Mr.WorldWide
Smugly Inferior
There was a mod for Civ 4 called Defense which toyed with your idea. The more units stacked on a single tile, the weaker they became. Defense shipped with the complete Civ 4 collection.
Civilization 5 Rants Thread
- Thread starter ori
- Start date
There was a mod for Civ 4 called Defense which toyed with your idea. The more units stacked on a single tile, the weaker they became. Defense shipped with the complete Civ 4 collection.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
I don't take credit for the idea of reducing unit strength in a stack proportional to the number of units in a stack. Someone else mentioned it before me in this thread. Indeed, as you mentioned, it has even been implemented the Civ IV mod Defense.
Sun Tzu Wu
Sun Tzu Wu
I have a great rant... barbarian encampments that suddenly pop-up.
I have a warrior on a single hex entrance / exit to a 2 hex peninsula.
Because of the the screwy highlight one unit while usually meaning another, this warrior moved one space away from the peninsula - I immediately brought this unit back to the beginning hex - suddenly, there is now a barbarian encampment with an archer on this peninsula
What the hell is this all about !
I thought once an area was cleared, it stayed cleared !!
I have a warrior on a single hex entrance / exit to a 2 hex peninsula.
Because of the the screwy highlight one unit while usually meaning another, this warrior moved one space away from the peninsula - I immediately brought this unit back to the beginning hex - suddenly, there is now a barbarian encampment with an archer on this peninsula
What the hell is this all about !
I thought once an area was cleared, it stayed cleared !!
ricardoscotland
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2013
- Messages
- 1
Playing Civ 5 without the expansion pack and have quit smoking for over a week...
Automated workers!
- They seem to make a beeline towards front-lines, barbarian camps and ships!
- When a CS wants a road, automated workers will try and create the road at all costs, distance not a factor
- Sometimes they just seem to stray off in a direction outside your own borders where there's no practical use for them to be there.
Someone in my disposition has to stop playing the game when things like this happen
</rant>
Automated workers!
- They seem to make a beeline towards front-lines, barbarian camps and ships!
- When a CS wants a road, automated workers will try and create the road at all costs, distance not a factor
- Sometimes they just seem to stray off in a direction outside your own borders where there's no practical use for them to be there.
Someone in my disposition has to stop playing the game when things like this happen
</rant>
Playing Civ 5 without the expansion pack and have quit smoking for over a week...
Automated workers!
- They seem to make a beeline towards front-lines, barbarian camps and ships!
- When a CS wants a road, automated workers will try and create the road at all costs, distance not a factor
- Sometimes they just seem to stray off in a direction outside your own borders where there's no practical use for them to be there.
Someone in my disposition has to stop playing the game when things like this happen
</rant>
Automating workers in Civ I,II,III,IV, or V comes under the heading of "Things never to do".
Hehe, how about starting a rant thread on not liking moderation... 
Anyways, the things I dislike about Civ V.
Diplomacy mechanics: Still bad, and the AI tends to be stiff. If they made the AI a little more "realistic" (meaning that friendlier civs would be easier to make allies and unfriendly civs are more likely to be enemies) in their dealings with the players and each other, it would give a sense of actually accomplishing something diplomatic in game, civ diplo tendencies aside.
Spys (G+K): I think they could have implemented actual spy units rather than just a obscure AI formulation. But so be it. Tech stealing is more about AI balance than actual winning. Civs should have to achieve the rennaisance era on their own before being able to spy, or make spying available at writing tech like in Civ IV.
Everything else is pretty much ok, at least until Civ VI.
Anyways, the things I dislike about Civ V.
Diplomacy mechanics: Still bad, and the AI tends to be stiff. If they made the AI a little more "realistic" (meaning that friendlier civs would be easier to make allies and unfriendly civs are more likely to be enemies) in their dealings with the players and each other, it would give a sense of actually accomplishing something diplomatic in game, civ diplo tendencies aside.
Spys (G+K): I think they could have implemented actual spy units rather than just a obscure AI formulation. But so be it. Tech stealing is more about AI balance than actual winning. Civs should have to achieve the rennaisance era on their own before being able to spy, or make spying available at writing tech like in Civ IV.
Everything else is pretty much ok, at least until Civ VI.
Hehe, how about starting a rant thread on not liking moderation...
Moderator Action: No
. Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Mr.WorldWide
Smugly Inferior
I usually get along fine with the mods on other sites I'm active on. 
@pspboy7
If there will ever be a Civ 6...Firaxis may decide to create a dedicated Civ world instead of the fb game. Something more like wow.
@pspboy7
If there will ever be a Civ 6...Firaxis may decide to create a dedicated Civ world instead of the fb game. Something more like wow.
mmmfloorpie
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 97
I bought Civ 5 back in 2010 after waiting what seemed like a lifetime for the "next Civ". I played about 400 hours of it and never really got into it. I figured it might just take a few months to work out the bugs.
Fast forward and I've since picked up Civ4 BTS and have been playing that (well over 1000 hours). Awesome game.
Since it's been getting a little bit stale, I thought I'd try 5 again. I figured since it had been so long there'd be a lot of updates/fixes.
Unfortunately, BTS has just made me hate/despise/revile this game even more. And no, it's not hyperbole.
Things that made me want to rip out my hair within the 2 hours that I played Civ5 again:
1. Workers. Every single turn they stop what they are doing and make me instruct them what do to again. I checked the options and couldn't find anything to make this stop.
2. Improvements. Why bother? I mean seriously, WHY BOTHER? You spend 30 turns building a worker. Then you spend 10 turns building an improvement only to get 1 more food or 1 more hammer. That's it. I could have spent that time building my army. The same goes for work boats. Utterly useless.
3. Social Policies. What was wrong with the old civics system? What was wrong with being able to change active civics? What was wrong with researching new civics and then being able to implement them? Why make social policies cost so much and make them so you can never change them? This is insane. By the time you research the later policies, good luck being able to use them because it will take you 1000000 turns to get enough points to implement them.
4.Embarkation. Stupidest thing in the game. Every unit just turns itself into a boat and can float across the ocean. What were they thinking? No seriously, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?
5. Idiot AI. In the 2 hours I was playing, I went to war with Elizabeth. I only had an archer and a warrior. Her city was bombarding my units and then a barb galley came out of nowhere and started bombarding them as well. After 3 turns my units were both almost dead and I hadn't even made a dent in her city. So I went crawling back on my hands and knees to her and what does she do? Offers me peace and 60 gold. What?!? I just got my ass kicked and she's paying ME to make peace? This would NEVER happen in a previous Civ. And I mean any Civ, including the original.
6. Stupid maps. It seems like no matter what setting you put it on, all the game generates are these long, slim, turd like continents. Maybe 2 tiles at the narrowest and 8 tiles at the widest. Thanks to 1 unit per tile, this makes moving your army around impossible.
7. 1 unit per tile. I'm sure you saw this one coming. So frustrating. Why bother even having an army? Just garrison one archer in your city and forget about it. Yes stacks of doom suck, but what would be wrong with limiting the stack to maybe 3? Then at least you could stack units that have different defensive bonuses together. And what possible reason could there be for not allowing stacked workers?
8. Turns take FOREVER. Let's just stipulate that my computer FAR exceeds the requirements of this game. Every turn still takes about 8 seconds. Even the very first turn when everyone has one city and one unit. Why? I don't even want to imagine how long they must take later in the game.
9. "Packs". I hate game companies that make add on packs for their games just to wring as much money out of their customers as they can. $2 for some stupid Civ? Another $2 for a "map pack"? Are you kidding me? What was wrong with releasing larger add on packs like BTS that gave you a host of new additions? Yes, they have this Gods and Villians pack (or whatever it's called), but the fundamental problem with this is that RELIGIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED FROM THE BEGINNING! I remember reading interview after interview where the lead director/whatever his title, would constantly say "everyone hated religions in Civ4, religions sucked, religions were a bad idea, blah blah blah". So they never included them in the game. Well, it would seem this was total BS. People did like religions. Religions were good. Either they were just too lazy to put them in the game or they cynically knew that they were going to release an expansion pack that they would later sell for more $$.
