I'm a man without a Civilization

Status
Not open for further replies.
I´m sorry, i meen you no disrespect but how does the opinion from me or a guy or girl just now starting out with civ5 don´t count. Gaming isn´t some elite club only for the selected few and a do think firaxis very much reads forums like this and very much takes into account what people around here thinks about their product.
The opinion of a "new" guy or girls should count just as much, BUT:
- Civ, since the beginning, should be a game that is fun and challenging for EVERYONE, from newbies to experts.
- You are on a website called civFANATICS, not civnewbies or civcasuals, so obviously people here expect a little more than basic strategies.

I started with Civ1 and even though it is nearly 20 years ago, I still remember my first game (during lunch-breaks in our schools computer room): I played the easiest difficulty level and when the game was over, I was barely alive and barely scratched the middle age techs. :crazyeye:
But I loved it and kept playing, so that I eventually mastered the highest difficulty and built tanks even before 1AD. ;)
Sure, Civ1 is limited compared to Civ4 when it comes to complexity, but it was fun on all levels.

I don't like Civ4 much, but you can't deny that Civ4 is challenging, even on the higher difficulties. Civ5 is currently constrained in such a way that a veteran or smart person can easily figure out the winning strategy and either decide to go for it or artificially play worse to make to make it more challenging.

Is is a positive thing that Firaxis strives to make Civilization accessible to new audiences? Sure. Is it okay that lower difficulty levels are easier to beat for players who do not want to think so much? Absolutely. But should everybody be able to beat Deity? No, that privilege should belong to those who take the time, effort and brains to really think about how to beat a challenging AI.
I like to compare Civ to Chess, in that regard. Chess is easy to learn and easy to beat on low difficulties, so it can be fun for everybody. But you don't just buy Fritz and beat the highest difficulty after you figured out the the AI is a sucker when it comes to exchanging pieces, nor is there one way that is clearly superior to all the rest. Every chess game is different and thus an opportunity to find a different way to beat the opponent. That is how Civ should be as well, which it clearly isn't with the latest installment.
 
I must agree with many complaints mentionned above : too low complexity, not much control on various parameters,..
When I first played Civ, I spent day and night. Eager to reach a higher tech and some funny units or improvements. I also appreciated some new ideas, such as the multi layer maps to introduce space, or with mods such as Genetic Era where you could even build undersea civilisations and re-build the world.
In a few words, I had the feeling of a God raising a civilization, building a world. Playing with parameters, or digging oceans out of mountains, that was fun. You thought having well improved your land and that close from scrapping your workers ? A couple technos later, you felt again missing workers to build some new, better, improvements !

With Civ5, workers are quickly not fun at all. Once you have build farms and mines in an area, plus built one road to non coastal towns, there's nothing left to do. Capturing workers from other civs is even useles: I don't even know where I could use those workers. An idea about removing these damn montains which prevent a nice town from spreading ? Not possible.. Too bad, the AI was too stupid to grow first on other tiles than mountains.

I don't feel the fun of creating a world from A to Z.. and beyond in the future. Civ was a god dream. It's now a console game..

And by the way, I remember a time when a too industrial civ was bringing environmental issues that you had no other choice to handle. That was another interesting dimension. But I guess nowadays ecology is not anymore a concern...

I believe Sid got very, very old...
 
There is an entire forum section dedictade to them, with multiple pages. :confused:

Why don't you actually respond to some of the points made by the OP, instead of just barging into every negative thread and claiming the negativity is hogwash?

My very first post in this thread responded to the OP.

I usually dismiss anyone claiming that ciV lacks complexity (for I know it does not) - people just need to learn the game.
 
Saying you like civ5 over civ4 is totally subjective.
Saying civ4 is not more complex than civ5 is not. I don't know know how you played civ4. I was lost on civ4 noble before finding this forums and strategy guides. I'm stomping through civ5 without having read any guide at all. Actually avoiding them to not minmax a game which is so easy without minmaxing.
 
My very first post in this thread responded to the OP.

I usually dismiss anyone claiming that ciV lacks complexity (for I know it does not) - people just need to learn the game.

Yes, technically, you responded to the OP, but you addressed none of his points, and he had many.

And what's the point of learning further complexity when you can already beat the game on diety? :confused:
 
yes i'm the new fan base that just started playing in 1991. No one loves the Civ series more than me...and V is more than worthy of it's name.

This. I'm getting a bit tired of the accusation that "REAL Civ players hate Civ V, its mass market newbies who are propping it up". I played Civ II from launch through Civ III. I played Civ III from launch day through a month or so before Civ IV launched. And I played Civ IV continuously from launch day through the night before Civ V dropped, wrapping up my best ever conquest victory literally the day before Civ V came out. I like Civ V a lot.

