Civilization 5 Rants Thread

It looks more like Age of Mythology.


And civ5...
The first civ iteration where I felt asleep half way the game.
The 1 upt system makes the AI so helpless, which is very sad to see.

Example, see picture.
Monty is at war with Suleiman.
A few turns back the city spawned a Great Merchant and Great Engineer.
Both were forced to leave the city, because of the Great General.
Same thing for the Aztec infantry, which was finished the previous turn.
The unit had to leave the city, exposed itself on flat terrain and lost its movement points because of the ZOC rule.

Spoiler :



Yeah, it kind of does look like AOM. Quite liked that game. :)

I'm willing to give it a try since it will be completely free to play. If it's crap, I haven't lost anything more than some time invested. Seems intriguing.

About the AI, I share your sentiment. The AI really is helpless with 1UPT. It is very sad. :(
 
Givin the results of this Poll. They (Firaxis) have really got it wrong.

I was all keen to get modding for Civ V. Now I will give it a miss ... Civ IV all the way ...
 
Givin the results of this Poll. They (Firaxis) have really got it wrong.

I was all keen to get modding for Civ V. Now I will give it a miss ... Civ IV all the way ...

Good poll. I'm sure there will be some kind of denunciation of it by civ5 apologists.

edit: it's in that thread already
I imagine a poll here is more likely to show a wider gap between Civ4 and Civ5 than if it were asked in the Civ5 forum (and it has been, many times over). The newest members are probably less likely to hang out in the off topic forum, so with a poll here you probably see a better representation of what the "old"/"core" fanbase for the Civ series thinks of Civ5. ;)
 
Civi-Lie-zation 5

That's my contribution to the rants section.

This whole product is nothing short of an insult in too many ways to describe. It's like entering a building that looks like a villa from the outside (and is advertised as such) and ending up in a stinking <snip>. Good luck wading through all that (wow, I am not allowed to write "<snip>" on this forum?!) trying to find pieces of roman mosaic in there. There are no pieces! I have spent DAYS to be sure.

Good bless America and the Puritans (who seemîngly never feel the need to <snip>)!

Moderator Action: Circumventing the autocensor is just as much against the rules as posting the autocensored language is.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Givin the results of this Poll. They (Firaxis) have really got it wrong.

I was all keen to get modding for Civ V. Now I will give it a miss ... Civ IV all the way ...

My vote isn't in there but you can add one more voice to cIV.
 
While the majority of people do not like the new version, civfanatics have not let this view affect how they support Civ V. While it might be an extremely poor game in the whole series of Civ, they help the newbies to the genre, who may even migrate to Civ IV or even Civ III,II of they can get them.

Congrats to Civfanatics. You are really the best website for Civilization by far. Really are there any others ...
 
While the majority of people do not like the new version, civfanatics have not let this view affect how they support Civ V. While it might be an extremely poor game in the whole series of Civ, they help the newbies to the genre, who may even migrate to Civ IV or even Civ III,II of they can get them.

Congrats to Civfanatics. You are really the best website for Civilization by far. Really are there any others ...

For one, we do not know that it is a majority that dislikes Civ V. And if you've read this thread, I'm not one of Civ V's supporters. However, a lot of people that did frequent this site when Civ V was released didn't like Civ V. At one point, there was a majority there.

CivFanatics supported CivRev and that was as far away from "hardcore" Civ as you can get. There is nothing different in CFC "supporting" something with "Civ" in the title from Firaxis whether it be Civ II, Civ III, Civ IV, CivRev or V. However, what is different is suppressing (of sorts) criticism of Civ V into this thread. The one major thing that has changed between Civ IV and V, besides Five lacking any kind of soul or addictiveness is that Take-Two bought Firaxis.

In other words, for the most part CFC has done nothing different from what CFC did five years ago. If you wish to thank CFC for supporting the newbies, then you also must thank CFC for corralling your critisism to this thread only based on moderator feedback earlier in this same thread.

