Is civ5 worth buying it?

[Guardian_PL]

Originally Posted by hobbsyoyo

It is worth buying, especially with Gods&Kings.

G&K is to CiV what BtS was to CIV.

CiV really is better than CIV IMHO.

Nope.

Imo G&K is more like Warlords for Civ4. It's a step in the right direction, but something is still missing. I know that G&K add espionage and omg religion, but I've bought it, played it for a week and now it's been several months since the last time I've played it.

For me, somehow, Civ5 still feels artificial. AI is still raving mad, without personality and unfun to play with/against.

Can't help it, I'm an avid Civ4 fan and I still recommend it. I get the urge to play Civ4 (with the amazing and free BUG/BAT mod) every now and then, with Civ5 I don't. I know it will be either a boring slog with killing everything on sight while stifling a yawn on the difficulty up to Emperor or a boring skeetshooting contest with braindead AI on Immortal +.

P.S. It took a while, but vast majority of old civfanatics who were waiting with bated breath for the next iteration of their beloved series and got thoroughly disappointed have finally left this forum, so now opinions about Civ5 are mostly positive. So don't expect a hearty advice to pick Civ4 over Civ5 when posting in a Civ5 General Discussion forum ^^

[Der Golem]

The value of the game worth 30 dollars. Including all of the DLCs and the expansion. If they hadn't rush the game, and have taken a little bit more tenderly love into it, with the appropriate amount of money and manpower, then it would've been an epic game. It is an average game, therefore, it's worth 30 dollars.

[Geddy]

No it's not worth it. It will never be the great game Civ 5 was. The developers knew this when they suddenly decided not to release a demo version before final release as they knew no one would buy it if they knew the truth. That's what you get by trying to save money and letting a kid develop the follow up to a game he never played.
The Civ franchise is finished, effectively.

[Socratatus]

I bought the game and as with some, I`m in two minds... But I`d say Civ4 definitely better when you look beyond the gloss.

Civ5 is pretty addictive. The leaders you meet are great and more immersive. the gameplay still follows on quite realistically except when it suddenly jumps to the GDR. I find that combat uses a lot of real-world techniques (get that arty and aircraft in position before sending in troops). It`s easier to see and understand what`s going on in a war, that group of tanks is really just a group of tanks, not fifty groups hiding under each other (I like the non-stacking). AI`s not too bad on Prince (not tried higher).

The thing is, Civ4 does all this (except for non- stacking and immersive leaders) and arguably better. It doesn`t even have the stupid knee-jerk Giant death robot for no reason except as some dumb Dev joke (don`t joke with our money Devs) and the really silly insta transports that you can accidentally send to water and into enemy ships when you don`t want. And of course you`re game never feels like its yours (compared to Civ 4) due to Steam and I know I`ll still be playing Civ 4 in 10 years, but will I be able to play Civ 5 in 10 years?

Civ 5 is still a Civ game just not so much a grown up Civ game any more and therby not as good as Civ4. That said, Civ 5 is not at all bad. It`ll still eat the hours.

Originally Posted by Guardian_PL

P.S. It took a while, but vast majority of old civfanatics who were waiting with bated breath for the next iteration of their beloved series and got thoroughly disappointed have finally left this forum, so now opinions about Civ5 are mostly positive. So don't expect a hearty advice to pick Civ4 over Civ5 when posting in a Civ5 General Discussion forum ^^

Absolutely agree. I don`t come here often, but the last period I came here the gamers were defintely different with a different attitude to Civ. It really is like they`ve been replaced and we are now in the minority.

[Gucumatz]

Defintely if you enjoy multiplayer (and don't mind the buggy lobby)

Multiplayer in Civ 5 is far superior to multi in civ 4. The problem?

Ai in singleplayer is still ... not very fun to play with often

[Crow T Robot]

FWIW

I was (am) a die hard Civ3 fanatic. My old XP machine is still around just to run Civ3 and a few other games that W7 rejects. Tried out Civ5 (G&K) the other day because Endless Space just has a few too many issues and quite like it so far.