Enough condescension already.

And what's the point of learning further complexity when you can already beat the game on diety? :confused:

Good question, but this applies to Civ IV for me as well, so...
 
Game companies are around to make money; not to cater to a small, hardcore demographic. The best way to make money is to appeal to the largest audience they can. The largest portion of the game buying audience is casual.

Based on this logic, why would they make the game more or equally complex than Civ 4? It's the unfortunate position we're in with gaming becoming more and more mainstream. Get used to it. :(
 
Has anyone won a Deity level game other than via war?

I won a Deity cultural victory with Gandhi. Most of the AIs were at war with each other the whole game, but they all had open borders with me and never bothered declaring war on me (even Monty, who was literally right next to me). I only got demands for resources or money 2 or 3 times. I also consistently had research agreements with almost everyone.
They often asked me to help them defeat their enemies but I always chose the (polite) refusal. None of them built more than 1 or 2 wonders except for Monty, who actually got more than I did, but he was too busy being at war with most of the world to bother going for culture.

I didn't win that quickly (it was in 2005 or something, I don't know how fast that is in Civ V), but I didn't build any military units the whole game except for a single elephant, and they just sat there and watched me culture win.
 
1. I was playing a HUGE map, Deity level, against 12 Civs. When my turn ended, I sat waiting for the other civs a minimum of 25 seconds, and sometimes 45 seconds. I have a 64-bit system with two processors and eight gig of RAM. Holy hell. In any given hour of game play I'm going to be sitting here for 30 to 40 minutes ... waiting? Is anyone else having this problem?
Not to the degree you are, but I don't usually play on huge maps. If a computer with the kind of specs you have is having these issues, that probably suggests that there's some big inefficiencies in the code, which hopefully we'll see looked at.

2. Unfortunately, that's not my biggest complaint about Deity. By turn 9 (yes, turn 9) Stonehenge had been built in a far away land. By turn 15 someone had the pyramids up. By turn 52 more than a dozen Wonders had been built, some in the Renaissance era. Civ used to be a strategy game. One of its best features was that there were multiple paths to victory. Civ V seems, at the higher levels, to be strictly a wargame. And because the AI can be defeated so easily, it's not much of a wargame.
I haven't started playing at Diety yet, but a turn 9 wonder must just be due to massive production bonuses and a civ who started on it on turn 1, and it does seem really extreme.

4. This is totally from a wish-list of mine. I've played Civ since the beginning. I always thought the only way to really make the war aspect of Civ fit into the broad landscape of the game, is to move the battle to a separate map. Two opposing units (or stacked armies even) meet ON THE SAME TILE and then that "battle" is fought on a separate map, with all the units spread out and one tile equals 100 yards or something like that. So I'm disappointed about that. I could look past it if the AI wasn't so bad.
That's just never been something in the civ model, and I don't know how a lot of people would feel about it... I'd assume the simpler fix would be to try and make the tactical AI non-terrible.

5. I think Civ V was developed to be a multi-player game. Only. It doesn't play very well as a single player game. But if all the civs are human, then we're all in the same boat regarding all of the mechanics of the game. I don't really think they give a damn about any complaints made by single-player players.
I didn't get the feeling that it was designed as a multiplayer game (and really, I've seen a ton of complaints from people who mostly play multiplayer.) I think there's just a number of mechanics which are still undertuned and will take some patching.

7. The game just ends. I won a space race and BOOM. The game ended. Because I have to send my spaceship parts to my capitol, I right-clicked and sent what turned out to be the last piece off to my capitol four moves away. Then I continued playing. Then four turns later, I'm about to move another piece and BOOM. The game ends. I win. And then no victory dance, no replays, no stats. Just on to the next game, or not.
Agreed.

9. I have NO idea why this game requires DirectX 11. It would be much, much faster as a tile-based game. You could even have 4 levels of tiles ... Far Away, Distant, Close, and Really Close (for those who like to count nose hairs). This isn't like a shoot-em-up where anything can pop up around the next corner. It's a hill. Just blit the hill onto the screen along with any improvements and let's get on with it.
As other people have mentioned, you can play in an DirectX 9/10 mode, and it runs quite well. (I have to use the DX9/10 mode on the laptop. Which is actually a little disturbing, as it's a pretty new gaming laptop.)

10. I went back and played a game of Civ 4 BTS ... and didn't like it anymore. I missed being able to buy tiles. Now what am I going to do? I'm a man without a Civilization.
Are there any Civ4 mods you might be interested in? I found that the mods out there really lengthened the life of Civ4.
 