There was a a lot of criticism of Civ IV when it was released too. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not remember the same action being taken there to stop the "dissenters". What has changed since then?

1. Crap (IMO) game released called Civilization V that was meant for consoles and the new "Oh Mommy, this game is too hard :blush: " crowd.
2. Take Two purchases Firaxis. T2 has quelled opinion on their own forums many times. What's not to say that they want their top two fan-sites (CFC and 'poly) to stop the dissent here as well? Probably not but I do not trust the large publishers and nor should anyone else that has any bit of respect for their wallets.
 
Givin the results of this Poll. They (Firaxis) have really got it wrong.

I was all keen to get modding for Civ V. Now I will give it a miss ... Civ IV all the way ...

Thanks for posting the link to this poll!:goodjob: I'll admit that, while not exactly a noob, I had never bothered visiting any of the off-topic threads. Anyway, I just added my vote at the poll thread for CIV V!:D

I got a boot-leg copy of Civilization about, I dunno, 20 years ago?? I think the game had just come out a couple of months earlier. Anyway, I was hooked. Became an ace at the game -- could win any game any time at the highest level without breaking a sweat. Then I bought Civ II when it was first released, and again became an ace -- could win any game at the God level without hardly trying. Skipped Civ III altogether -- guess I was busy with other things.

Then, 3 years ago (or thereabouts) I bought Civ IV when it was first released. Liked it OK for the most part, but I totally sucked! Won a few games at the Prince level (mostly science wins) and never rose above a "Dan Quayle" win except once when I lucked out with a cultural victory and got a "Winston Churchill" win.

I could not stand the Civ IV combat! I mean, after spending time, effort & money to assemble an army, I couldn't choose my own shooters & defenders. My expensive artillery, it seems, always stood up and took the hit from the enemy gorillas. And when I got a chance to fire my artillery, some giant gorilla always seemed to stand up to take the hit and my artillery exploded.

This was way different from Civ I & II, where I could luck out and destroy the entire enemy "Stack of Doom" with one shot. So, I became jaunticed, biased, and then disgusted with the whole thing -- uninstalled it, put it back in the box & took it down to the Goodwill store (where the kid at the loading dock grabbed it & took it home, I'm sure:lol:) At that point I decided I liked the realistic combat of "Rome: Total War," which (along with "Empire: Total War") I quickly became an ace at. [sometime in this time frame I bought Civ IV Colonization, which I liked OK, and became pretty good at, as I was with the original Colonization game that came out way back when].

So, tiring of Total War, I decided to buy Civ V. Yeah, I liked many of the Civ IV features better, and Civ IV I think was much more difficult, but at least I can raise a creditable army and fight it the way I like, without worrying about the gorilla in the stack standing up & causing my artillery to explode.:D

-- Cliff in Virginia
 
Phew...!
My rants are limited because so far I have not got beyond about 100 turns before yawning....
If was a poll it would be interesting to see what the most hated aspect is!

Anyway my especial hates:
slow to move to next unit
no unit stacking
no religon
whats with buying tiles?
social policies are restrictive (I think, maybe 100 turns is too short a time to judge, but quite ffrankly I'd rather waste my evening playing something I enjoy...)
strictly not the game but it certainly started things off badly - Steam :mad:

{edit} One positive - hexes should have come in yonks ago.

...CivIV is good but because I am religious I took exception and thought CivV would be good....

Dave, curious as to what you took exception to? Didn't rattle my religious feathers. In fact it was interesting to see it appear in a game other than ubiquitous temple, etc. of the older games.
 