Positives:
* 1 unit per tile is kinda nice. Makes for a whole different play style and combat is much more tactical.
* The AI does not drag on wars forever and ever like it used to.
* Graphics are pretty good.
* Slightly more realistic terrain
* No more pollution, corruption or global warming...I dislike that you win or lose most 4X games well before you ever get to play with a mature empire and the really cool toys unless you play after the win/loss or turn off most victory conditions. Then, you have to deal with GW or corruption.
* I like mutliple golden ages
* I like that GPs are easier to come by, but they are sometimes TOO easy to come by (I know C4 was more like C5 than C3 in this way, but I skipped C4)
* I really like the city-states, manipulating them, proxy cold wars etc.
* Strat Res. dont run out and move somewhere else. I also like that 10 of XXX will let you make 10 things using XXX for the most part.
* I like that city influence grows irregularly.
* I like that you can start in any era...I hate playing in the first one, everything is just so slooow.

Revelations...things that are VERY different:
* I quite like the idea of social policies instead of Govs...though it is not yet clear to me if adopting a new tree looses you the benefits of some others. A few times I have been quite happy with the way things are but had to adopt a new policy that changed too many things too much
* HAPPINESS is not a given and even lots of luxuries dont always make the peeps happy enough
* Happiness is inversely tied to empire size (pop I think vs city count) so, lots of big cities are no longer the goal.
* The list of things you can build in a city are greatly reduced making it seem like Civ-Lite.
* 'City Square' development is very different as a result of the happiness thing.

Negative/Ambivalent (not sure yet how much I like or dislike these aspects):
* Not sure I like the Giant Death Robot
* Unit Cost....OT1H with 1 unit per tile you do not need a lot of units...OTOH the maintenance formula is utterly whacked: some sort of polynomial where the later in the game it gets, the cost skyrockets exponentially. The strat resource use limitation already inhibits making unlimited units from 1 deposit, I'm not sure the game needs another limiter.
* I never thought the idea of a battleship maintenance costing the same as a warrior made any sense at all, but this formula is skewed towards time way, way too much. (I cut it to about 1/3rd the original, but still seems high though it could be result of policies).
* Unit cost is just another way C4 inhibits looong games and encourages you to play to win earlier than later.
* All the techs are mandatory...so there so strategy involved in what you research
* The Game 'helps' you too much in some places making it seem like Civ-Lite compared to C3. It is not consistent - it will only show you 1-2 good spots to settle on THIS continent. Of you are trying to colonize over there, you are on your own.
* Espionage is still very weak...I've only played 3ce so far and never been able to do anything useful in other civs like steal a tech...manipulate city-states, yes bit not civs.
* Faith/religion (yea, I know C4 had it, I skipped that one) is interesting but the only real use for it seems to be in influencing CS...doesnt make people happy or sway other civs.
* Another way it is Civ-Lite is that all units are amphibious. A BIG part of planning continental invasions was organizing units into transports. Thats gone - everybody just jump in the water. Of course, the AI was terrible at this...3 spearmen in a modern era transport. Omni-Amphib makes AI invasions a bit more serious but they still dont bring enough units.

Is it worth it? Yes. There are worse ways you could spend your money. The replay value is an unanswered question for me...I dont see it stretching out for over decade for me like Civ3 has.

[PhilBowles]

Absolutely agree. I don`t come here often, but the last period I came here the gamers were defintely different with a different attitude to Civ. It really is like they`ve been replaced and we are now in the minority.

I haven't tracked the names of users with different attitudes to Civ V, however there are quite a few testimonies on the Gods & Kings forum by people who hated vanilla but were converted to the game by the expansion. Quite possibly this includes most of the ones who complained about Civ V for the lack of such features as religion and espionage; there may be others prompted to retry the game with the expansion who were turned off by early vanilla, and who hadn't previously appreciated how much difference the late vanilla patches made. So while there may have been a partial exodus, it's also likely that there are genuinely fewer people who now dislike Civ V than there were previously.

was (am) a die hard Civ3 fanatic. My old XP machine is still around just to run Civ3 and a few other games that W7 rejects. Tried out Civ5 (G&K) the other day because Endless Space just has a few too many issues and quite like it so far.

Endless Space has one core issue: it's oversimplified rubbish...

* I quite like the idea of social policies instead of Govs...though it is not yet clear to me if adopting a new tree looses you the benefits of some others. A few times I have been quite happy with the way things are but had to adopt a new policy that changed too many things too much

There are only certain trees that lose you the benefits of others (the main one being if you take Rationalism and have previously taken Piety), otherwise the effects are all cumulative.

The list of things you can build in a city are greatly reduced making it seem like Civ-Lite.

There's method to this madness - production times are slower and everything has maintenance costs. That to me makes it feel less Sim City-like, not less Civ-like. You no longer want to build copies of everything in every city, but to make strategic decisions regarding what to build where (and the more units/roads you build, the more carefully you have to plan building decisions since you can afford fewer of those).

What I do miss slightly is the option to show a city graphic from the city screen that displays all the structures in the settlement, something in the early Civ games (I think it may have been absent from Civ IV, I can't recall).

The strat resource use limitation already inhibits making unlimited units from 1 deposit, I'm not sure the game needs another limiter.

It's not until very late in the game when the units you want most of have any strategic resource requirement. Maintenance costs certainly do need to scale, since otherwise they become trivial as your GPT goes through the roof, however it's an oddity that the same doesn't apply to building maintenance costs, so you can increasingly fill your cities with the buildings you skimped on earlier in the game as the game progresses.

All the techs are mandatory...so there so strategy involved in what you research

The strategy lies in when you research it - although the G&K tech tree is rather less flexible in this regard than the vanilla one, which is unfortunate, particularly as certain key 'go-to' techs skew tech progression whatever your strategy, and others are of more limited value in the same vein. Though all Civ games have had this latter issue, in the past particularly since government type/civics and (in Civ IV) religion were tied to specific techs. Although Civ V has to some extent delinked these mechanics from tech, it hasn't fully resolved the 'default teching' issue.

The Game 'helps' you too much in some places making it seem like Civ-Lite compared to C3. It is not consistent - it will only show you 1-2 good spots to settle on THIS continent. Of you are trying to colonize over there, you are on your own.

Not "Civ-Lite", more like playing an extended tutorial. I really loathed this when I started, but since I tend to decide where to settle before building a settler (which is when you're shown 'where to settle') now I mostly just think "hey, the AI's improved in G&K - the site I already decided was the best is on the computer's list of places worth settling"). I don't think there's an option to turn this off, but I really think it should be disabled by default at higher difficulties, along with "No, you can't end your turn now, you still have to move this unit/assign production".

* Espionage is still very weak...I've only played 3ce so far and never been able to do anything useful in other civs like steal a tech...manipulate city-states, yes bit not civs.

I'm a real fan of espionage in Civ V - and yes, it really shines in city-states, but don't underestimate its effect on diplomacy with the intrigue you can gather. Tech stealing is useful, but it's not game-changing unless you start a long way behind - and I think that's the way it should be.

Faith/religion (yea, I know C4 had it, I skipped that one) is interesting but the only real use for it seems to be in influencing CS...doesnt make people happy or sway other civs.

You can select several religious options that do make people happy - in fact all the things Civ IV did with religion are replicated in Civ V, except now they're just a series of options rather than (in Civ V terms) the prepackaged set of beliefs that religion in Civ IV did. The effect of religion on diplomacy may be less important than is ideal, but it certainly can help cement good relations - if you have a majority of cities belonging to the same religion as the majority of cities of another civ, that civ will usually (though depending on personality) count that as a positive modifier in your favour.

[Crow T Robot]

The 'Civ-Lite' impression is from several things. One is all the help (a unit needs orders), but others are things like no improvements for city defense like SAMs etc; another is that when attacking a city you can SEE who/what is defending it. That used to be one of the more tactical elements of C3: counting and indentifying defenders. Part of that is the 1UPT vs Stacks, but the defense ought to be somewhat hidden to you before engaging such as the exact number and type of air units on a carrier or in a city. No blitz also changes combat.

As for the tech tree, it used to be that you could skip certain branches (like skip Monarchy and bee-line for Democracy). Merely deciding the order to research 4 to 6 techs is just tactical, not strategic.

You're right about Intrigue, I'd forgotten that aspect. I still cant get the spies to the 3rd level, but still learning. You are also right about strat. res. limiting units indirectly being mostly modern/later units, but those are the ones that interest me the most. I'd much rather fight with Cavalry than warriors.

Thanks for your comments...they will make me think more about how I use things like Religion and Espionage. Thanks!

[PhilBowles]

Originally Posted by Crow T Robot

The 'Civ-Lite' impression is from several things. One is all the help (a unit needs orders), but others are things like no improvements for city defense like SAMs etc; another is that when attacking a city you can SEE who/what is defending it. That used to be one of the more tactical elements of C3: counting and indentifying defenders. Part of that is the 1UPT vs Stacks, but the defense ought to be somewhat hidden to you before engaging such as the exact number and type of air units on a carrier or in a city. No blitz also changes combat.

Walls etc. serve as improvements for city defence, however since you can always see the city defence value when you attack you can infer their presence. There isn't anything other than static boosts to defence, I concede (except for certain effects that boost ranged strength - Goddess of Protection, being Ethiopia against a larger civ, one of the Tradition policies, and Walls of Babylon). Effects that do things like improve strength vs. certain target types (like air defence batteries, say) would be welcome, and wouldn't be detectable until you first attack a city (unless you spy on it). Garrisons and current city strength are concealed by the fog of war like any other units, as are aircraft. I agree that it's odd when you can see exactly what aircraft are aboard any city/carrier, though.

As for the tech tree, it used to be that you could skip certain branches (like skip Monarchy and bee-line for Democracy). Merely deciding the order to research 4 to 6 techs is just tactical, not strategic.

That's a fair distinction.

You're right about Intrigue, I'd forgotten that aspect. I still cant get the spies to the 3rd level, but still learning. You are also right about strat. res. limiting units indirectly being mostly modern/later units, but those are the ones that interest me the most. I'd much rather fight with Cavalry than warriors.

It can be a game in itself identifying which civs are likely to want to attack your friends and stationing spies specifically to gather intrigue that can bolster your alliances. Best way to get spies to level up is to stick them on counterintelligence - even on Deity if you're bottom in tech other civs will try to steal from you, because some invariably skip early techs like Masonry. And level 3 spies are very hard to detect - in my current Ethiopia game I stole 3 from Darius without ever getting a warning or "you were caught spying" modifier, so I presume my spy counted as 'unidentified'.

Thanks for your comments...they will make me think more about how I use things like Religion and Espionage. Thanks![/QUOTE]

[Socratatus]

Originally Posted by PhilBowles

I haven't tracked the names of users with different attitudes to Civ V, however there are quite a few testimonies on the Gods & Kings forum by people who hated vanilla but were converted to the game by the expansion. Quite possibly this includes most of the ones who complained about Civ V for the lack of such features as religion and espionage; there may be others prompted to retry the game with the expansion who were turned off by early vanilla, and who hadn't previously appreciated how much difference the late vanilla patches made. So while there may have been a partial exodus, it's also likely that there are genuinely fewer people who now dislike Civ V than there were previously.

Well I got Civ 5 for the Kings expansion which I should get in a day or two. We`ll see if things get better there.

[LDiCesare]

I own civ 5 and play civ 4 only.
I hate city states, as I find them so gamey (they can bring you food even when every productive tile in their territory is occupied by enemy units for instance, and they don't play by the same rules as other civs) that it breaks suspension of disbelief for me.
I find the ai poor, the terrain bland (differences in yields even from specials are almost negligible) and the impossibility to raze city states or capitals bothersome.
I also strongly dislike the rigid social policies of civ 5, where you add stuff to exsiting choices instead of having revolutions that change the way your civ is ruled.

[Socratatus]

Yea, the suspension of disbelief was blown in places just for the `awesome` aspect. for some, the totally immersion busting GDR did that.

