Civilization 5 Rants Thread

You could, but you'd get -5 Happiness in every city, a diplo hit with other civs if the resolution would've passed, and if you defied the Apostolic Palace, you'd lose the free hammers it gave to your religion's buildings.
That's not true. There's no diplomatic penalty.

I agree that a civ5 game with Alexander in it, becomes predictable and boring really fast
 
Be more selective in where you settle, prioritize luxury techs and improving them, and build circuses, stone works and colosseums, and at least get friendly with mercantile City States. Planting a city eats 4 global happiness, so you should try to settle your new cities in places where you have at least 1 new luxury, and preferably a second new, or at least a duplicate of the luxury unique to your region. If you can found a religion or an AI converts you to their religion, that can really help your happiness situation a lot too.

Aww, seriously man ? :/ Of course I'm doing all that. But there's something wrong with me & happiness, it fluctuates seemingly without logic and I hate that. No, it fluctuates with others, but it only reduces and reduces again with me. With me, it seems plain logic indeed, but looking at Marbozir's LPs, I'm really constantly asking myself where the heck his happiness comes from.

I'm very selective in where I settle, I often end up with only 3 cities before building the NC because there are no other luxuries. And even, I'm thinking to settle only 2 cities by that time now, but one thing is sure : often a 4th city would make my happiness drop too badly, becoming dangerously low (0 or negative) from pretty much comfortable. So I don't like conquering or expanding more, because then I'm in happiness big troubles.

Marbozir : he is setting all his cities on full growth basically (with some exceptions), and grows, expands, conquers, it's like unhappiness didn't existed for him, he is playing most of his Deity games without a single happiness problem or even ANY CONCERN about it. I just don't get it.

I could understand that it's because most of the time I let the cities managed by default governors, but in that case it uses more hills than Marbozir usually does, so I keep not understanding.

And I'm playing Egypt, with all Burial Tombs built as soon as possible, taking one of the only two happiness pantheon (usually the one with +1 happiness with cities of 6), Pagodas that I buy as much as I can, etc... while Marbozir ? NOOOOO, taking another pantheon, not even building every hapiness ASAP, not having Egypt nor another happiness helper, Pagodas only when he is lucky (because well, DEITY), Etc...

SO HECK ! WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS FREACKING GAME ??? :mad:

More, it's not how I like to play Civ. I like the race to land, having to decide when to build new settlers that stop your growth, and more importantly : having the feeling to PROGRESS. I'm even to a point where I regret the science slider, when it allowed you to put some nitro in your game, when I'm pretty much the only one to my knowledge who suggested to completely remove it (to make gold more important and valuable)...
 
Aww, seriously man ? :/ Of course I'm doing all that. But there's something wrong with me & happiness, it fluctuates seemingly without logic and I hate that. No, it fluctuates with others, but it only reduces and reduces again with me. With me, it seems plain logic indeed, but looking at Marbozir's LPs, I'm really constantly asking myself where the heck his happiness comes from.

I'm very selective in where I settle, I often end up with only 3 cities before building the NC because there are no other luxuries. And even, I'm thinking to settle only 2 cities by that time now, but one thing is sure : often a 4th city would make my happiness drop too badly, becoming dangerously low (0 or negative) from pretty much comfortable. So I don't like conquering or expanding more, because then I'm in happiness big troubles.

Marbozir : he is setting all his cities on full growth basically (with some exceptions), and grows, expands, conquers, it's like unhappiness didn't existed for him, he is playing most of his Deity games without a single happiness problem or even ANY CONCERN about it. I just don't get it.

I could understand that it's because most of the time I let the cities managed by default governors, but in that case it uses more hills than Marbozir usually does, so I keep not understanding.

And I'm playing Egypt, with all Burial Tombs built as soon as possible, taking one of the only two happiness pantheon (usually the one with +1 happiness with cities of 6), Pagodas that I buy as much as I can, etc... while Marbozir ? NOOOOO, taking another pantheon, not even building every hapiness ASAP, not having Egypt nor another happiness helper, Pagodas only when he is lucky (because well, DEITY), Etc...

SO HECK ! WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS FREACKING GAME ??? :mad:

More, it's not how I like to play Civ. I like the race to land, having to decide when to build new settlers that stop your growth, and more importantly : having the feeling to PROGRESS. I'm even to a point where I regret the science slider, when it allowed you to put some nitro in your game, when I'm pretty much the only one to my knowledge who suggested to completely remove it (to make gold more important and valuable)...
sounds like civ IV is the perfect game for you.
 
