philosophy there's nothing to add.

Civ V has had a steady number of players on Steam since release, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't want to sell an expansion pack to that market.

Steady number? It peaks at 20k very rarely and 8k at the lowest point of the day, for a exclusively Steam game with 3 million people at the peak point of the day, that's pretty damn sad. Look at their DLC sales on steam, less then 1% of the population even bothered with the Polensian(sp?) faction. The earlier DLC didn't fare much better, so It shows people aren't having it.

Also, I think it is just overly negative to say the game is "beyond hope". Each patch has improved the game significantly, and there is still at the very least one more patch to come. People act like Civ V was dumped and that there is zero support for it, when quite the opposite is the case.

Yah... and what are they using their primary development time on for this one? Trying to fix one of the major broken portions of the game? Ha. Fixing multiplayer? Ya right. No, their adding Hotseat, which I would beat my life on that less then a percent of the people who play Civilization care about at all. Considering multiplayer doesn't work at all, and not for connectivity reasons, its once again, another useless waste of time. And sure they'll put some minor changes to diplomacy and such in there, but it won't change either thing, its proven only a major major change would work.

Well, if it's not the tactical wargame aspect of Civ V's hexagons and 1UPT that has people enthuse about them, what is it about them that some people love some much?

The fact that it was completely plausible to have Civ V in its current form but with stacks of doom (which most people hate) and square tiles (almost universally disliked compared to hexes). Some people dislike that they think Civ V is a wargame, which is understandable, but almost nobody comes here saying they'd prefer there were no combat at all in it. And when there is combat, there's a general preference for 1UPT and hexes.

Plus, your mention of the "tactical wargame aspect of Civ V's hexagons and 1UPT" again conflates the two. I don't know if you mean this or not, but your posts come across as "if we didn't have 1UPT and hexes, this wouldn't have been a wargame." It's not a wargame because of those. If it is at all, it's because the diplomacy is poor and war is too profitable, not because they retooled the way you move troops.

Like I said, under Sid's current gaming philosophy there's nothing to add.


What??? Sid supposedly isn't even involved in Civ V. Do you have facts to go with this?


Steady number? It peaks at 20k very rarely and 8k at the lowest point of the day, for a exclusively Steam game with 3 million people at the peak point of the day, that's pretty damn sad. Look at their DLC sales on steam, less then 1% of the population even bothered with the Polensian(sp?) faction. The earlier DLC didn't fare much better, so It shows people aren't having it.


Civ V is consistently in the top 10 of games played on Steam. No, it isn't going to come close to FPS games like COD, but would Civ IV have either? No way. Civ (any version) just is never going to have the mass appeal of a COD shooter.

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Where in the world are you getting your DLC stats? Do you just make them up or do you have a source? Facts are fun.


And sure they'll put some minor changes to diplomacy and such in there, but it won't change either thing, its proven only a major major change would work.

Diplomacy can easily be fixed. The problem is that "fixing" to you means making it into Civ 4 (which is never going to happen).

What??? Sid supposedly isn't even involved in Civ V. Do you have facts to go with this?

Sid still thumbs up or down all the decisions, he just doesn't actually do the work anymore.

Civ V is consistently in the top 10 of games played on Steam. No, it isn't going to come close to FPS games like COD, but would Civ IV have either? No way. Civ (any version) just is never going to have the mass appeal of a COD shooter.

The way its going, I wouldn't be suprised if dumbed down to the point your average COD player could play it.


http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Where in the world are you getting your DLC stats? Do you just make them up or do you have a source? Facts are fun.

Look at the global achievements for the game, and look at all the ones based on DLC, there at the dead bottom in the under 1% margin.

Diplomacy can easily be fixed. The problem is that "fixing" to you means making it into Civ 4 (which is never going to happen).

Glad to see functional AI is now one of those "outdated Civ4 features".

Look at the global achievements for the game, and look at all the ones based on DLC, there at the dead bottom in the under 1% margin.


I've purchased a lot of DLC and I don't have any achievements. Your numbers simply cannot be gotten from there.

Not going to imply that 5 is perfect, but it is a huge step in the right direction. I still like to compare it to Windows Vista, lot of vitriol for changing stuff people had become comfortable with but ultimately necessary.

Also, like Vista, it's gotten much, much better with subsequent patches.

1UPT, huge improvement. New combat system, huge improvement (not having every fight be to the death). AI control of units, tragically poor (albeit improved with patches).

I could go on, but I'd just be parroting what others have said. I still play Civ4 for multiplayer, but single player is strictly Civ5. No matter the problems it had at release it's a strong upgrade for the series and is getting better with every patch. I'm happy I bought it and enjoy playing.

Ultimately Civ V had to depart from the previous games. II was a huge departure from the original Civ. III and IV, while they had their differences, didn’t distinguish themselves from each other like II did to the original. V went off in a new direction, and I think that’s good for the franchise. Its obvious V is not a polished game yet, and it might not ever be, but it’s still a very enjoyable game that is very different from the rest of the Civ series. And I like it for that. New for the sake of New is not always good, but in the case of Civ V, New is good.

Anyone here who's seen my previous posts knows my vote. I have no issue with franchises going in new directions. That doesn't mean I blindly forgive all faults. Civ V was ambitious, too much so for its own good. It has tried a lot of new things, some of which were good ideas and some of which were terrible ideas, and IMO very few of them have worked. It's no longer a civilization-building game so much as it is a tactical war game with bad AI. Thanks to constant patching, the game has improved enough to where I can play a round now and then when I'm utterly bored with everything else I have, but it'll never quite hold a candle to its predecessors.

It's a step in the right direction because 1upt is the future. It's too bad Civ 5 is not up to par, but it's the first game in the series like this. Once Firaxis has had time to make good AI, the AI should be just as good as Civ 4. The other problems with Civ 5 I pretty much attribute to the game being rushed. Civ 6 should be better. If it's not any better, only then could I maybe say it's the wrong direction. But then it could just be that Firaxis is incapable of the job and maybe another developer can handle it. Too many variables.

I'm of the same mind, and I think Civ5 can be a better game ultimately. It's up to 2k/Firaxis where they take it.

They can add a lot of content in a major expansion of milk us dry with small content packs.

I believe it was a step in the right direction, mostly because in combat, you must think to win battles, whether that is with AI (which you think considerably less) or with people.

The policies are also a step in the right direction, just I wish they would have had governments with different social policies within them.

Definitely a step in the wrong direction. The biggest reason is the "streamlining" which equated out to dumbing down the game. ciV is a much less involved/complex game than cIV, which is why I've gone back to cIV. I've logged so many hours on cIV that I've long ago lost count and I STILL find it an interesting game full of different possibilities every time I fire up a game. ciV is boring by comparison.

Agreed, futurehermit. Civ IV had interesting decisions at every step of the journey, Civ V lacks that. It's also incredibly easy compared to Civ IV, and that is part of what makes it more boring for me. I find Immortal interesting, but too often it's an all or nothing affair. Not so in Civ IV. I have a fighting chance, and the rollercoaster rides to victory or defeat are all exhilarating. It's a pity Civ V lacks that "aura" of fun, intellectual challenge and reward.