I also find city states very strange too. I would`ve liked it if they could build up and become a Civ too, even if they have no animated leaders, it really is natural to do, otherwise they don`t really have a reason to exist except for the player (yes, gamey).

Also, I don`t like how barbarians don`t develope either or found a city. They did in Civ 4 if they did well enough. Let`s not forget that many of our civilizations came from little more than barbarian bribes that beat other barbarian tribes and settled.

Funny, cos much of the game is quite good. the music is maturely orchestral and the combat is to my ,mind closer to reality.

Meh.

[jsffive]

I wasted fifteen minutes to register on this forum for one reason only: to tell you that I'm taking this pile of garbage back to the store tomorrow. They have completely screwed up what was a good game. It is without a doubt, the most UNPLAYABLE thing that I've ever had the displeasure of playing. Those "fanatics" out there, who continue to shore up and make excuses for this worthless pile of crap, aren't helping. I would have really appreciated an HONEST review of this game. Not being able to group forces together makes it too plodding for me. And not being able to set the game to auto-promote is just annoying. It would have been nice to find out ahead of time, before I wasted the money.

I would imagine that an online game between eight players might take TEN YEARS to finish!

Personally, the only time I'm going to spend on it now is whatever time it takes to uninstall it.

Now, how do I un-register from this forum?

[Camikaze]

Originally Posted by jsffive

UNPLAYABLE
[...]
I've play[ed]

Interesting turn of phrase.

Now, how do I un-register from this forum?

Sorry, we don't delete accounts.

[markusbeutel]

Originally Posted by jsffive

I wasted fifteen minutes to register on this forum for one reason only: to tell you that I'm taking this pile of garbage back to the store tomorrow. They have completely screwed up what was a good game. It is without a doubt, the most UNPLAYABLE thing that I've ever had the displeasure of playing. Those "fanatics" out there, who continue to shore up and make excuses for this worthless pile of crap, aren't helping. I would have really appreciated an HONEST review of this game. Not being able to group forces together makes it too plodding for me. And not being able to set the game to auto-promote is just annoying. It would have been nice to find out ahead of time, before I wasted the money.

I would imagine that an online game between eight players might take TEN YEARS to finish!

Personally, the only time I'm going to spend on it now is whatever time it takes to uninstall it.

Now, how do I un-register from this forum?

Pretty much all reviews were overwhelmingly positive - although this particular review might interest you.

http://www.1up.com/reviews/civilization-v-review

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Socratatus

I bought the game and as with some, I`m in two minds... But I`d say Civ4 definitely better when you look beyond the gloss.

Civ 5 looks a lot prettier out of the box than did Civ 4. In my opinion, however, the Civ 4 Blue Marble mod turns the prettiness race into a dead heat. If I were forced to choose, I would still say I still like Civ 4 more -- but OP didn't ask which is better. He asked, is Civ 5 worth buying? My answer is yes…

…with a caveat. I only recently got them, buying Vanilla and GK at the same time. I’m only in my 3rd game right now. To me, yes, it was worth buying. For you, however, it depends on what you mean by "worth buying”. I'm 48 and I’m doing well-enough that I don’t mind spending $60 bucks on a fun game plus expansion, even if it’s not as good as its predecessor. In my younger days, I had to ponder over whether I could afford $20 on some new Nintendo cartridge. I may have looked at it differently back then.

Civ5 is simpler. It’s not necessarily easier (maybe it is, but I haven't played enough yet to say that.) It is without a doubt simpler, less complex. Health and Pollution do not exist. The Tech Tree does not have "OR" prereqs. City Specialization is not as important as it used to be. Domination just means taking out enemy capitals (damn, I can't believe we wasted so many lives marching across Europe and island-hopping across the Pacific, when all we had to do was capture Berlin and Tokyo, and WW2 would have ended – instantly!) But you know, for me, that simplicity might be good. It's helping me learn to be a warmonger again. I used to be an unholy terror in Civ 2; but then builder games like Sim City & Roller Coaster Tycoon turned me into a "Tall & Wall" guy. At least, 5 might help next time I play 4.