My very first post in this thread responded to the OP.

I usually dismiss anyone claiming that ciV lacks complexity (for I know it does not) - people just need to learn the game.

It's more complex than average games, but compared to Civ4 the amount of thinking you have to do are far less.

Civ4 I struggled with prince-monarch transition while literally studying the game mechanics from this website, while civ5 I just beat emperor difficulty while role playing (basically inefficient playstyle).
 
To the OP, all complaints are legitimate.

But I feel if your point of reference is Civ4, you will never be satisfied. Civ5 is not 4. I think people got too comfortable with Civ4 because Civ4 was built exactly ontop of Civ3. Essentially the core concept of Civ has stayed the same for a decade.

This is the first real change we've seen. And to be honest, I'm liking it and want to give the devs more time.
 
I apologize in advance for the randomness of this post.

1. I was playing a HUGE map, Deity level, against 12 Civs. When my turn ended, I sat waiting for the other civs a minimum of 25 seconds, and sometimes 45 seconds. I have a 64-bit system with two processors and eight gig of RAM. Holy hell. In any given hour of game play I'm going to be sitting here for 30 to 40 minutes ... waiting? Is anyone else having this problem?

2. Unfortunately, that's not my biggest complaint about Deity. By turn 9 (yes, turn 9) Stonehenge had been built in a far away land. By turn 15 someone had the pyramids up. By turn 52 more than a dozen Wonders had been built, some in the Renaissance era. Civ used to be a strategy game. One of its best features was that there were multiple paths to victory. Civ V seems, at the higher levels, to be strictly a wargame. And because the AI can be defeated so easily, it's not much of a wargame. So I quit that game. I don't know if there was any way to actually win a science or cultural victory, I figured my only "strategy" was war. And I had wanted to see if I could do it without waging war. In Civ IV you could try and sit on the sidelines, avoiding skirmishes by offering techs or sending money gifts, hoping to eventually win a space race, or a cultural victory. But ... and I accept that I didn't even give it the ol' college try ... I lost my desire to play this particular game. I didn't think I would ever be able to catch up. I realize that at the hardest levels it's going to be hard ... but I should still feel like MAYBE I can do it my way. And I didn't. Has anyone won a Deity level game other than via war?

As an aside, I was able to destroy an enemy Pikeman with my Archer in one turn, but it took 3 turns to kill an enemy worker that was clogging a chokepoint because of the 1UPT. So now I keep workers out in "look out" positions for enemy armies. Especially near chokepoints. You can hold up an entire army with a handful of workers.

3. I DO understand that in an effort to make the map "beautiful" they wanted to get rid of all those roads that were required in previous Civs. But I DO NOT understand why I don't get the road bonus on a developed tile. In hilly terrain, it can take a worker 6 turns or more to move from one side of the city-spread to another. Not one of those farmers thought to build a road? Even if I don't see it, can't we all just agree it's there? This is actually one of my top issues with Civ V.

4. This is totally from a wish-list of mine. I've played Civ since the beginning. I always thought the only way to really make the war aspect of Civ fit into the broad landscape of the game, is to move the battle to a separate map. Two opposing units (or stacked armies even) meet ON THE SAME TILE and then that "battle" is fought on a separate map, with all the units spread out and one tile equals 100 yards or something like that. So I'm disappointed about that. I could look past it if the AI wasn't so bad.

5. I think Civ V was developed to be a multi-player game. Only. It doesn't play very well as a single player game. But if all the civs are human, then we're all in the same boat regarding all of the mechanics of the game. I don't really think they give a damn about any complaints made by single-player players.

6. I miss the feeling that I'm building a civilization. Often I'll look down at my mini-map and think my "civilization" looks just like a bunch of city-states. I don't really ever feel like I'm building a cohesive civilization. I just feel like I'm clicking this to achieve that so I can get to the next thing I have to click. Don't flame me about this. If you're having a great time, I'm happy for you.

Also, in previous Civs, I remember the sense of accomplishment I felt when I finally discovered Railroad. Now I could link my civilization by iron road! Often at this point in Civ 4 I would change my sliders more toward cultural, bring down science a bit. In Civ V, Railroad is just another stop along the way. You don't even need coal. Achieving Railroad is a HUGE step in history. Thomas Jefferson thought it might take seven generations to populate the western U.S. Then twenty years later the railroad is invented and it took barely two generations. This is a huge moment. But not in Civ V. It doesn't seem to have much meaning at all. And I miss it. At no point in Civ V do I have any sense of accomplishment or achievement. Even when I win.