Definitely a step in the wrong direction. The biggest reason is the "streamlining" which equated out to dumbing down the game. ciV is a much less involved/complex game than cIV, which is why I've gone back to cIV. I've logged so many hours on cIV that I've long ago lost count and I STILL find it an interesting game full of different possibilities every time I fire up a game. ciV is boring by comparison.

Some of the very worst things about civ V were brought over from civ IV though. I pulled out a stopwatch and timed between-turn times in civ IV on a machine way better than people had when it came out and ridiculously higher than recommended specs. 30 second turns in mid-game huge maps. For people who have hotkey knowledge, such is frequently longer than the time it takes them to play a turn. V takes this to a further extreme.

Other big issue is user interface/controls. The games both play very slowly but V decided to take IV's ineptitude and carry it to a whole new level. Forget queuing, you can't even manage cities without going into them and then removing obstructive popup menus! To queue you have to do nearly triple the input actions of civ IV, which already had lots of interface problems.

This is one of the hardest things about civ V for me to get over; in a game released in 2010, it makes terrible UI mistakes that good games from the mid-late 90's didn't make. There is not a single excuse in the world Firaxis can come up with that is a valid defense of that.

Some of the very worst things about civ V were brought over from civ IV though. I pulled out a stopwatch and timed between-turn times in civ IV on a machine way better than people had when it came out and ridiculously higher than recommended specs. 30 second turns in mid-game huge maps. For people who have hotkey knowledge, such is frequently longer than the time it takes them to play a turn. V takes this to a further extreme.

Other big issue is user interface/controls. The games both play very slowly but V decided to take IV's ineptitude and carry it to a whole new level. Forget queuing, you can't even manage cities without going into them and then removing obstructive popup menus! To queue you have to do nearly triple the input actions of civ IV, which already had lots of interface problems.

This is one of the hardest things about civ V for me to get over; in a game released in 2010, it makes terrible UI mistakes that good games from the mid-late 90's didn't make. There is not a single excuse in the world Firaxis can come up with that is a valid defense of that.

Maybe it's because I'm bordering on OCD when I end up playing and that this is usually a good quality for people playing Civ... but I love that practically everything shows up as some form of warning, or that when I'm setting a city production I'm just a few clicks away from being able to manipulate when it's going to come out. I think it might be holding my hand a little too much at times. However I wouldn't want a game that would have me digging through menus every turn to figure out when a Deal ended, or when Production for something finished.

I just don't feel the need to use queue all that much, maybe because I've learned from many games that queuing is usually bad so I don't care much for it except for Modern wars and 95%+ of my games are already mostly decided before I get to Modern so *shrug*.

The trade off I think is that with stacks of doom being gone and the number of cities having dropped by a good amount, production is a lot less spammy.

Quick and concise for me:

Step in the right direction - some pretty revolutionary ideas, some hilariously bad implementations in some regards (hi combat AI) but if you have to step through some mud to get to the burger joint, it's still a step in the right direction.

Quick and concise for me:

Step in the right direction - some pretty revolutionary ideas, some hilariously bad implementations in some regards (hi combat AI) but if you have to step through some mud to get to the burger joint, it's still a step in the right direction.

Depends if you want fast food/junk food or a healthy, satisfying meal of course. ;)

I'd rather go to the latter rather than the former.

I like McDonalds.

...


help

(my point stands - 90% of the problem with Civ5 is in the implementation. I was more excited about the previews of Civ5 than any other game just due to the proposed mechanic changes. Playing it on the other hand... eh.)

I like McDonalds.

...


help

Fair enough. Everyone has different tastes. :)

I don't find it as filling though.

Certainly isn't organic anyway. Lol.

In a way, Civ V itself is like McDonald's. It tries to attract a large audience, and brings many people to it, yet some people want something more refined. They think the burgers taste... cheap. And yet to others, it simply taste better than some fancy meal, and they find it easy accessible and keep wanting to go back. I'm one of those people.

I'd say it's a step in the right direction, but it still has a way to go to be better than IV, even though I like it better even now.

I'd say it's a step in the right direction, but it still has a way to go to be better than IV, even though I like it better even now.

Very important distinction. I enjoy Civ V more than I enjoy Civ IV, even though I acknowledge that the former is a lesser product at its current state than the latter at its end state (because god knows we can't refer to IV's "finished state" – it's still monumentally broken and always will be).

I'm really enjoying it lately. Still needs a bit more content like espionage/some extra techs/extra wonders although I don't see how they would fit. More positive modifiers for diplo, maybe religion, better UN etc. Just more open-ended playstyle. But you could say that about any vanilla Civ version. Love the graphics and sounds and I like the global happiness and 1UPT if the AI improves. The more common objections to this game are over my head, in my games on King I don't notice any problems.

3. poor combat ai while I can live with it as it is its still not up to civ 4 standereds.


To be fair, I don't think the combat AI is less good than Civ 4 but the 1upt have made it flaws more visibles.

In civ4 all the AI needed to do was to create a SOD and march on your territories until it win or you manage to destroy it.

In civ5 however, it now need to concern itself with unit position, melee and ranged score, etc.

It has been improved since the release but it's still too easy to lure the AI into a dead trap.

One firm step into dogpoo.

wow the votes are even now and that does not take into account all the people run off by the pro civ 5 guys that just berade and bash anyone who does not like civ 5.

wow the votes are even now and that does not take into account all the people run off by the pro civ 5 guys that just berade and bash anyone who does not like civ 5.

They're not even. And it doesn't count those who spend their time playing civ instead of listening to the haters on the forums, or the casual gamers who haven't found the forums yet because they're new to civ.

Please try to avoid using the word "haters" to describe those that don't like the game, it's unnecessarily inflammatory. Thanks.

I've been playing CivWorld for almost 2 weeks now and I can say civ5 is 100% the wrong direction.

They're not even. And it doesn't count those who spend their time playing civ instead of listening to the haters on the forums, or the casual gamers who haven't found the forums yet because they're new to civ.

they are only off by 4% so there relativley even.;)

I've been playing CivWorld for almost 2 weeks now and I can say civ5 is 100% the wrong direction.

The two are not related except for the basic concept. If anything, it's splitting Civ into two trails. If CivWorld were called Civ V, that would be a different story. But Sid has made it pretty clear that CivWorld is NOT Civ V.

The two are not related except for the basic concept. If anything, it's splitting Civ into two trails. If CivWorld were called Civ V, that would be a different story. But Sid has made it pretty clear that CivWorld is NOT Civ V.

you just contradicted yourself. they are related and he stated that civ world was better.

It's like comparing Mario Kart to Super Mario. Same game, but different ideas. The direction of one does not indicate the direction of the other.

