To those who have, up until now, not been happy with Civ V...

[fed1943]

Islet:

Very interesting question, but impossible to answer.
Illegitimate and county just don't fit together. Illegitimate= Against the inner of the law.
But which law? If it was the pre-treaty of Paris British law, then the actions of that BRITISH subjects were illegitimate and treacherous, indeed.
But they prevailed, took possesion ot the territory and the treaty of Paris was agred.
So, USA is a country (legitimate by definition) and its own law says it began 1776 (and not 1783).

 

[Islet]

Islet:

Very interesting question, but impossible to answer.
Illegitimate and county just don't fit together. Illegitimate= Against the inner of the law.
But which law? If it was the pre-treaty of Paris British law, then the actions of that BRITISH subjects were illegitimate and treacherous, indeed.
But they prevailed, took possesion ot the territory and the treaty of Paris was agred.
So, USA is a country (legitimate by definition) and its own law says it began 1776 (and not 1783).

Perhaps this discussion can be taken off-topic.

I was intending to address the diplomacy flaws of this game (i.e. random declarations of war by almost any AI personality) and the lack of lead-up to the DoW, which was countered by the exclamation that war is just "taking by force" (technically true, it is the definition of war after all) and the lead-ups were just fluffs

 

[Falk]

I didn't bother installing the game after the patch. Haven't played it for... yes, almost 3 months now. They need to completely redesign the basic concepts to get me into the game again and that is not likely to happen.

I like the Civ series for the oft-quoted immersion which V doesn't offer at all. I'm also an avid boardgamer/wargamer, but while V was obviously designed in a boardgame/wargame way, it lacks depth. Virtually all fundamental mechanics are flawed - even my cat could easily spot the brokenness of this sorry excuse for a game.

Oh, well, I actually don't want to start ranting again.

In short, the patch brought me back to the forums and actually made me read the patch notes, but I am unimpressed. It does nothing for me.

 

[MarkC1]

I've only been really upset with the AI and continue to be disappointed

 

[hardcore_gamer]

I've only been really upset with the AI and continue to be disappointed

This.

My hope was actually brought back to alive after this latest patch once I saw that making friends is actually possible now and that the AI now actually creates enough units to defend itself with.

This hope was decreased dramatically however once I realized that the AI now appears to be able to ignore a lot of the game rules regardless of difficulty which could explain "why its suddenly better".

For example, players have reported things like the AI getting a vast happiness bonus regardless of difficulty level, and it being able to build units in puppet cities even though the player cannot.

Seriously Firaxis, I know you are trying to make the AI challenging and all, but if you are going to resort to this kind of nonsense to make it happen instead of just actually making the AI half decent then I might not continue put my faith into my hopes that this game will one day become great and just go play something else.

 

[Heliodorus04]

Well, I'm pretty much the 'target audience' for this thread.
I started up again with the new patch on release day.

Now I've played through three or so games to various points until I realized "Game pointless: quit."

My first quit happened when the two enemy civs on my island used ICS and boxed me in at about 20 cities to my 8 (the 20 was just for Japan, not both enemies).

The second I quit because I was too small and had no exit prior to navigation, so that was absurd.

Finally I played on a Pangea (Large, 10 other AIs) and had a good game going until about 1400 AD, at which point I realized I had played countless turns and never ever felt like there was a story developing in the game. There was nothing difficult, there was nothing noteworthy, there was nothing interesting. I spent all that time hoping that when THAT building finished, my civ could flourish and prosper. It never did.

All I ever feel like I'm doing in this game is barely treading water, going nowhere. Again, game broken by the way they 'changed' (i.e., ruined) resources. It pretty much doesn't matter what improvements I build on tiles or in cities, my nation is always going to suffer and starve and suck and take forever to get anything completed.

Screw it. There are games lying around that actually ARE fun, so I better play them.

The sad thing is this: I had all winter off from school to play this game, but after 3 days, I still see no reason to play.

Civ5=boring.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

The patch notes looked promising, so I've just dragged myself back and played through my first post-patch game. OK, the diplomacy is a little less annoying, the AI's tactics a little less stupid. But the game is somehow just as boring as ever. I do play huge maps, so maybe it's just not up to it - but on the other hand we are still being offered pointless expensive buildings like the stable, there's still no point in building most buildings, ever.

I also seriously doubt (for good computational reasons) that the 1upt combat system can ever be made fully viable but will be monitoring future patches, maybe it could be made just good enough with a bit of trickery, who knows. But the non-combat side of the game is simply not immersive enough. Back to Civ IV...

