Advice for an absent CIV Gamer

I'll try to keep this to the point but I might ramble a bit. Be forewarned. I would mark myself as an absolutely Civ Addict. Or at least I was. I think I got into Civ when it was Civ2 and I've played every iteration since that time.

Civ2 in my memory was epic just because I think there was no comparison to anything at the time. Civ3 was definitely a very solid improvement on 2 and CIV4 as I recall was more of an incremental improvement but was also quite pretty.

Then came CIV5 which was a game changing shift. The graphics etc, the voiceovers, etc etc. All of it seemed to have been redone and it was a genuinely epic experience not comparable to previous CIV's.

Which in many ways I found in 2012 when I purchased CIV5 was perhaps the problem. Its a game that changed almost everything from the prior CIV's and the gamble I suppose was that it would be better. I'm not sure thats been the case however.

I gave up on CIV5 maybe 3-4 months after release because once the shine wore off it became clear it just wasn't up to snuff in terms of playability compared to prior versions.
The game was so over-stuffed with new things (not just the graphics) that I think for me the main issue was it just took FOREVER to play a game and many elements 1UPT included became quite tedious and the AI clearly couldn't handle it.

Fastforward to 2014 and I decided to return for G&K and BNW and see. I find the game definitely more interesting and much improved and I like they fleshed out various ways to win and not just "conquest" thank god...

But my main gripes with the game still remain. The AI clearly can't handle 1UPT or water which is a shame as I think we ALL love a Navy based game...
It just feels like Civ relies on a system of "fill this bucket with stuff, rinse repeat"

- Faith. On the surface its a cool system and complex. In reality I think after a while it turns into a bit of a micro-management spam fest. "get more faith, buy things, repeat, get more faith" aka fill this bucket.

- Culture definitely a fan awesome mechanic.

- Warfare. I am a fan but i don't think 1UPT can continue as its clearly broken the game outside of MP.

- AI.....can they not hire people who can code? The AI is woeful when compared to many other games Europa universalis, Star Craft etc. Or perhaps as I said in the earlier aprt of my post they just put so much 'stuff' into CIV5 that its impossible to code an AI that can handle it effectively. Essentially a double problem.

- Penalties/Slowness. In previous versions of CIV i found there could be war at almost any point of the game from first 30-40 turns all the way up to last. In CIV5 I find warfare (unless started by the player) basically can't/doesn't happen until Mid Ages or Renaissance.

Why? Everybody no longer has 6-10 cities by the renaissance. Mostly its 3-4 cities these days.
Also prior to when a civ is large enough 4+ cities to take 1 of them before that time attracts *major* warmonger penalties.

So I've found unless initiatied by the player the game is quite sedate until the middle period and only then does war break out from time to time.

Due to the upping of "quality" of civ as opposed to quantity which I think in theory is a good idea we have created a situation where Empires even the strong AI ones usually consist of 4-6 quite strong cities and 1UPT units that are stronger than previous CIV versions.

The downside however is once you've taken a strong competitor down by capturing 2-3 of their cities the rest of the game is a cake walk.
You can't be challenged, period.

During this time I found by accident Europa Universalis.
The game is not as pretty as Civ, its diplomacy is I don't think quite as expansive as Civ's for sure but what diplomacy it does have seems to work exactly as intended and therefore be a more meaningful tool.
Whereas CIV5's diplomacy whilst being expansive is majorly buggy and hence is an ineffective tool.

Europa Universalis appears to use SoD rather effectively with their "supply limit" per tile.

The game has less "meaninful" big mechanics than Civ does but the ones that it does have appear to again work exactly as intended.

This seems to be the core issue with CIV5. It has a ton of stuff that if it worked as it was intended CIV5 would clearly be the best strat game out there. But very little of it does and the game has become a tight condensed Quality Army/City ball and uber graphic'd, animations such that it really takes a long time to finish a game.
But mostly because one you've done ONE major opponent due to the quality of their cities its all over for everybody else.

Also.......is it just me or does Civ Beyond Earth just seem like CIV5 slapped in space? God I hope civ6 steers way the F away from the current developers.

Thoughts? Flaming on me? I want to like CIV because it offers quality whereas EU doesn't and unlike EU in CIV5 there is a lot of depth to certain areas and you can build "up" like uber quality cities.
Whereas in EU you can't do that.

But EU fighting mechanics, state interactions and the AI leave CIV for dead currently.

I think you're beating a dead horse here. Civ V is as good as done, there's maybe still a patch or two to come, but it sure won't turn the game upside down. If you like it, play it. If you don't like it, play something different (which I do, still playing Civ IV and also Civ II recently had kind of a renaisance for me).

OP, did you play SMAC? I loved II, but III and IV were disappointments coming off SMAC. Thank goodness for the CFC GotM archives or I would have given up. I got started with V late, but it has been keeping me entertained better than III or IV did. Yeah, I think CivBE will just be V with space graphics, but that’s okay with me.

Never did touch SMAC. I just felt that other companies did space strat better and never felt a Civ game should have been in space. Its a bit late to check it out now however ;-)

Anyways its a shame as I don't think any company does space strategy well. Sins of a Solar Empire is often quoted as a great Space Strat. For whatever reason I never found that to be the case.