I didn't play a game of civ 4 since I bought 5. I played over 200 hours civ 5 untill now.
However, there are features I miss:
- I enjoyed the different personalities in 4, the religious crazy Isabella, the paranoic Montezuma, now all the leaders seem the same to me. All friendly at the beginning, then guarded (if I'm stronger) or hostile (if I'm weaker).
- I enjoyed the micromanagement in 4. Having more to do in one turn and playing 50 hours one game was fun. Now I only get that when waging war.
- BTS had much more to do after renaissance. Now this part of the game seems to me simply boring. Beeline Cristo Redendor if you do culture, artillery and maybe infantry if you go to war... I've yet to make a science win, domination was always much quicker. I hope of a mod like rise of mankind for civ 5, with tons of new techs, units and buildings. And perhaps an addon with new features which give you an alternative play style.
- AI seemed to be better at war. Stacking allowed for surprise attacks at weak points. Now I'm not the best at war games, but when I win hopeless situations (city defence 9 + pikeman against three pikemen and several archers) there is a problem.
And there are interface minus points that I hate:
- Automatic cycle through units in a random manner. I want to take a city, the game goes from my catapult to a idiot worker in the other corner of the map, then goes to my swordsman... I hate that
- Why can't I attach the general to an unit? He's dead meat if caught alone, and if I send the general and the unit 5 turns away, they never arrive together. :(
 
I played some Civ IV Colonization today. As whole, the game wasn't very well received and justifiably so. Still, I thought I'd give it a try again for old times sake.

It was actually a much more enjoyable experience than playing Civilization 5. Lol.

I am going to check to see if there are any mods for Colonization now. :D
 
Definetly a thing to rant about in CiV is how i don't ALWAYS get the +45 culture! I mean come on guys, am i not that awesome?
 
After playing a few complete games on Emperor and winning one, it certainly has been more enjoyable than it was back in October. I still am far from fulfilled. I just think the lack of depth in the game, the watered down resources, no health, or religion has kept me from being completely immersed in my games. It's not a terrible game, but I just feel that if an expansion can incorporate those things its predecessor had then I'd be pretty happy with it. I am banking on patches to fix the AI and balancing issues in the future so I am not worried about that. I just need more layers to the game.
 
10) Total dumbing down of the whole game; screwing over the hardcore players (us) and giving in to the mainstream.
*This relates to #10 since hardcore gamers like us have been getting awesome maps from CFC forever (for free). C'mon Steam/Firaxis, how stupid do you think we are?

This here says it all. And by the way, denouncing sucks and DOF's suck. At least in civ4 you pretty much had allies as long as y'all had the same religion. On civ5 you could do a DOF with someone, give in to their request, and they still crap on you.

Vassal states and conceeding was another good concept that should have been incorporated into civ5.
 
This here says it all. And by the way, denouncing sucks and DOF's suck. At least in civ4 you pretty much had allies as long as y'all had the same religion. On civ5 you could do a DOF with someone, give in to their request, and they still crap on you.

Vassal states and conceeding was another good concept that should have been incorporated into civ5.

I agree. Diplomacy was a lot more fun and engaging in cIV.

Welcome to the forums. :)
 
Eh, regarding the poll, despite playing the heck out of Civ 5 recently I can concur with the results. If I had to vote, right at the moment I'd probably vote for Civ 5, problems and all, but that's mainly because I also played the heck out of Civ4/C4Col/BTS and it's gotten beyond stale for me, mods and all.

Am I enjoying Civ5? In all honesty, yes. I find the changes a refreshing twist to gameplay. Am I disappointed? In all honesty, also yes, in certain regards. Just because I'm drawing enjoyment from the game doesn't automatically mean I don't think it could be better.

I'm not going to fault people who voted for any one game over another though, or claim results are skewed or any of that. People have different opinions. I enjoy something - other people's opinions can't take that away from me. :)

That said I'm not sure if I'd recommend the game as it is to people who asked about it, at its current price point + DLC. Steam blowout sales? By all means go for it.
 
So, I went back and found an abandonware version of civ 1 (which I had never played, and because you cannot buy it from anyone anymore).

It was really great to see how it all started. If you haven't played the original, civ 1 is very much like civ 2, but with a much MUCH worse User interface. That said, it really plucked my heart strings to think that for some, THIS was the first time they'd have seen a game of this caliber. Wow.