I'm sure I could keep going but I won't waste yours or my own time. As a long time Civ fan I am beyond angry at how they have fundamentally changed this game. It barely resembles previous Civs. I've been playing these games since I was 10 years old and this game is a slap in the face. Sure, PC gaming is dead and they had to make something that would appeal to a larger audience. But they still could have made a DECENT game! How does a game appeal to a larger audience? It just pisses off the hardcore fans and turns off the newbies.
I used to be a very loyal and reliable Civ customer. I would be in line the day a game released to buy it. Sure, when a new game released it usually had a lot of bugs/glitches that took months and months to get rectified. I remember how Civ4 was almost unplayable at first. But at least they diligently worked to fix it! With Civ5, the things that suck about it were designed to be that way! If Civ6 ever gets made, I won't be standing in line or pre ordering. I'll be doing the smart thing and waiting until the fan reviews are in.
PS, if you are just going to say "I'm a fan and I love it, you just don't know what you are talking about. If you don't like the game go back to VI" save your breath. I really don't want to hear it.
Moderator Action: Merged into the rants thread, and 3 posts deleted.
Fast forward and I've since picked up Civ4 BTS and have been playing that (well over 1000 hours). Awesome game.
Since it's been getting a little bit stale, I thought I'd try 5 again. I figured since it had been so long there'd be a lot of updates/fixes.
Unfortunately, BTS has just made me hate/despise/revile this game even more. And no, it's not hyperbole.
Things that made me want to rip out my hair within the 2 hours that I played Civ5 again:
1. Workers. Every single turn they stop what they are doing and make me instruct them what do to again. I checked the options and couldn't find anything to make this stop.
2. Improvements. Why bother? I mean seriously, WHY BOTHER? You spend 30 turns building a worker. Then you spend 10 turns building an improvement only to get 1 more food or 1 more hammer. That's it. I could have spent that time building my army. The same goes for work boats. Utterly useless.
3. Social Policies. What was wrong with the old civics system? What was wrong with being able to change active civics? What was wrong with researching new civics and then being able to implement them? Why make social policies cost so much and make them so you can never change them? This is insane. By the time you research the later policies, good luck being able to use them because it will take you 1000000 turns to get enough points to implement them.
4.Embarkation. Stupidest thing in the game. Every unit just turns itself into a boat and can float across the ocean. What were they thinking? No seriously, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?
5. Idiot AI. In the 2 hours I was playing, I went to war with Elizabeth. I only had an archer and a warrior. Her city was bombarding my units and then a barb galley came out of nowhere and started bombarding them as well. After 3 turns my units were both almost dead and I hadn't even made a dent in her city. So I went crawling back on my hands and knees to her and what does she do? Offers me peace and 60 gold. What?!? I just got my ass kicked and she's paying ME to make peace? This would NEVER happen in a previous Civ. And I mean any Civ, including the original.
6. Stupid maps. It seems like no matter what setting you put it on, all the game generates are these long, slim, turd like continents. Maybe 2 tiles at the narrowest and 8 tiles at the widest. Thanks to 1 unit per tile, this makes moving your army around impossible.
7. 1 unit per tile. I'm sure you saw this one coming. So frustrating. Why bother even having an army? Just garrison one archer in your city and forget about it. Yes stacks of doom suck, but what would be wrong with limiting the stack to maybe 3? Then at least you could stack units that have different defensive bonuses together. And what possible reason could there be for not allowing stacked workers?
8. Turns take FOREVER. Let's just stipulate that my computer FAR exceeds the requirements of this game. Every turn still takes about 8 seconds. Even the very first turn when everyone has one city and one unit. Why? I don't even want to imagine how long they must take later in the game.