It's like comparing Mario Kart to Super Mario. Same game, but different ideas. The direction of one does not indicate the direction of the other.

no its not one is a kart racer and the other a platformer. these are both civ games.

no its not one is a kart racer and the other a platformer. these are both civ games.

One is a streamlined civ game, which shows that V was barely streamlined at all. After all, V added just as many features as it removed.

One is a streamlined civ game, which shows that V was barely streamlined at all. After all, V added just as many features as it removed.

5 is the most streamlined civ ever.

5 is the most streamlined civ ever.

What was added between VANILLA Civ IV and V:
1upt
Ranged Units
City Defense
Encampments
Social Policies instead of Civics
Great Generals
Unique Buildings + Improvements
Unique Abilities instead of 2 traits from a small list
More Geographically and Culturally Diverse Civs (which, in my opinion, is good)
DoFs
Denouncing
Cultural, Maritime, and Militaristic City-States
RAs
Limited Number of Strategic Resources

Good riddance to espionage (it was too confusing), health (too similar to food), and religion (unnecessarily dominated the game, not able to turn off).

Although I would like tech and map trading back.

I guess my opinion will differ from lots of other people, btw I didn't vote.

I didn't vote because depending on the question, it will give different answer

On the right direction....I still need to know the origin to answer if the destination is right or not.

To tell my civ experience, I've bought every civgame up untill Civ IV including all expansions before IV. When I bought IV I played it for awhile and never felt any new inspiration.

Even when I bought Civ III I felt it was good with every new patch even before the first expansion, and therefore bought all expansions. But with Civ IV I never got the "feeling", can't explain it better. So played it for a few month then put it on the shelf. After every patch i tried a game or 2 but never felt it was something for me. With that experiense I never bought any of the expansions to Civ IV.

So to answer the question. From CivIII conquest or Civ IV vanilla I feel the game has absolutley moved in the right direction, with some maybees.

The maybees I'll mention is from a pure Civ III PoV

Not beeing able to from turn to turn mm your cities to perform the best to your liking.
This might strange from someone who liked MOO1&2 over 3. But in a civ game I like to be able to controll everything, especially the city specialiation wich was a plus in IV compared to III.

Another plus is the easy management, which might sound like a paradox compared to the above one, but the differense playing against some of the best gamers in pbm in Civ III and just having fun in CivV makes it true. You always have to distinguish PvP vs PvE.

Then you always have the graphics, which I don't care about. MY example is, I rather play the 97¨orginal of Pirates on the C64 then the uppgraded version from Firaxis.
Btw Pirates is the offlinegame I've spent most money on becuase of different accident on all from spilling water on my enhancer2000 drive from my parents thrwing the game away and my buying a new one. Anyone else ever spent over 200$ on the first Pirates? :D

This post may split (better word needed), but from my point of view CivV have moved in the right direction (sorry Sirian and Sulla, my long Civfanatic favoirte writers) but I feel so.

//Happy drunk Puwen

But in a civ game I like to be able to controll everything,

Which is the main difference between CivWorld and the traditional civ games.
Try to manage a civ with 30-40 human players where players are not very committed,
most of them are wonder whores, ignoring military and/or being ignorant to players
who trying to defend the civ from being attacked (and losing all techs + wonders) with their army.

wow the votes are even now and that does not take into account all the people run off by the pro civ 5 guys that just berate and bash anyone who does not like civ 5.

Ahh... but are brand new players even joining this particular forum so they can vote yes?

Also doesn't count all the pro civ5 players driven off the general civ5 forum due to constant infighting and civ5 bashing...

But yes its a good indicator of how divisive civ5 has been and the mixed reception its getting from long time fans.

Much work ahead still for the devs

Ahh... but are brand new players even joining this particular forum so they can vote yes?

Also doesn't count all the pro civ5 players driven off the general civ5 forum due to constant infighting and civ5 bashing...

But yes its a good indicator of how divisive civ5 has been and the mixed reception its getting from long time fans.

Much work ahead still for the devs

Meh. Pretty much what I expected.

Most polls have revealed about a 50/50 split and this one isn't really any different.

It certainly does show how divisive the game has been, I agree.

1 unit per tile ftw, too bad the AI doesn't understand the system.

I voted for Right direction

Thing I like:
- Hexes
- New road system
- Social Policies
- 1 unit per tile
- New culture borders system (buy to expand)
These come first to my mind.

Things I don't like (too many to mention, but here's top five)
- Game is too easy (AI not good enough)
- Diplomacy (denouncing isn't enough. I would go Civ4 style with plus minus modifiers)
- No religion
- Research Agreements and Technology is too cheap. AI's advance way too fast.
- City States. The concept isn't developed enough. CS's could be fun if added religious, scientific states and CS's would be tied with random events and giving more interesting quests.

Though it infuriated me to no end, I did vote right direction. I'm one of those Civ III addicts that never got into Civ VI at all. Civ V however, though I'll definitely admit it was limited, tweaked my interest.
Like everyone says the one unit per tile completely changed the strategy, and the hex's, as well as looking much better, play much better than the old square system. Once they get the gameplay and the AI right, that will definitely play off.

The thing with Civ V is that there is so much missed opportunity. They could have really revamped diplomacy. Technology has greatly progressed since 2001, yet diplomacy is still essentially the same as it was in Civ III, maybe even in Civ II (I wouldn't know, long before my time :lol:). More options, more brinkmanship, more agreements.

I actually quite liked the addition of city states, but I think the use of non-civ players could be greatly expanded. Think non-state actors; imagine communist or other political rebels springing up within you're civilization, imagine nationalist rebelions from civ's you've long since conquered that you have to physically put down with troops.

My last gripe is low end PC support. I'm sick and tired of the lag, even on my most basic settings. Gaming equality for all :goodjob:

Ultimately Civ V was good, but needs perfecting. They just need to experiment a bit more with the civilization formular. It's all there, but if your going to be revolutionairy, get it right, and go a whole lot further.

Well I think that most of ciV is a step in the right direction, however it is badly implemented. It's more like a trip in the right direction.
Hexes::goodjob:
1UPT::sad: I think that there are much better ways to stop SODs.
City States::sad: Good idea but badly implemented, City states are to easy to bribe with gold, the penalty for invading an unaligned city state is to great, and city states are too important.
Global happiness::sad: I think there is a place for this, but I think that place is alongside local happiness not in place of it. (For example the Roman people may fell oppressed and discontent but here in the city of Rome it's a party!)
Future era::sad: Here is how I would do future units, you have future armor (possibly some sort of mech), future infantry (Nanosuits:p), future aircraft (Hmm... something orbital maybe?), and future ships (Zumwalt style vessels possibly equipped with Free Electron Lasers)
Tech tree::gripe: Please go back to a cIV style tech tree!
World Builder::sad: Needs in game WB.
AI::gripe: Needs professional help! (Hmm my archers can't see the enemy, I'll just send them onto this hill here RIGHT NEXT THE FREAKIN' ENEMY LONGSWORDSMEN.)
Scenarios::gripe: There aren't any! This is a problem!
DLC::gripe: Yech!
Social Policies::sad: Looks good on paper but doesn't work in practice. Perhaps a (heavily)modified version could exist alongside civics?
New Border expansion::goodjob: Bravo!
Expansion::gripe: Really? I thought we got passed "expand or die" after III.
Feel::sad: Just doesn't feel like civ even III feels like civ and III was the worst.