Then I decided to fire up civ 2, but couldn't install it on my Windows 7 computer.

That's when I noticed in my collection that I had:

Civ 2, Civ 2 Scenarios, Civ 2 Fantastic Worlds, Civ 2 Test of Time, Alpha Centauri, Alpha Centauri: Alien Crossfire, Civ 3, Civ 3 Play the world, civ 4, civ 4 warlords, civ 4 BTS, and on steam I have civ 5. Heck, I have both Call to Powers too, just to round things off.

That's pretty much it, the full lineup of Civ games, only missing Revolutions and maybe you could count Colonization too.

So, I played a game of each civ game, full expanded. As the Romans. Just to feel and remember how things went. I had to get out a 5 year old computer to play civ 2 on!

It really puts things in perspective.


Civ1: The Genesis of the game. It is rough, but it really has a lot of things done well. If it had a UI that helped the player make sense of it all, it'd probably be jaw dropping amazing.

Civ2: Like civ 1, but with a great UI. It was jaw dropping amazing. Seriously, as much as some of the mechanics are clearly antiquated, this is one heck of a game. I was finding it fun to play again even after so long. Health doesn't exist. Happiness is... a truly terrible thing to screw up. Starting locations are horribly imbalanced... but man, you still expand and conquer in a satisfying way.

Civ3: While civ2 refined civ1, and made it more playable, civ3 came along and introduced a HORDE of new concepts. Culture, 'armies', Golden Ages, Civ traits, civ specific units, national wonders, Multiple victory types, strategic resources, luxury resources. Wonders having a 'type'. Siege units being special. BORDERS of an empire. Workers separate from settlers. So... the game was a bit rough, but look at all of these things that were added! If someone were to come along and refine them into a good working system, it'd clearly be the best Civ Game yet!

Civ4: Takes all the ideas in civ3 and refines them into a good working system, making it the best civ game yet. Civ4 adds comparatively few new things ('Only' great people, health, promotions, religion) but has clearly spent a lot of time making each of the concepts well balanced against the others. It feels like a full game and teems with intrigue.

Civ5: Civ 5 adds some new ideas. City States, 1upt, Social Policies, Natural Wonders, Cities Defend Themselves, embarkation. But for the first time since civ 1, it also removes a substantial number of concepts: International Trade, Religion, Health, Civ Traits (sorta), economy sliders, localized happiness.

The problem we end up having, is that while civ 5 could be considered like civ3, a game that just needs refinement, it also REMOVED a lot. So not only is the new stuff rough and untested, but the core game, what people expect, is severely diluted. Instead of having the frosting be a little bland, but at least the cake is good, all we have is bland frosting.

So yeah: Civ5 = Bland Frosting. I think that's the overall point.
 
I don't need that many words, i no i don't think Civ IV is much better then III. I don't like the graphical presentation, like showing three or more pikes to let you see you have ONE unit of that type. It clutters the map, making it harder to "read".

Civ 5 biggest fallback is 1UPT. Yes, it's easy, yes, it looks nice. No, it does not work in a strategical envirement. And that's what you looking at; the map is a strategical reprensentation of the the world. They "melted" a tactital warfare type on a strategical scale. It doesn't add up, it's silly. You can block units with ONE or maybe two units; for as long as you like, i npeace time, i see my foes buildin gup forces, have hardly room to manouvre them and in the end it's one big carpet of doom.

Stacking is a nighmare, mostly because they never matured the idea of stacking well enough; like combining armies for air, see en land units so you can build air-flotta, Sea Fleets and Land Armies; you know, like in the real world. Never the less, i enjoyed the crippled stacking system much better then this 1 upt, where should i go..nightmare. Yuo could buildup and strenghten fronts, you could defend you weaker units properly AND move then there were you needed them most. Now, bringing your arty in front is most of the time suicide OR you are already way on the upper hand to win the fight. No, War in CIV5 is a JOKE!
 
Top Bottom