 

[Marshall Thomas]

How can I make the minimum distance between cities one hex more? The AI is building all of it's cities just three hexes away from each other. This means the AI cities will never grow large. I'm building my cities about 4 or 5 hexes apart; so the AI and I are really playing different games. For instance, when the size of my territory is about the same as the AIs, I still only have about half the cities as it does because of the city spacing.

So I want to increase the minimum distance by one (and go from playing on a large map to a huge one, to compensate). Before I make this change (assuming I can), I'd like to ask if there are any unforseen negative consequences to this that I haven't considered.

Thanks in advance

edit: is it "MIN_CITY_RANGE"? change it from 2 to 3?

 

[JLoZeppeli]

This.

My hope was actually brought back to alive after this latest patch once I saw that making friends is actually possible now and that the AI now actually creates enough units to defend itself with.

This hope was decreased dramatically however once I realized that the AI now appears to be able to ignore a lot of the game rules regardless of difficulty which could explain "why its suddenly better".

For example, players have reported things like the AI getting a vast happiness bonus regardless of difficulty level, and it being able to build units in puppet cities even though the player cannot.

Seriously Firaxis, I know you are trying to make the AI challenging and all, but if you are going to resort to this kind of nonsense to make it happen instead of just actually making the AI half decent then I might not continue put my faith into my hopes that this game will one day become great and just go play something else.

Finally someone can see the light of truth!

 

[MarkC1]

I've only been really upset with the AI and continue to be disappointed

Ok I actually played a Marathon game under Prince and I am shocked at the improvement... the game is actually enjoyable now! Except for one small AI-related thing.. the computer seems to want to give away half its empire for peace after defeating a few units or threatening a minor city.. If that were adjusted (maybe it is on harder levels).. I would be a happy camper now

Thanks devs

 

[Doctor Phibes]

How can I make the minimum distance between cities one hex more? The AI is building all of it's cities just three hexes away from each other. This means the AI cities will never grow large. I'm building my cities about 4 or 5 hexes apart; so the AI and I are really playing different games. For instance, when the size of my territory is about the same as the AIs, I still only have about half the cities as it does because of the city spacing.

So I want to increase the minimum distance by one (and go from playing on a large map to a huge one, to compensate). Before I make this change (assuming I can), I'd like to ask if there are any unforseen negative consequences to this that I haven't considered.

Thanks in advance

edit: is it "MIN_CITY_RANGE"? change it from 2 to 3?

I noticed this too. I'm sure it wasn't so apparent pre-patch, but I could be wrong. It could be one way of saving the AI gold outlay on road networks, of course. Also, I'm not sure it doesn't vary depending on the Civ. Monty does it for sure, Catherine's seem more widely spaced but still closer than I would put them. (Coincidentally, I just finished a game as Hiawatha, so what do I care about road networks? - but I can't tell if the AI would do this as Hiawatha as a result).

Be interesting to check if the AI knows to ignore roadbuilding in an archipelago game and just build coastal cities with harbours.

 

[Marshall Thomas]

I noticed this too. I'm sure it wasn't so apparent pre-patch, but I could be wrong. It could be one way of saving the AI gold outlay on road networks, of course. Also, I'm not sure it doesn't vary depending on the Civ. Monty does it for sure, Catherine's seem more widely spaced but still closer than I would put them. (Coincidentally, I just finished a game as Hiawatha, so what do I care about road networks? - but I can't tell if the AI would do this as Hiawatha as a result).

Be interesting to check if the AI knows to ignore roadbuilding in an archipelago game and just build coastal cities with harbours.

I switched it from 2 hexes to 3. I hope this change makes things better. In my first campaign since the patch, the AI almost always built cities with only two hexes seperating them. This would mean that everyone of his cities would have to be a specialist city by about size 9 or 10. It would also prevent the AI from having any really big cities; especially since the new patch allows for more vertical growth.

I really wonder why the designers didn't make it 3 minimum hexes instead of just 2. Any thoughts as to why they made it just 2 instead of 3? Thanks in advance

 

[Sneaks]

What you changed was not an AI value but the minimum distance two cities could ever be near each other. There is really no reason for the AI not to go wide with tight spacing on higher difficulties. This allows it to properly exploit its massive happiness bonus. Also, given the change to city strength, it makes sense for cities to grid up and protect each other. High population cities aren't necessarily going to be more productive for the AI than several smaller ones. Culture victories being the big exception.

 

[Nares]

Except for one small AI-related thing.. the computer seems to want to give away half its empire for peace after defeating a few units or threatening a minor city.