Maybe civ is just becoming like Star Trek, i.e. Don't trust the odd numbers.

Right direction:
... hex based mapping
... one unit per tile
... citystates
... smaller higher quality military
... smaller bonuses from tile improvement

Wrong direction:
... 1) randomness
... ... I want strategic not lucky
... ... I have all current DLC yet 4/10 games yield the "random" player civ as babylon
... 2) resource distribution
... ... still inordinate number of maps without horse or iron
... 3) combat AI
... 4) diplomacy
... ... the "mystery" of Civ5 diplomacy is the AI are homicidal psychopaths
... ... I want strategy not gimmick
... 5) tech system/RAs/NC/Great Scientists
... ... I want strategy not gimmick
... 6) great people/specialists system
... 7) culture victory
... 8) victory screen
... 9) removal of health/religion/espionage/corporations
... ... without any strategic alternatives
... ... this single handedly removed most of the depth/immersion/complexity
... 10) economy/rush purchase from T0/building costs/monetary penalties
... ... playing this game leaves me wanting to take a bath
... ... I don't like feeling greedy, heartless, mercenary, or blankety blank
... 11) The Civilopedia - other than the game title, does it inform the user of anything?
... 12) The Civilopedia search engine
... 13) The Manual - other than the game title, does it inform the user of anything?
... 14) Steam Required/Online activation
... ... I think online reqs are an industry-wide mistake
... ... more control does not equal less theft
... ... less theft does not equal more profit
... ... more profit (greed) does not equal better product
... ... better product can equal better reputation
... ... better reputation can equal more profit
... ... more profit (sans greed) can equal research/development
... ... research/development can equal improved product
... ... then again, I'm not being very realistic
... 15) etc, etc, etc

I didn't select any of the options, and I agree with whoever it was (too lazy to go re-read 5 pages of posts) that said it was a step sideways.

Good:
-1upt
-graphics
-Hexes
-The combat calculation UI that tells you how likely you are to win
-Ranged attacking is actually ranged.
-Cities can bombard enemies.

Bad:
-Poor AI diplomacy.
-Poor AI diplomacy. (That deserves to be said twice)
-Poor AI combat tactics. It seems like the AI is still trying to make the Stack of Death, only it can't stack so it just spams units everywhere.
-This probably falls under diplomacy, but the AI shouldn't be so eager to go to war with you. Even Ghandi (who's programmed to be the most peaceful) went to war with me after I conquered Askia, and he brought like 5 other Civs with him. Luckily, I had a huge military. But the AI shouldn't do that.

Iffy:
-The Social Policies are okay, I guess. I like some of them, but others seems kinda useless and weak *cough Commerce cough* and I liked the freedom to change that we had in Civ IV, whereas in Civ V once you pick something you're stuck with it.
-On a similar vein, I miss the old culture system. If I pumped up my culture enough, I could cause revolts in enemy cities. My favorite thing to do was plant a city near an enemy's capitol and then pump up that city's culture output to something ridiculous and watch as I slowly took over that capitol's land, then finally the city itself, without ever attacking anything.
-So much of the tech tree is pointless in some situations. I feel like every tech should have some use beyond "I have to get this so I can get the next thing past it." in every situation.
-I'm not sure how I feel about the diversity of the civs. In Civ IV, I noticed a difference in playstyle between Bismark and Alexander (Germany and Greece), where in Civ V the differences are more noticeable, but less impactful. I can play towards a Culture victory as Askia, and a Domination victory as Gandhi without noticing much difference. I use each UU the same as I would use the unit they replace, I just like the extra benefits they provide. In Civ IV, I wouldn't dream of going for a Culture victory as Greece unless I wanted a challenge.

Just my 20 cents or so.

In Civ IV, I wouldn't dream of going for a Culture victory as Greece unless I wanted a challenge.
:confused:
-> Pericles

:confused:
-> Pericles

Never had him as an option, oddly enough. Then again, I never had the expacs, so that might be why. Or it's a glitch. One or the other. Maybe I should have been more specific:
I would never have dreamed of going for a culture victory as Alexander....

I didn't select any of the options, and I agree with whoever it was (too lazy to go re-read 5 pages of posts) that said it was a step sideways.

Good:
-1upt
-graphics
-Hexes
-The combat calculation UI that tells you how likely you are to win
-Ranged attacking is actually ranged.
-Cities can bombard enemies.

Bad:
-Poor AI diplomacy.
-Poor AI diplomacy. (That deserves to be said twice)
-Poor AI combat tactics. It seems like the AI is still trying to make the Stack of Death, only it can't stack so it just spams units everywhere.
-This probably falls under diplomacy, but the AI shouldn't be so eager to go to war with you. Even Ghandi (who's programmed to be the most peaceful) went to war with me after I conquered Askia, and he brought like 5 other Civs with him. Luckily, I had a huge military. But the AI shouldn't do that.

Iffy:
-The Social Policies are okay, I guess. I like some of them, but others seems kinda useless and weak *cough Commerce cough* and I liked the freedom to change that we had in Civ IV, whereas in Civ V once you pick something you're stuck with it.
-On a similar vein, I miss the old culture system. If I pumped up my culture enough, I could cause revolts in enemy cities. My favorite thing to do was plant a city near an enemy's capitol and then pump up that city's culture output to something ridiculous and watch as I slowly took over that capitol's land, then finally the city itself, without ever attacking anything.
-So much of the tech tree is pointless in some situations. I feel like every tech should have some use beyond "I have to get this so I can get the next thing past it." in every situation.
-I'm not sure how I feel about the diversity of the civs. In Civ IV, I noticed a difference in playstyle between Bismark and Alexander (Germany and Greece), where in Civ V the differences are more noticeable, but less impactful. I can play towards a Culture victory as Askia, and a Domination victory as Gandhi without noticing much difference. I use each UU the same as I would use the unit they replace, I just like the extra benefits they provide. In Civ IV, I wouldn't dream of going for a Culture victory as Greece unless I wanted a challenge.

Just my 20 cents or so.

Sage words indeed.

Welcome to the Forums. :)

Sage words indeed.

Welcome to the Forums. :)

Thank you. :D

EDIT to avoid double post: I found this thread linked in the Rants thread, and realised it applied to this discussion almost perfectly. It explains why Civ V is not very fun for very long, and lays it out in (to me) an easy to understand way.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=400803

Well I think that most of ciV is a step in the right direction, however it is badly implemented. It's more like a trip in the right direction.

Maybe civ is just becoming like Star Trek, i.e. Don't trust the odd numbers.

Quoted because I love the first quote.