An essential system that gives people trouble to manage while still being possible is probably a well balanced system :p


Send a save game I'll look at it and points to possible mistakes.

City states happiness, religion, luxuries and policies are your main source during most of the game. Then it is the Ideology.
 
Been 5 years since Shafer V was released and still no news on Civ 6. It'll be the longest time period between Civ sequels ever. Shafer V is the only game in the series I've disliked too. Really disappointed.
 
Time to revive this thread, the game really deserves it.

I hate how ludicrously complicated it is to make even the smallest XML changes and get them to work. "Most moddable Civ ever" what a joke. And this game needs mods to even make it remotely playable unless one enjoys sim city style LOOK AT MY PRETTY THREE CITIES ISN'T TALL PLAY FUN turtling. Stuff I could have implemented in Civ4 in less than two hours keeps me up entire nights in this mess.
 
Well, that's the great thing about opinions. Everyone has them :).

IK does have a couple of points though, even after all this time, updates, and expansions. Modding is a royal PITA, and mods do make the game more enjoyable from the rather bland (IMO) snoozefest that it is without them.
 
Agreed about mods improve the game, I would actually found modding is pretty easy and fun. Maybe because I learn to seriously mod for this game.

I can't help but prefer to discuss this topic in other thread, and this thread is something that should be in museum already consider it's age and intention of control the rants against Civ5 vanilla and later G&K.
 
Well, I'm always up for modding rant thread, maybe Imp will start one :mischief:. While I agree with you that basic modding can be fairly easy, detailed or complex modding is a royal PITA.
 
This thread is not obsolete as Civ5 isn't yet. There is still plenty of things wrong with Civ5, its many improvements over the Vanilla release notwithstanding. 1UPT and this game's absurd fetish with tall play alone could keep me going for pages.
 
Woah, this thread is STILL going on. Civ V is clearly a bad game. Someone should send this to the devs. I don't think I've ever seen any sequel get THIS much hate before :lol:

I think Rome II has taken Civ 5s crown as most disappointing sequel.

Interestingly, both games took the same path and made the same mistake.

"Streamline" the game, make it more arcadey to appeal to people who have no interest in strategy games.

Baffles me this marketing strategy. Do we think EA will streamline FIFA to appeal to people who don't like football?
 
:sarcasm: Heh, with EA, anything is possible.
 
This thread is not obsolete as Civ5 isn't yet. There is still plenty of things wrong with Civ5, its many improvements over the Vanilla release notwithstanding. 1UPT and this game's absurd fetish with tall play alone could keep me going for pages.

Well, yes. But I guess others forumer are also did something between totally ranting and totally arguing about this for total of thousands page in past 5 years in other threads in this forum. I don't mind if you feel the need to do so here anyway.
 
Time to revive this thread, the game really deserves it.

I hate how ludicrously complicated it is to make even the smallest XML changes and get them to work. "Most moddable Civ ever" what a joke. And this game needs mods to even make it remotely playable unless one enjoys sim city style LOOK AT MY PRETTY THREE CITIES ISN'T TALL PLAY FUN turtling. Stuff I could have implemented in Civ4 in less than two hours keeps me up entire nights in this mess.

Agreed.

It's never referenced much anymore, but "the most moddable civ ever" was a key selling point advertised for Shafer 5. Shirk and Shafer both bigged it up prior to release, and then when the game didn't deliver on its promise it was forgotten about.

Up until last year , the Civ 4 C+C forum still had more activity and viewers than the Civ 5 C+C forum.
 
Only real rant I have is that they never fixed the unit upgrade tree. After all the expands and patches, my pictish warriors still end up on horseback.... no upgrade added for scouts.....keshiks are not considered "mounted" units.... it is a tired old rant, so please do not argue that lancers are good- they are 95% garbage. Catapults and trebs still suck.... thats it. I still love the games and waste countless hours on them. Oh, one last thing- I miss Hannibal and Ragnar.
 
Still a terrible game after all these years. :shake:

Really hoping that Civ VI will right the ship, so to speak.

It's been far too long since they've made a quality Civ game.

*Sigh*
 
Top Bottom