9. "Packs". I hate game companies that make add on packs for their games just to wring as much money out of their customers as they can. $2 for some stupid Civ? Another $2 for a "map pack"? Are you kidding me? What was wrong with releasing larger add on packs like BTS that gave you a host of new additions? Yes, they have this Gods and Villians pack (or whatever it's called), but the fundamental problem with this is that RELIGIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED FROM THE BEGINNING! I remember reading interview after interview where the lead director/whatever his title, would constantly say "everyone hated religions in Civ4, religions sucked, religions were a bad idea, blah blah blah". So they never included them in the game. Well, it would seem this was total BS. People did like religions. Religions were good. Either they were just too lazy to put them in the game or they cynically knew that they were going to release an expansion pack that they would later sell for more $$.
I'm sure I could keep going but I won't waste yours or my own time. As a long time Civ fan I am beyond angry at how they have fundamentally changed this game. It barely resembles previous Civs. I've been playing these games since I was 10 years old and this game is a slap in the face. Sure, PC gaming is dead and they had to make something that would appeal to a larger audience. But they still could have made a DECENT game! How does a game appeal to a larger audience? It just pisses off the hardcore fans and turns off the newbies.
I used to be a very loyal and reliable Civ customer. I would be in line the day a game released to buy it. Sure, when a new game released it usually had a lot of bugs/glitches that took months and months to get rectified. I remember how Civ4 was almost unplayable at first. But at least they diligently worked to fix it! With Civ5, the things that suck about it were designed to be that way! If Civ6 ever gets made, I won't be standing in line or pre ordering. I'll be doing the smart thing and waiting until the fan reviews are in.
PS, if you are just going to say "I'm a fan and I love it, you just don't know what you are talking about. If you don't like the game go back to VI" save your breath. I really don't want to hear it.
Moderator Action: Merged into the rants thread, and 3 posts deleted.
AlazkanAssassin
Engineer
That is the best rant I've read in a long time. 
Masher8559
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2010
- Messages
- 22
Diplomacy. Absolutely ruins what otherwise is a very good game in my opinion.
You just cannot trust your friends. In previous civs, i could build a relationship and a strong alliance with another civ that i could truly rely on in times of trouble. In civ 5 even when pumping in tons of money to keep them happy, every thing you do pisses them off. A civ declares war on you or bullies your city state ally, you defend your self and somehow it's YOU who are the warmonger.
In my recent English game, i was ally with the Mongols from Medieval to Modern era(Marathon speed) He asks me to declare war on Sweden, which i reply yes but give me 10 turns to prepare. So what do i do in those 10 turns? i move my army through his land to get to the Swedish borders. After all, we have just agreed to invade them in 10 turns from now. Yet, he comes back to me 4 turns later, demanding i remove my army from his land? suddenly he denounces me and before we are even at war with Sweden I've gone from a all positive green relationship to being on the brink of war with my former ally. WTF?
It might not be such a problem for competitive players who just want to blitz to victory, but i like to add a little role-play into my games. I enjoy diplomacy, sadly it's just plain crap in Civ 5.
I HOPE that we get another expansion that enhances diplomacy.
I only write this rant because i care about this series, it's one of my all time favourites and i still enjoy Civ 5, it's just sad when there was/is so much potential for this to be a truly brilliant game.
You just cannot trust your friends. In previous civs, i could build a relationship and a strong alliance with another civ that i could truly rely on in times of trouble. In civ 5 even when pumping in tons of money to keep them happy, every thing you do pisses them off. A civ declares war on you or bullies your city state ally, you defend your self and somehow it's YOU who are the warmonger.
In my recent English game, i was ally with the Mongols from Medieval to Modern era(Marathon speed) He asks me to declare war on Sweden, which i reply yes but give me 10 turns to prepare. So what do i do in those 10 turns? i move my army through his land to get to the Swedish borders. After all, we have just agreed to invade them in 10 turns from now. Yet, he comes back to me 4 turns later, demanding i remove my army from his land? suddenly he denounces me and before we are even at war with Sweden I've gone from a all positive green relationship to being on the brink of war with my former ally. WTF?