Also quoted because once again I'm the only person on the planet it seems that liked the first Star Trek movie.

I've played Civ II to Civ V. Civ III was by far the most fun for me when it came out.

Civ IV - which many in this forum seem to like the best, simply bored me. I could never get into the game or enjoy it very much. Don't know why, but it just seemed more mechanical than fun.

Civ V, I enjoy. It has a number of faults, mostly centered on the AI not understanding how to move or make war AND a poor diplomacy game.

But for my 2 cents, it make a number of ground breaking (for Civ) changes in the right direction;

- 1 Unit per Hex
- Hexes
- Making gold useful
- Graphics
- Making roads cost money (which I regard as superhighways) so they don't go everywhere and make the defense absolutely supreme due to movement
- Range units mean something
(and I know its silly that riflemen can't shot two hexes and bowman can, but all games have these types of mechanics)
- City defense (thank the stars)
- City states meaning something other than just something to kill or take over
- The border expansion
- And you can win by going tall or going wide

It did blow it on some major issues:

- Global happiness. Frankly, its sucks.
- The AI can't handle a lot of the changes. It needs a lot of improvement regarding combat, city planning, unit movement and diplomacy.

This represents an execution issue rather than a design issue but execution issues are just as important as design issues.

- When it first came out, the amount of time it took to run a turn. This simply turn off a number of players. This design flaw should NEVER has been allowed to go to publication. I know for a fact that a number of my friends will NEVER play Civ again due to this single issue.
- The UN/political victory. Simply bad design in my opinion.
- AL being required for most modern units and in very short supply, oil not a critical resource
- Abuse of the RA system
- Naval and air combat (or lack of) system
- Lack of an effective MP game

You can argue about other design features (resource distribution), SP, tech tree, number of buildings, but these are more immersion trade offs that a designer has to balance between hard core players and general public.

And then there's STEAM, love it or hate it. MWF I love it, TThS I hate it, on Sunday I flip a coin.

And all I can say with certainty, whatever the designer chooses, someone will be there to tell him he chose wrong.

At the end of the day, I think Civ V represents a step in the right direction. To maintain the franchise, it HAS to appeal to the general public as well as the hard core. And I don't think a "son of CIV IV" would have done that.

The single biggest problem centers on AI execution in handling the new system. But the AI wasn't that great in Civ III or Civ IV either.

If the AI play would improves, then a lot of these issues would go away - or become less important. If it doesn't, then many of these issues don't matter anyway. Poor AI play on a great system simply won't make it a classic over time.

- The AI can't handle a lot of the changes. It needs a lot of improvement regarding combat, city planning, unit movement and diplomacy.

This represents an execution issue rather than a design issue but execution issues are just as important as design issues.

I'm not so sure that's not really a design issue after all. With the current state of AI technology, if you want a game to have a strong AI, you really need to design the game to be "AI friendly." The rules of the game need to be such that the AI, at least with some added heuristics and sensible shortcuts, does not have too many possible solutions that must be evaluated. Chess rather than Go.

In particular, the "Game of 15" style unit movement caused by the chosen 1upt design is "AI unfriendly." A lot could have been done to make for a stronger combat AI by choosing a slightly different design of 1upt.

Which isn't to say that the implementation of the AI isn't also a problem.

It's a step in the right direction, but with some strings attached

Quoted because I love the first quote.

Also quoted because once again I'm the only person on the planet it seems that liked the first Star Trek movie.

The first was good but it was written as a TV episode script. Hence the motionless picture.

Leif Roar -

You maybe right regarding the execution vs design issues. I'm not a computer programmer other than some database execution languages.

To me, the 1upt issue represents a decision by the game designer to get away from the stacks of doom and increase the importance of combined arms (range & melee in combination).

Your point seems to be that it overly complicates the ability of the AI to make "good moves" by creating bottlenecks/too many decision points on due to lack of stacking. (Which, in the end game, with a large number of units on tight fronts, is very true for me due to unit congestion driven by the lack of stacking.)

I've played other computer games where this doesn't seem to be the case. But the focus was extremely different than Civ and long term strategic choices clearer. So the problem - to me - seems lack of development in the AI.

Maybe the issue is the lack of stacking and going to 2upt (or 3 or whatever) could greatly increase the tactical ability of the AI?

So far, my only complaint is the AI in terms of diplomacy. At least in Civ III & IV there were ways to bring the AI civs back to becoming happy with you. In Civ V, once they're angry, they're angry for the rest of the game. Can't do anything about that. I still don't get what "denouncing" really does. Is it really a "buffer" war, a quasi war, or a preemptive to war? Or is it just a slap on the wrist and a red flag that I'm in danger of going to war?

My other side complaints are small. Great people, their uses, the national wonders, building maintenance, roads/railroads, social policies. Not worth turning each topic to a paragraph so I'll stop there.

Happiness isn't really a problem to me, and I'm on the Prince difficulty so far. What sucks that for tile improvements, you have to chose only a few to keep your economy strong. Other improvements turn out to be a waste.

Heh, 1UPT is actually working to *my* advantage and not the AI. So I'm grateful to them for giving me the instant gratification that I'm kicking their butts. I just wish that after war they'd think rationally and not go in a frenzy and randomly tell others to go after me while they're in a conflict with them at the same time. >_< So yes my only complaint is for AI diplomacy, everything else is.....okay.

I think Civ 5 is 2 steps in the right direction 1 step in the wrong direction...but that's a net right direction vote.

Don't like how espionage & religion were removed.

Really like 1UPT.

Miss some of the more intricate diplomacy options.

Prefer the hexes.

Think it would be easy to make Research Agreements more functional; like the general premise of benefiting both sides but I think it should be beakers per gold spent on RA + percent of partner's research points, not a free tech.

Like Social Policies better than Civics, but would rather have a combined Social Policies and Civ3-style governments...perhaps you have to be in a certain government system (or one of a few certain government systems) to enact certain Social Policies? And governments could have some overarching benefits as well. But you could use governments as the deciding factor on what policy trees are unlocked instead of arbitrary mutually exclusive policy trees.

For example -- Monarchy allows Piety branch but not Rationalism branch.

Overall, to me, it's a net positive -- but with room to improve and a couple of lessons learned from previous civs that should be put back in.

[QUOTE=ButSam;10574590]Like Social Policies better than Civics, but would rather have a combined Social Policies and Civ3-style governments...perhaps you have to be in a certain government system (or one of a few certain government systems) to enact certain Social Policies? QUOTE]

I've often thought this. Social policies is good to represent a nations culture, but governments do come and go on a much quicker basis.

Depends what part of Civ 5. I mean, hexes are about 5 steps in the right direction, I can't even play civ 4 anymore.

I love hexes and when I look at 4 it just seems so obsolete, that I am having trouble playing it again.

Blast it all. I hit the wrong button. I meant to hit "wrong direction". >.<. Distinctly the wrong direction, indeed . . .

A complex step toward the imaginary.
Perhaps next patch will factor out i.