Another mystery.

Why does the AI offer such favorable terms for barely bruising it, but is vehemently oppossed to you once you do any real damage to it?

Obviously there are major issues with the way the AIs handle conquering opponents.

 

[ClarenceSeedorf]

No, I have no more interest in wasting time downloading the patch. I don't bother with any games that use these overpriced DLC sales strategy.
.

Overpriced? Are you serious...I spend more money on lunch everyday...

 

[Islet]

Overpriced? Are you serious...I spend more money on lunch everyday...

For it's value, yeah, a little overpriced.

I could just as easily say I spend more on [insert whatever item here], but it doesn't negate the fact that $7 for 2 exclusive leaderheads and some xml variable changes for UU and UA that arguably should have been in the base game in the first place, it's quite a ripoff

IMO, the strategy genre is not conducive for DLC releases.

 

[nokmirt]

I wander how many of the people on this thread who claim the AI is just as bad as it was before have even played the game (and when I say play the game, I mean actually finish a few games instead of just playing it for 15 min) since the release of the patch. A lot of the claims the haters are making is just pure biased nonsense. The AI is easily much better now then it ever was before the patch. You can actually have friends now, and the AI won't roll over and die the moment you go to war with it.

I also can't help but feel that some of the people here are just whining for whining's sakes because if they actually fallowed their own advice and "stopped wasting their time on the game" then they would no longer have any reason to stay on the forum to keep track of the development of the game. And yet here they still are, apparently for no other reason then to lamement everything that has to do with the game.

I agree that we need some more positive reinforcement here. I read 19/20 posts from people saying the game is so horrible. It gives me a headache. I feel the only way to make it better is talk about it from a more positive standpoint. They should make a thread called positive feedback or something like that, which would alleviate all of the useless badgering that gets us nowhere. This thread would have people organized in to a group, who like the game and realize there are some shortfalls that need to be addressed. They then talk about how it could be made better. This will save the creators and designers alot of reading time, and get to the heart of the problems. You would not have to read three paragraphs of insult about the game, before you get to the 'PROBLEM'. Then I notice from the negativity the designers have made huge huge changes to placate the sadness of the civ community. I just wish people were more patient because Civ 5 just came out. The game does have potential. Post patch I have had a great time playing.

 

[Islet]

I just wish people were more patient because Civ 5 just came out. The game does have potential. Post patch I have had a great time playing.

Personally, not too big a fan on this patience thing. If I paid $60 at launch date, find it broken, unplayable (especially on MP) and refusing to run smoothly on a system that surpasses the recommended settings stated by the publisher/developers themselves, then I have every right to press them to fix the game ASAP as the value of the product keeps dropping from Day 1

CiV is now 25% off on Steam, from another thread. If the mentality is such that 'Oh, release it beta first, then fix the problems later' and give excuses such as 'so that pirates can't get the latest, most stable version' a la Empire Total War, then 2K/Firaxis deserves all the negativity they get for trying to achieve a quick buck from the goodwill of their fanbase.

 

[nokmirt]

Personally, not too big a fan on this patience thing. If I paid $60 at launch date, find it broken, unplayable (especially on MP) and refusing to run smoothly on a system that surpasses the recommended settings stated by the publisher/developers themselves, then I have every right to press them to fix the game ASAP as the value of the product keeps dropping from Day 1

CiV is now 25% off on Steam, from another thread. If the mentality is such that 'Oh, release it beta first, then fix the problems later' and give excuses such as 'so that pirates can't get the latest, most stable version' a la Empire Total War, then 2K/Firaxis deserves all the negativity they get for trying to achieve a quick buck from the goodwill of their fanbase.

I can't argue with that. I like the comment, it makes me wonder if there is a gold version of Civ 5 out there, one copy that is perfect. And it has been dissected and given to the public one small tantalizing piece at a time to milk the game's fanbase over several months or even years for all their worth!

 

[Islet]

I can't argue with that. I like the comment, it makes me wonder if there is a gold version of Civ 5 out there, one copy that is perfect. And it has been dissected and given to the public one small tantalizing piece at a time to milk the game's fanbase over several months or even years for all their worth!

After they finish milking the fanbase, they'll re-release it as Civilization: The New World! Now more optimized than before for Dual-Core processors, Quad-Core support will be released together with the Dual Tiger Asian Civilizations DLC package at only $29.99!

How do I come to this conclusion? Napoleon Total War

EDIT: Just found out Civilization: A New World is a CiV total conversion mod by Dale!