It might not be such a problem for competitive players who just want to blitz to victory, but i like to add a little role-play into my games. I enjoy diplomacy, sadly it's just plain crap in Civ 5.
I HOPE that we get another expansion that enhances diplomacy.
I only write this rant because i care about this series, it's one of my all time favourites and i still enjoy Civ 5, it's just sad when there was/is so much potential for this to be a truly brilliant game.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
That is the best rant I've read in a long time.
Agreed! Great rant mmmfloorpie!
(One Big Thumb's Up!)Sun Tzu Wu
Fried Egg
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 341
Interesting rant by mmmfloorpie, but I was surprised to hear anyone say they found CivIV so much better than V.
Personally, My Civ playing days go back to CivII. I loved it and enjoyed CivIII when it came out too. But when CivIV finally arrived, I couldn't get into it. I tried and tried, kept coming back to it, even after BTS and yet I didn't like it. It just didn't feel like a Civ game to me anymore. It almost put me off the series for good.
I only got Civ V fairly recently, going straight into the complete edition and I have to say that, despite some issues, it was such a relief. It actually felt like a Civ game again and has rekindled the magic that I used to feel for previous versions. I much prefer the social policy system over the civics system. Religion works so much better now. I even prefer the combat system and restriction of one unit per tile (although I agree maybe a two or three unit limit might have been better).
Each to their own I suppose...
Personally, My Civ playing days go back to CivII. I loved it and enjoyed CivIII when it came out too. But when CivIV finally arrived, I couldn't get into it. I tried and tried, kept coming back to it, even after BTS and yet I didn't like it. It just didn't feel like a Civ game to me anymore. It almost put me off the series for good.
I only got Civ V fairly recently, going straight into the complete edition and I have to say that, despite some issues, it was such a relief. It actually felt like a Civ game again and has rekindled the magic that I used to feel for previous versions. I much prefer the social policy system over the civics system. Religion works so much better now. I even prefer the combat system and restriction of one unit per tile (although I agree maybe a two or three unit limit might have been better).
Each to their own I suppose...
Does not compute...
Might explain why he hasn't played enough civ to be bored with the extra micro management needed to
--- build transports
--- stage stacks (hint... might explain 'what they were thinking)
--- transfer stacks to transports
--- move entire stack to establish beachhead
--- then perpetually shuttle transports and staged troops to new theater
until I can blessedly build airports to... uh... autoembark my units onto airplanes.
Ghpstage
Deity
Are you referring to civ 4? If so, you do realise it had city rally points, stack movement, stack attacking, quick city build queues (including looping builds) and a way to select cities in groups (shift clicking) and even en masse (by continent or all) right?
When people actually bother to look into these things they'd know that the 'civ 4 stacks need a lot of clicking' argument is laughable, you can probably build, group, shuttle overseas, land and attack with an army of 200 units with about as many clicks as moving 15 units from one side of the continent to the other in civ 5
For the record airlifts did not reduce micromanagement, they actually increased the click requirement for unit movement dramatically for all but the smallest forces. they would only have improved things if they worked automatically with rally points.
Uh... that would be true if each rallied troop automatically embarked on its transport...
Also... if the troops are small enough it only takes one click to group and one click to embark the rally pointed troops, but if your stack is bigger than the transport.... well... more clicks baby. And don't get me started on more than one transport.
And even with rally points, my transport, and the stack at the other end isn't rally pointed so I need to select the exact square each time which is far more tiresome than having to perform an extra key click.
But that is not the point is it.
Nor is the point that 1upt requires more troop management (debatable because of scale -- i.e. 20 upt's are easier to manage than 20 stacks with 60 reinforcements in perpetual motion).
The point is that transports made overseas adventures much more tedious. You made the point yourself that automatic embarkation with rally points would greatly simplify the tedium (last sentence in your quote).
My point was that the poster claiming to be a loyal civ fan bought BTS after civ 5.... I know we have had blood lettings over the definition of 'true civ fan' but BTS after civ 5 is pushing the limits for even my definition.... was complaining about auto-embarkation despite its presence in the civ version he held up as an example.
Similar threads