1 UPT is unrealistic, not fun (i.e. lacking in "epicness") and not even implemented properly by Firaxis in CiV

First, what is wrong with 'hater'? I mean, that's the category I fall into, and honestly use it to describe myself. It's just concise and simple. Especially if you don't pair it with the obviously derogatory 'fanboy' which should never be used.

Second, Goods and Bads:

Good:
Hexes - They do look nice, and don't create weird tile interactions
Concept of City States - These could still be awesome, they just need to be scrapped and redesigned from scratch.
No Tech Trading - There hasn't been a tech trading system yet that didn't feel exploitable.

Bad
Research Agreements - Actually, they still didn't get this one right. Good job boyos.
1upt - Sadly it just doesn't work. It is insane that an army of decent size must coat the entire surface, evenly, of a continent. It also breaks the size paradigm of the game.
Implemented City States - So incredibly bad. No diplomacy, not worth conquering, stupid quests.
Global Happiness and Removed Health - Yawn, land exploitation is now boring.
non-volatile Tile Yields - That is, you never find tiles that area all that much better than normal. This is boring, and makes exloration and expansion less fun.
Trade route annihilation - Open borders and roads... are worth exactly what now?
No Boats - It seemed like a good idea, but at the very least, this system is horribly broken.
Social Policies - I mean, I like the idea of having other things that define my empire... but Civics were a better way to do this. Not just different, BETTER.
Science from Population - Combined with exponentially slow growth, makes the game so slow and boring. You don't get spikes of science from things. No way to get massive tech gains by swiping some great territory. No reward for early made cottages or other styles of developed tiles.
Removal of Leader Traits - Leaders no longer have anything in common. You can't discuss 'spiritual' leaders, and how to play them, or the advantages of being industrious.
Removal of differing starting techs - Every game plays the exact same way at the start. YAAAAWN.

Sigh, I guess I still hate this game.

"Hate" originally meant to love less.
However, modern usage has taken "hate" to new extremes.
Now with "hate" crimes it has become a very negative, unwelcome word indeed.
May I recommend "don't like" as a substitute?

"Hate" originally meant to love less.
However, modern usage has taken "hate" to new extremes.
Now with "hate" crimes it has become a very negative, unwelcome word indeed.
May I recommend "don't like" as a substitute?

Problem is that nowadays people really do take emotions to an extreme.

So something they enjoy is "THE GREATEST THING EVER I"LL BURN YOU IF YOU DISAGREE"

And something they dislike is the spawn of Saddam and the Devil a'la South Park.

I loved the thread title for that reason, a rational discussion of Civ V's good and bad points and how it moves the series forward. I wish people would take it down a notch, but nowadays that's just not going to happen.

First, what is wrong with 'hater'? I mean, that's the category I fall into, and honestly use it to describe myself. It's just concise and simple. Especially if you don't pair it with the obviously derogatory 'fanboy' which should never be used.

Sigh, I guess I still hate this game.

One might say -- you're MAD.

Let's move the thread back on topic, please. No need to discuss the terms 'haters' and 'fanboys'. Best to just steer clear of them and talk about whether Civ5 is a step in the right or wrong direction. Thanks.

What was added between VANILLA Civ IV and V:
1upt
...
Social Policies instead of Civics
...
Unique Abilities instead of 2 traits from a small list
...
RAs
Limited Number of Strategic Resources


Confucius says:
If you say that snow is white and you are right, I could say that snow is not black and be right.
If you say that you sold a bull for money and you are right, I could say that you bought money for a bull and be right.
If you say that Civ5 added civ abilities and you are right, could I say that Civ5 abolished traits and be right?

The other statements quoted are equally questionable.

This is a step in the wrong direction.

First of all, i will avoid getting started on the DRM scheme and Steam with all of the complications it brings and the fact that steam offers NO BENEFIT to players whatsoever. all it is - is a webstore your forced to have on your computer as a punishment for Civ V.


DLC: Ever since DLC became popularized by other games, i was hoping that the worst scenario would not happen: The game was sold as a barebones crap pack with each civ sold seperately, removing many civ's that have been a part of civ from day 1 - just to make you buy them - and they overvalue everything they sell and try to make you buy map pack + civ instead of 2 cvs for 5.00.

DLC means that instead of getting REAL content you can just expect each content to suck. I believe the game was made with about 30 civ's and they "chose" which ones to remove and sell seperately later - and instead of putting them up all at once and trying to offer a good deal, they release them in ridiculous increments and overcharge.


Also im sick of corporate lackeys posting hate against everyone who despises being sold a piece of crap for 50 bucks - and being told
"you can upgrade it into a better piece of crap for 5.00 per upgrade".


Also, Civ V leaves me wondering if Civ will exist over the long haul. Every civ game from here on out will be a naked, crapy vanilla unexpaned game.

In fact, lets market it now:

Civ 6: Here we have a brand new game with 3 map sizes (tiny, duel, huge) and 5 Civs.

Each extra map size, civ, the ability to have golden ages and all wonders sold seperately.



Also, i hate Songhai and Siam being used in place of Malinese and Khmer. It would be little different than releasing Nubia instead of Egypt, Tuscany instead of Rome, Gaul instead of Celts/France, or the Confederated States of America instead of the United States of America.


Lastly - all the buildings suck and the modders did better jobs than the actual dev team. In most of the games i won, i built no wonders and few buildings which i hate because im a builder. when i make buildings i get a lot of maintenance and lose for it.

There is ONE thing they did right however:

They let you buy with gold without having to be in a certain civic, policy, religion etc.

...
There is ONE thing they did right however:

They let you buy with gold without having to be in a certain civic, policy, religion etc.

1) Could you elaborate on why this is a step in the right direction?

2) Do you miss the other rush elements? (ie slavery/draft)

3) Do you find it odd rush buying prior to researching economics?

Judging by the poll results I think it's safe to say that it's basically a step sideways. I think Civ 5 laid the groundwork for a great civ game in Civ 6. Civ 5 will teach a lot of lessons about things like hexes to the devs. The changes were perhaps the most radical of any of the civs. The leap from Civ 4 to Civ 5 was pretty substantial compared to Civ 3 to 4 or Civ 2 to 3 or 1 to 2. It naturally came with many bumps in the road. That is the learning process.

This thread is nearly even, but that doesn't make me think it's a bad game, because in the end, it's every individuals' opinion that counts. And, while I respect with the opinions with those who do not like the game, all I want is some casual discussion with those that do.

Fireaxis managed to please about 50% of people with Civ IV, and another 50% prefer Civ V. I'm personally glad that everyone now has a civ game that they like. :)

Trade route annihilation - Open borders and roads... are worth exactly what now?
Social Policies - I mean, I like the idea of having other things that define my empire... but Civics were a better way to do this. Not just different, BETTER.
Science from Population - Combined with exponentially slow growth, makes the game so slow and boring. You don't get spikes of science from things. No way to get massive tech gains by swiping some great territory. No reward for early made cottages or other styles of developed tiles.
Removal of Leader Traits - Leaders no longer have anything in common. You can't discuss 'spiritual' leaders, and how to play them, or the advantages of being industrious.

A major complaint about the previous civs was that roads were lame. You built them in every tile because you had nothing else to do. IMO it's better to force them into specific routes, that said I don't like how they did trade routes at all. But I like discouraging road spamming.

I like both social policies and civics and don't see why they couldn't perhaps have both. Let social policies represent, rare, very strong unchangeable elements of a society, and civics be changeable minor tweaks which the leader can enact based on the present crisis. You should be able to mobilize your country for war in times of war, for example. At the same time, there are historically, elements of nations which are very stiff and slow to change and the civic element of Civ 4 just didn't reflect this.

The tech tree really isn't slow at all in this Civ. Before the last patch people were getting ridiculously early space ship victories. It feels to me like the eras move on par with previous civs. Maybe there are fewer techs, I don't know, but the issue isn't science from population IMO. It has plenty of faults but the slider method was worse, especially in BTS when you had espionage on a slider too. It created chaotic empire shifts. Common strategy was to stockpile gold until you got some key civic or wonder built, then shift the slider to 100% science to "rush" a tech, then whip it down to 0 and stockpile gold again to crank some new advanced troop. That was really cheesy and didn't feel like an empire at all.

I always thought the leader traits were really boring. For one thing, it became obvious very quickly that they weren't balanced in vanilla and the leader traits tended to pigeon-hole certain civs into a strategic corner before the game even started. Granted, the UAs aren't entirely balanced either and somewhat do the same thing, but the uniqueness makes every civ special. You're other complaints were mostly about stuff being dull, yet here you're complaining that each civ is unique. Leader traits would make this game more boring. I suppose they could keep UAs and add leader traits in an expansion, possibly paving the way for multi-leader civs though.

1) Could you elaborate on why this is a step in the right direction?

2) Do you miss the other rush elements? (ie slavery/draft)

3) Do you find it odd rush buying prior to researching economics?

1. Gold is the universal means. it doesn't reduce population, cause anger or do anything else to punish you for using it - except NOT having the gold for something else if you use it in that way. Waiting until some pre-requisite is senseless and makes early gold kind of useless. Why do i even have gold i can't spend?

2. I miss the Civ 3 (maybe it was a civ 3 mod) that let you use a slave (worker class) unit to rush like a great engineer with much less hammers. Killing a living worker feels more engaging than reducing a city population. I never liked "Whipping" in the latter way because i see city go to size 3, back to one, back to 3, back to one... its moving sideways, even though it gets you ahead it just feels sideways.

3. It feels proper. People have used collataral to make aqquisition long before the concept of economy. Waiting for economy policy makes me refer to every situation pre-economy where i HAVE the gold and can't use it. it feels a little strange in the sense i feel a newfound freedom - like turning 21 and going into the liquor store.


Im also confused by all the overflow and non-overflow. EVERYTHING SHOULD OVERFLOW. i lose a lot of games because of mismanaging overflows. Im not stupid or anything, i just get confused a lot on pre-builds+pre-chops + pre-researches... I will get better at this, but the game needs to let everything overflow because if not its like in civ 3 where before end turn you have to micromanage every specialist and worker to min/max, and i just feel i shouldn't have to resort to it.

Whenever people rip on 1upt it seems like the realism or scale of it always comes up and people advocating 1upt mostly just love the tactical implications or the way it lets you reasonably use ranged units. It always really bothered me how unrealistic stacks were. You had this army that magically had pikemen on the front line when attacked by horses, crossbows on the front line when attacked by melee and maces on the front line when attacked by archers. There was no way for an attacker to leverage any kind of positional advantage as the stack of doom hopped from one forest/hill to the next never giving up the advantage until it was on your city.

I think they made a definite step in the right direction reducing the strength of tile defenses so that a defending army has a decent shot at engaging attackers in the field if they want. I'd have liked to see them take it even further and completely eliminate tile defensive bonuses. I think they would make much more sense as a multiplier on the fortification bonus. I don't see how you can really say that a troupe of warriors that just arrived on a hill without fortifying has any particular advantage over another troupe of warriors trying to attack them on that hill. Given the turn-based nature of the game it might even be reasonable to say they're arriving at about the same time.

Edit: Far more than anything they got right or wrong with the gameplay going from 4 to 5 they messed something big up in the programming or optimization. I saw this big deal made out of civ 5's ability to use multi-core CPUs and high end GPUs when it was coming out. However, my ~1 year old computer which runs an end-game civ 4 turn in no time at all is taking several minutes to run a mid-game civ 5 turn on a small map. I find it hard to believe that any kind of graphics could be to blame unless it's somehow rendering then discarding every single unseen thing that happens on the map. I suppose the tactical calculations from 1upt must be to blame because most of the other elements of 5 are no more complex than 4. When I'm fighting the AI I'll sometimes see the ai move a unit into a tile with another unit then decide the best place to send that unit is back to the tile it came from. I can only imagine the kind of iterative decision making that's leading to actions like that. It makes civ 5 barely playable while at the same time the gameplay is so much better than 4 that I can't really go back either.

Definitely the right direction. 1UPT is a brilliant move, and fixes all the stupid stack 'o doom issues that plagued the previous games. It now actually feels you are commanding an army, rather than a bunch of blocks. Navies are finally interesting. And the social tree system is a lot better than the policies in the previous game.

I also like the DLC packages so far. Keep up the good work!

ok, another post, this time in the right direction.

I like 1upt. I agree it feels like im commanding a real army and can't make the same mirror army every game. (3 stacks, each with 4 catapaults, 4 archers, 4 spearman, 4 warrior) though it would be nice to make 1-stacks.

That is, i feel i should be able to put one unit of each type into a stack.
1 siege, 1 archer, 1 melee, 1 civillian... It would add more dimensionality but keep the benefits of 1upt. it would also lessen bad AI army structure.

Collataral Damage should also be brought back as a control mechanism.

Edit: Post-Patch, i like the social policies but im annoyed i have to click options every time i play because i don't want to be stuck taking the bone of a bad policy or miss my beeline timing. I would rather the game count how many "Policies" i could pick and give me unhappiness (Your stopping cultural advancement!) as a regulator.

... I would rather the game count how many "Policies" i could pick and give me unhappiness (Your stopping cultural advancement!) as a regulator.

I like this idea. :goodjob:

A new patch coming again, that will improve things.

A new patch coming again, that will maybe improve things.
Too enthousiastic I guess.

A new patch coming again, that will improve things.

It's coincidence that just before the june/july patch notes has been released,the amount of people who vote that civ 5 is in wrong direction is now more than those who think civ 5 is in right direction. (eidt) I didn't read Bibor's summary of this patch. it seems that Civ 5 has a chance to step to right direction this time

Right direction!:goodjob:

I started with Civilization (now known as Civ I) back when? (1991 I think). Enjoyed it immensely, became a whiz, lots of fun!:) Bought Civ II when it came out; enjoyed it immensely, became a whiz, lots of fun!:) Skipped Civ III, but bought Civ IV when it was released; totally sucked at this game, didn't become a whiz, uninstalled it & gave it to the Salvation Army.:blush: Bought Civ V when it came out; have enjoyed it immensely, have become a whiz (after my own fashion), lots of fun!:D --- and isn't that the object, after all?

Unfortunately, the CivV groundwork is the Panzer General wargame-based 1UPT priority design decision. That key design decision flattened the pseudo-historical builder game experience that was the distinctive feature of the Civ series. If the Civ series wants to get back on track, the 1UPT design will have to be scrapped.

Here is a rhetorical question: Why would you prefer 1UPT over 2UPT?

While you mull over the question, consider these two aspects of the builder game:

- You know that in civV your capital city will always be all-important. (not to mention that you can't even move your capital around any more, another game variance lost). The capital city will be the only city that you'll only really have to care about all game. Contrast that with the ability to specialize multiple cities. Or the ability to develop radically different economies. It remains to be seen if the latest patch, with the buff to settling GPs and the HG, will change this without breaking the game with 1UPT spam.

- no foreign trade with the AI civs. Yet another economic/builder facet lost entirely. Simple as that.

Judging by the poll results I think it's safe to say that it's basically a step sideways. I think Civ 5 laid the groundwork for a great civ game in Civ 6. Civ 5 will teach a lot of lessons about things like hexes to the devs. The changes were perhaps the most radical of any of the civs. The leap from Civ 4 to Civ 5 was pretty substantial compared to Civ 3 to 4 or Civ 2 to 3 or 1 to 2. It naturally came with many bumps in the road. That is the learning process.

i agree with poster who said its a sideways step . It's a diffrent game and a very good one.

CIV5 couldnt have been CIV4 slightly changed or with more added on , i like how the tried to do something difffrent. I dont want to play CIV4 all over again with better graphics , otherwise i woulda just kept playing CIV4.

Almost a year later despite the patches i still don't feel like the leader of a great nation when i play Civ5, i still feel like a board-game player playing a badly designed board-game, all the gamey features like indestructible capital cities, no international trade routes and the mad rush to "win" the game instead of "guide a nation" just serve to cement that feeling.

The UI is still poorly presented and unintuitive, the diplomacy is disatisfying, simplistic and continues to exasperate me with it's brokeness, and the general feeling that the game lacks depth and things of interest to do other than just go to war is also still there.

Definitely the wrong direction as far as i am concerned, one of those few games that i regret purchasing, not because of the money necessarily but because of what a massive let-down it has been compared to it's predecessors.


-Poor AI diplomacy.
-Poor AI diplomacy. (That deserves to be said twice)

I agree one hundred percent, hands down the absolute worst part of the game for me, diplomacy is just shockingly dire, with every patch the changes to diplo are the smallest in number and the most superficial, my guess is it's because there just isn't much to be done without ripping it all apart and starting again.

I don't think it's a step in any direction to be honest. Fair enough, I've played half of one game I'll admit, but it's like playing a totally new game.

The "old" format of Civilisation has held since the original Civ with very little in the way of change. That change was long overdue as the strategic concepts of the game were, even in Civ4, becoming highly dated. The stack and rule by sheer numbers form of combat was largely unchanged across all 4 of the franchises installments.

Civ 5 takes the concept and breathes new life into it. It's a change, so it's not always going to be easy to accept. But it's definately a change for the better IMO.

Depends.

If you take civ rev as starting point, yes its a step in the right direction.
If you take civ1-4 as starting point, no its a step in the wrong direction

I think it is step in the right direction, the reason being is that taking away stacking units at first was difficult to grasp but if you think about it... It adds a lot more strategy to the game which is what this game initially is. There are a lot of good features but i do think that, the developers need to adopt the if it isnt broke idealogy.

lots of people saying its a 'step' in the right direction. i think its more of a stumble or maybe stagger in the right direction.

there are a million and one things lacking from game content and the game speed it way too fast, even on marathon. Ive played through 2 full games in the last 3 weeks.

Can't really download a mod as the internet where i am is very poor (it took 2 days to download from steam, which cost alot!)

In my opinion Civ 3 complete is the best. I had to much expectation for Civ 5 and its failed that expectation, so i voted wrong direction.

I like most of what they did with the game. Overall I think the streamlining is good, 1UPT and hexes are great, etc. The biggest problems I see are:

1. The AI simply can't handle 1UPT. I find myself losing interest almost instantly when the AI does boneheaded stuff. SoD was obviously a lot more simplistic, but in the same way it was more boring. Hopefully future patches will continue to improve the AI - it still definitely needs lots of work.

2. The turn-processing time in late game is simply unacceptable. The game is a bogged down mess.

I'm not sure.
On one hand hexes, 1UPT and city states are steps in the right direction.
Small scale empires, global happiness and (to my opinion) too low production (vs science) are steps in the wrong direction.

To me the best fix is to add more options (in order to not anger those who actually likes said steps i consider bad). Split speed option into prod/science so we can play with it and add an option where you can reduce the unhappiness created by cities/pop (for larger empires).

And what i hope, is that they take a small step back from UPT to go to 1 army per tile. Stacks of doom were bleh, but 1 UPT is meh as well tbh. Better but still meh.

It's a step sideways.

It's not Civ4.5 like the fanboys wanted but isn't CivRev2 like others probably wanted (or thought).

It doesn't have to be either. Civ IV and Civ V are different games, V is not a step forward or back but sideways.

I'd tend to agree. I really like Civ 5 a lot - but I liked Civ IV a lot too. Civ 5 is just a variant on the civ theme.

I think Civ 5 was rushed/unfinished at release and it showed in lack of balance and pitiful combat AI. Balance and performance are better with this most recent patch and the AI is better, but still not quite where I think it could/should be.

One thing I think IS a big leap forward is 1UPT, just because I think stacks and stacks of doom are cheese. But, Civ 5 was released in such a poor state that it made the system look bad, and that's very unfortunate. Civ IV's combat AI was pretty lame too until BTS and even then it took user-created "better AI" to really make it good. But people will likely overlook that, slam 5 and 1UPT, and clamor for a return to stacks of cheese for Civ VI.

For me, it took several steps in the right direction, and a few in the wrong direction, with backward ones being slightly more numerous.

Primarily, it's a simpler game, and there's less stuff to think about. I mean before, Health on it's own was a parallel minigame. Many such parallel concepts have been lost, and too much relies on gold and the flawed implementation of happiness.

Depends what part of Civ 5. I mean, hexes are about 5 steps in the right direction, I can't even play civ 4 anymore.

the problem wasn't squares; it was being able to move diagonally.

Civ5 is step in right direction.
CivFacebook is step in idiotic direction.

Please don't bump threads unless you have something more substantive to contribute. Closed. :)