Originally Posted by Guardian_PL

P.S. It took a while, but vast majority of old civfanatics who were waiting with bated breath for the next iteration of their beloved series and got thoroughly disappointed have finally left this forum, so now opinions about Civ5 are mostly positive. So don't expect a hearty advice to pick Civ4 over Civ5 when posting in a Civ5 General Discussion forum ^^

Originally Posted by Socratatus

Absolutely agree. I don`t come here often, but the last period I came here the gamers were defintely different with a different attitude to Civ. It really is like they`ve been replaced and we are now in the minority.

Yup, been here a while, too; although away from Civ for the last couple years. I started playing back when the game didn’t have a number in its title. I don’t generally post unless I have something to say -- tend to lurk a bit though, looking for ideas to try.

Originally Posted by Socratatus

I also find city states very strange too. I would`ve liked it if they could build up and become a Civ too, even if they have no animated leaders

When I read about the inclusion of City-States, for me it was actually one of the factors that helped push me to buying Civ5 (okay, I probably would have got it anyhow). It was a concept already seen in the "Minor Races" of Galactic Civilizations 2. I’m not sure the idea is implemented as well here, but it's still kinda cool.

Originally Posted by jsffive

I wasted fifteen minutes to register on this forum...

Wow! And I just wasted fifteen seconds reading your post. Did you un-register yet? Do you need any help?

[Senethro]

Originally Posted by jsffive

I wasted fifteen minutes to register on this forum for one reason only: to tell you that I'm taking this pile of garbage back to the store tomorrow. They have completely screwed up what was a good game. It is without a doubt, the most UNPLAYABLE thing that I've ever had the displeasure of playing. Those "fanatics" out there, who continue to shore up and make excuses for this worthless pile of crap, aren't helping. I would have really appreciated an HONEST review of this game. Not being able to group forces together makes it too plodding for me. And not being able to set the game to auto-promote is just annoying. It would have been nice to find out ahead of time, before I wasted the money.

I would imagine that an online game between eight players might take TEN YEARS to finish!

Personally, the only time I'm going to spend on it now is whatever time it takes to uninstall it.

Now, how do I un-register from this forum?

Its good that you're so conscientious about unregistering and stuff. You may wish to know that you'd return a useless plastic disc to the store that cannot be resold. You will also still hold the Steam account and subscription for Civ attached to it. So, if the return is accepted, you'll still "own" and be able to play the game. You might want to let Steam know to delete your account.

[Socratatus]

Originally Posted by Publius

I'm 48 and I’m doing well-enough that I don’t mind spending $60 bucks on a fun game plus expansion, even if it’s not as good as its predecessor. In my younger days, I had to ponder over whether I could afford $20 on some new Nintendo cartridge. I may have looked at it differently back then.

Really? Nice to know I`m not alone (I`m 46, I don`t feel it, but looking at the dates and working out the maths, yep.)

Thing is I`ve become way more discerning about games I buy and the price. I t took me 2 years to decide on getting Civ5 cos I hate Steam being forced on me. I never buy Steam games full price cos if I don`t like it I can`t return it. neither do I trust official reviews any more since they obviously get buttered up by the Game`s company and forget their duty to the consumer, so I wait a long while for more honest customer reviews that pull no punches. Don`t you feel Steam takes away from gaming freedoms like how it was?

Anyway, a game`s just a game and not worth spending a lot of money on if they`re going to make us jump through hoops for it, then not even allow us to return it if it`s bugged to hell. If Steam wasn`t mandatory I would`ve paid full price and worried about it later.

[PhilBowles]

Originally Posted by Socratatus

Yea, the suspension of disbelief was blown in places just for the `awesome` aspect. for some, the totally immersion busting GDR did that.

The GDR is a joke and the game rarely lasts long enough for me to see it in action (AIs also rarely build them). I found it quite fun (and I like the graphic), just because they had the sense to call it a Giant Death Robot emphasising the humour value, rather than to treat it as a serious tech advance.

I also find city states very strange too. I would`ve liked it if they could build up and become a Civ too, even if they have no animated leaders, it really is natural to do, otherwise they don`t really have a reason to exist except for the player (yes, gamey).

Other civs fight over their benefits as well - if you find yourself immersed in the geopolitical elements of Civ games, city-states definitely come to feel like strategically important minor powers. However, there are too many asymmetrical quests that only the player can fulfil, and it can be immersion-breaking to find that a CS wants you to discover a Natural Wonder that other civs have already discovered (or, in at least one case in my experience, is in a then-hidden part of the same CS's own territory), or connect a luxury that everyone else already has. G&K has revamped the messages that come with the quest system and they do a surprising amount to make the CSes 'feel' more real, though.

Also, I don`t like how barbarians don`t develope either or found a city. They did in Civ 4 if they did well enough. Let`s not forget that many of our civilizations came from little more than barbarian bribes that beat other barbarian tribes and settled.

Civ II is the only incarnation I remember in which barbarians would actually expand an empire after capturing cities - the Civ IV barbarian cities worked much like camps in Civ V. I do miss barbarians taking and keeping cities, though (and they never even make efforts to take cities in Civ V - is it even possible to get the achievement for barbarians taking city?) I do however prefer the spawning system in Civ V - the spontaneous generation of barbarians nowhere near a settlement on Civ IV made them feel more like a random game hazard than a coherent group.

Not being able to group forces together makes it too plodding for me.

Yes, this appears to have been poorly thought-through. For years most games with something equivalent to a 1UPT system have used a control group system where you can shift-select multiple units to move together.

Originally Posted by markusbeutel

Pretty much all reviews were overwhelmingly positive - although this particular review might interest you.

http://www.1up.com/reviews/civilization-v-review

I've read this one before, and it's very good, but bear in mind that it dates to before major patches perceived to have solved many of the issues with early vanilla (I delayed buying Civ V myself because of poor reviews and - rather shallowly - its console-game appearance, so I never encountered pre-patch vanilla), as well of course as predating the expansion.

City Specialization is not as important as it used to be.

This, I suspect, is something you'll find not to be the case at higher difficulties. Having played higher difficulties in Civ V than Civ IV, I'd have said the reverse, particularly as maintenance costs and lower tile yields in Civ V force specialisation more than in Civ IV, where cities can produce large quantities of most resources, science and gold come from the same 'pot' (commerce), and fast build times, slavery plus no maintenance costs mean you can build duplicates of everything in any city you want without penalty or even much hampering production. But I've read here that Civ IV becomes more complex to manage at higher difficulty levels, and I concede that that's possible.

Domination just means taking out enemy capitals (damn, I can't believe we wasted so many lives marching across Europe and island-hopping across the Pacific, when all we had to do was capture Berlin and Tokyo, and WW2 would have ended – instantly!)

Well, in fairness is that any less plausible than needing to wipe out entire nations to end a war? An open-ended process like civilization doesn't have victory conditions, so whatever they come up with will be arbitrary. Taking capitals in Civ V doesn't end the individual war (indeed civs are often resistant to making peace if they have a shot at recapturing it).

Notwithstanding that Germany's involvement in WWII did, in fact, end with the capture of Berlin, while the motive for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to avoid the need for a land war to capture Hokkaido which, indeed, would probably only have ended with the capture of Tokyo.

When I read about the inclusion of City-States, for me it was actually one of the factors that helped push me to buying Civ5 (okay, I probably would have got it anyhow). It was a concept already seen in the "Minor Races" of Galactic Civilizations 2. I’m not sure the idea is implemented as well here, but it's still kinda cool.

Never played GC 2 because I was underwhelmed by GC1 comparing it with Master of Orion 2. My point of reference for the minor state element is the Total War series, which features numerous minor, unplayable factions. These do however work much like standard factions and can be engaged in diplomacy on the same basis - in some campaigns minor factions can become more powerful and control more territory than some putatively major factions. This is true to some degree of Civ V City-States, except that however powerful they become they still always act like CSes, and don't have their own objectives or start their own wars.

[Akaoz]

Worth getting? No.