7. The game just ends. I won a space race and BOOM. The game ended. Because I have to send my spaceship parts to my capitol, I right-clicked and sent what turned out to be the last piece off to my capitol four moves away. Then I continued playing. Then four turns later, I'm about to move another piece and BOOM. The game ends. I win. And then no victory dance, no replays, no stats. Just on to the next game, or not.

8. I'm fifty-one years old. I play strategy games instead of console games because I want to think and plan. I want choices because I have the luxury of time in a strategy game. I don't have to make a decision faster than I can blink. Civ IV had choices. Dozens and dozens of choices. Civ V seems to be much the same types of choices over and over. Three hundred turns in and it all gets to be a bit of a drag. I can't even build a farm where a horse is standing. I have to fence him in. That's not a choice. The game should just automatically fence him in as soon as my city-spread gets there.

9. I have NO idea why this game requires DirectX 11. It would be much, much faster as a tile-based game. You could even have 4 levels of tiles ... Far Away, Distant, Close, and Really Close (for those who like to count nose hairs). This isn't like a shoot-em-up where anything can pop up around the next corner. It's a hill. Just blit the hill onto the screen along with any improvements and let's get on with it.

10. I went back and played a game of Civ 4 BTS ... and didn't like it anymore. I missed being able to buy tiles. Now what am I going to do? I'm a man without a Civilization.

Your probably just unlucky with the hardware combo or something. I can play Huge maps with a i5 760 and 4 gigs of RAM with no real problem. But I stopped playing with 12 civs because it becommes too clutted too fast, i usualy play against about 8 civs and 10 city states (so diplo is still a posibility). I get a nice spread of the civs.
Btw you have 2 physical processors (2 actual CPUs) or a dual core CPU?
 
To the OP, all complaints are legitimate.

But I feel if your point of reference is Civ4, you will never be satisfied. Civ5 is not 4. I think people got too comfortable with Civ4 because Civ4 was built exactly ontop of Civ3. Essentially the core concept of Civ has stayed the same for a decade.

Which is the exact reason so many people are disappointed with civilization V. They expected a sequel not a new game with the same name.
 
Extremely stupid happiness system is killing the game. Temple doesn't improve happiness - really? Instead, you get culture - from temple - seriously?
Happiness strictly derived from number of population, straight line there - extremely stupid solution. This is a real game killer. I feel like chained criminal forced to do what I'm told or else...
 
Which is the exact reason so many people are disappointed with V. They expected a sequel not a new game with the same name.

That is not what I want though and it's ultimately not healthy.

I started with civ2, I've seen changes to the franchise. This is just another.

Extremely stupid happiness system is killing the game. Temple doesn't improve happiness - really? Instead, you get culture - from temple - seriously?
Happiness strictly derived from number of population, straight line there - extremely stupid solution. This is a real game killer. I feel like chained criminal forced to do what I'm told or else...

I felt the same just a few days ago. But once you figure out (or in my case-- someone in the tips forum explained to me how it works) it is extremely easy to manage it/

Each pop adds 1 unhappiness. Each city adds 2 unhappiness.

That is all there is to it. Use social policies, imprvements, trade routes, and luxurues to reduce unhappiness. You can plan wars just fine with it. System is not stupid. It is BETTER for the AI to have this system.
 
No you didn't, you went and looked for a poll that agreed with your argument that the significant majority are satisfied with Civ V, because the other polls don't reflect that. The poll you found was several pages past the front page and has 565 votes. The poll I pointed out is one day older than yours, is still on the front and has 1141 votes.

So it's older and has twice as many votes, so by your own logic it's more accurate. It shows a 1:1 ratio between people satisfied with the game and those who aren't. People don't even need to give the game a "thumbs up" in this one, they just have to say it's not dumbed down to be considered satisfied, and it's showing the audience split down the middle.

don't worry, there's a brand new poll also showing overwhelmingly that most people on this forum like ciV.
 
Sir (or madam)- look at your own first link. "Who else agrees that Civ has been dumbed down". That poll is absolutely useless. It already assumes you hate the game, it tells you in the title what to think and is obviously is going to attract people who hate the game and lovers of the game won't even go in to vote. I chose mine because it was completely balanced. Thumbs up or down. Overwhelmingly, civ fans chose thumbs up.

Why would anyone who loves ciV, go in and vote in a "how badly do you hate ciV" poll.

ridiculous. But, good effort. :goodjob:

Really? Your poll has currently 568 votes.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=381961 - 1142 votes
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=387240 - 543 votes
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=385718 - 953 votes

All of these more active polls have about as much or more votes than yours. In only one of them the satisfied (majority of them only somewhat) exceed 50%. Based on the polls it's absurd to say that majority is loving (i.e. completely satisfied with) the game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom