[CIV 5 Issues] - The complete list

Why can't we have trade routes along a river?

This one is pretty frustrating. I was thinking last night an interesting mechanic for this is would be if it required the entire river trade route to be patrolled, ie not covered in fog of war, to operate as a trade route between cities. If a barbarian or enemy parked on riverbank tile it would break the trade route.
 
Not sure what category:

When you choose the option to create a DX9 or DX10/11 launch icon, the game still prompts you for a DX version even if you launch from the automatically created DX11 icon.
 
Not sure what category:

When you choose the option to create a DX9 or DX10/11 launch icon, the game still prompts you for a DX version even if you launch from the automatically created DX11 icon.

Good point.

I tried that when I first started, but it just went to the same choice. So my "Civ5 DX11" shortcut just became my normal shortcut, and I just absent-mindedly choose DX11 every time. That needs to be fixed as well.
 
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the economic issues or the unbalance of the regular specialists.

As it stands, an engineer specialist gives you exactly the same amount of production as a citizen specialist, plus points towards a great engineer, which is as much production as working a farm on a plains tile, with no possibility of getting money from the engineer. A merchant gives you exactly 2 gold per turn, which is also exactly the same as what a trading post gives you (again, less if that trading post was built on a river tile). The main disadvantage of a specialist is that they don't produce food--they consume it. Even with the social policy that makes them consume half the normal food, it's still at best a break-even to trade not working a tile vs. long-term planning for a great person.

I propose that engineer specialists get 2 hammers and scientists should get 3 beakers. Artists should get 3 culture and 1 gold per turn (people pay good money to see culture at work). Merchants should get 3 gold per turn. Additionally, I believe there should be a high-upkeep building that allows all of your specialists to add 1 gold per turn (so that only dedicated specialist cities gain an actual advantage by doing this).


Additionally, I would like to see the ability to add a great person directly to your city, like before. This bonus shouldn't be as much as settling them on a plot of land outside your city for a tile, but it would be especially nice to settle a great general in my city to add 5 or 10 experience points to all units created in that city. Perhaps the great person could count as a regular specialist that doesn't count as part of your population (except perhaps adding to your score). That way, your great person doesn't consume food or contribute to your unhappiness.

Lastly, I think the great artist's landmark ability is too weak because it removes all features of the original tile--including destroying forests. Plenty of historical landmarks were preserved in forests, so why destroy that? Not only that, but a landmark should generate tourist revenue as well--especially if it has to destroy a farm or a mine to do so. This would also help the people going for cultural victories, since they don't have the large empire to generate enormous revenues. They shouldn't be penalized economically for having a small empire. Landmarks that generate wealth could go a long way towards alleviating that problem.

Oh, and seriously..."Culture Bomb" is the official term? I find that to be insulting as well as stupid, to use an internet meme to describe a great artist's ability. I'd rather go back to "Create a Great Work" or something like that.
 
While I love civ 5 so far, most of these complains are right on the money, especially the multiplayer ones.
 
My god, this list is like a big baseball bat of stupid whacking me across the face. Sure, there are a few suggestions, but most are... well... ******ed.
 
The opening movie takes a good 10 seconds to click out from. Why?
 
Again some update (1.4), this time i completely sorted everything thru, and edited most of the stuff.
I tried to keep the posts straight to the point.


Tell me what you think about it!



@mods: I edited the title to be only "[CIV 5 ISSUES] The complete list" but it still says "[Annoyances & Issues]" in the forum view. Can you change that please?
 
Bit strange, this thread reads as a what you usually see in beta feedback processes.

If you want to approach this from angle of priorisatisation and categorisation, keep in mind that most of it will always be highly subjective. But that is ok, individuals buy stuff, so is just a case of weighing how much volume assigns priority to an issue.

Still, list strikes me as big caught between two sides. One side of bugs, annoyances, complications, missing "obvious" bits. Other side being the angle of bigger things, the level of complexity (as opposed to complications), feature elements and content.

First part, there is maybe room for. Probably is room for, now that release is out and support cycle is active, until it is time for picking up on the second part (for addons, expansion packs, DLC, gold packs, etc). So, second part now simply no resources for.

Maybe a way to streamline such a list for first part / side / angle is (with polls if need be) along principle of moscow (or muscow, depending on where you went to school).

M - MUST (have this)
S - SHOULD (have this if at all possible)
C - COULD (have this if it does not affect anything else)
W - WON'T (have this time but WOULD like in the future)

Obviously this is written from customer perspectives. Not publisher or developer. But the last two want to sell stuff, so they have to be smart. In community processes, this is not an easy task, but with the help of categorisation by type (as opposed to element) you can weigh how much support an item gets.

M and S "types" are really what such list can focus on. S can feature a change, but keep in mind the design phase is over, there won't be much big commitment. Product is finished, support cycle has begun. C and W are set in stone by developers (sometimes for developers by owners and sometimes even publishers), only of interest for expansion pack or DLC.

Everything else is bugs or unintended use patterns, 2K Games forums has some of that I see, but is a mess so never hurts to apply same approach to as part of list.
 
@mods: I edited the title to be only "[CIV 5 ISSUES] The complete list" but it still says "[Annoyances & Issues]" in the forum view. Can you change that please?

Done :)
 
I see some quirky graphics behavior. Four things I have noticed:

1) Yield icons sometimes disappear. I have seen situations where the first several rows on hexes on the main screen are present and all the tiles below are empty.

2) Yield icons are misplaced. Quite frequently I notice the production icons, especially in the city screen are offset down a tile and to the right.

3) The cursor when moving ships will sometimes show the red "not allowed" destination symbol for a perfectly valid move and never update itself. What is most odd is that happens with all tiles to the left of an imaginary line on the screen, meaning the UI shows a move right as valid, but left as invalid. However, this is only a cursor problem as releasing the mouse button moves the unit despite the fact that it shows as invalid.

4) The display of terrain also seems to shift at times. I specifically noticed it when I needed to build a pasture for sheep that appeared to reside on a mountain.

I will try to provide screenshots of this when I see them again.

Has anyone else seen these issues? If so, I am running Windows 7 Home Premium on Intel Core i5 with two nVidia GeForce 9600 GT cards in SLI mode with two monitors.

*Overflowing production/research is now lost and no longer added to your next build/research
Please note that Tarkeel found this claim to be untrue and amended his post in this thread.

Brian
 
I disagree I think paying attention is better, I like the fact that some units are better on some terrain and I don't think its cumbersome at all. Combat especially in the modern era is so much better in Civ V than IV imo.
Combat should be affected by the choices you make not the arbitrary terrain a guy might or might not be on. It should be anti-spearman promotion or anti-mounted promotion. That's strategic; the other is far less so.

Combat line is generic and most people would just pick that and make promotions pointless. NOT having it forces strategic decisions and leads to using units strategically. It's intentional and I like the change.
The Combat line allowed you to get better in future battles since the unit was a veteran. AKA from Experience ;)

Now, we're forced to grab Shock then Drill and so on and so forth. Secondly, it's far more strategic to have anti-mounted or anti-tank or whatever promotions.

This isn't a problem. This is a whining to be like Civ IV. Different game, different promotions. I actually like the new system better. This is subjective. Remove it from the list. This is a debate... not an issue.
Defining a problem in of itself is subjective. Every article in the list is subjective. Liking cake or pizza is subjective. Saying that this and that is subjective is redundant.

It's not whining; it's pointing out that the promotions don't make the game more fun (and yes, that's subjective)

This list is just a mess... you can't mix bugs and balance issues with subjective things and major features requests.
Balance issues and bugs are subjective. These are issues and annoyances with Civ5 as such every item on the list is valid.
 
Good job; I agree with most of it, if not everything.

It's nice to see a list without the stupid 'pleaz give me my cursor back' or 'pleaz gimme my imba piles back'.

Now, I'm really surprised, am I the only one to think research is really really too fast ?? I like the buildings being slow : it forces you to make choices, which is the core of Civ V, but, hell, researches are too cheap in comparison : you make a unit and when it comes out, it's obsolete. And, no, it's not the units or buildings that are too costly; problem is research pace, when you enter MODERN ERA in 1760 in a king game...

In my opinion, research pace (too fast) is the major problem of the game, and I would put it top of such a good list.

My two cents.

(and sorry for the language)
 
Good job; I agree with most of it, if not everything.

It's nice to see a list without the stupid 'pleaz give me my cursor back' or 'pleaz gimme my imba piles back'.

Now, I'm really surprised, am I the only one to think research is really really too fast ?? I like the buildings being slow : it forces you to make choices, which is the core of Civ V, but, hell, researches are too cheap in comparison : you make a unit and when it comes out, it's obsolete. And, no, it's not the units or buildings that are too costly; problem is research pace, when you enter MODERN ERA in 1760 in a king game...

In my opinion, research pace (too fast) is the major problem of the game, and I would put it top of such a good list.

My two cents.

(and sorry for the language)

Well, they're mismatched, I think.

You're the first person I've heard satisfied with the building pace... but it doesn't match up with tech pace. So - I guess - yeah, I could see the building pace working just fine.... if it wasn't for the fact that in the time it takes my biggest, most hammer-rific city to build a library -- I can research all the way to university.

The game moves to fast.... I mean, I had some early era bump games in IV -- but it's ridiculous in V. I find myself in a position to build destroyers by 1000 AD, consistently now (and I play marathon).

I guess, the only upside... it takes a couple centuries to actually BUILD a destroyer....

It's not that Hannibal didn't know about flight -- it's that he figured "screw it, my grandchildren's grandchildren are going to forget WHY I wanted them to build these C-130s by the time they finish, so I'll just cross the Alps on these elephants... which my great-great-great grandfather started equipping!" :)
 
Hello Zonk, the "buildings are too long" and "research is too fast" are, indeed,linked. I think we could discuss it forever, but I do think major issue is research : is it reasonable to think that your destroyer takes too long to build because you're in 1000, whereas you should be in 1900, with five times more hammers ?
 
I'm curious who's played on the slower speeds. Obviously that changes multiple things (building times, research speeds, etc.) but it would add more time with each unit built (i.e. you'd get to use your crossbows before riflemen are shooting them).
 
Good idea for a comprehensive list.

I'd like to add the following comments:
- embarked units appear to exert a zone of control over land. Seems a bit silly that the AI's pikemen on a boat can stop my land units from freely moving around on land
- AI builds far too many workers for its own good: you only need about 1 worker per city at most, and the AI probably has about 2/city at least
- strongly agree that we should have an easy way to see which tiles are being worked while in the normal view (that is, being able to see which tiles are being worked without having to zoom into each city): the civ4 system was good
- city states' combat AI needs tweaking: when a real civ declares war on a city state, the city state seems to want to go out and conquer the civ, which in most cases is just means it gets slaughtered. If instead it had turtled up and protected every square of space around the city then it would probably survive the AI onslaught, or at least for long enough for another civ to rescue it.
- need option to destroy your city's buildings (to save upkeep)
- the AI seems to not properly value the act of clearing an empty barbarian encampment. Many times I've come upon an empty barbarian camp and gotten free gold, when the civ that had in fact cleared the camp (presumably with a ranged unit) should have gone and gotten the money
- I've also noticed the display quirks that bkelly listed a few posts above

As for things that are more balance or gameplay issues than 'technical' problems:
- I like the limited resources idea, but the number of horse/iron you get per deposit seems too high, in light of the low production in civ5. I've played about 10 games now and have never run out of horses/iron. I'm now playing Russia and her unique ability seems almost useless. Every deposit only having 1-3 horse or iron (as opposed to what seems to be about 2-6) would add strategic depth;
- Barbarians seem too easy, they're barely a threat now;
- unhappiness should be a sliding scale rather than 2 discrete steps;
- simple idea for fixing the food resources uselessness: have one or more mid-game tech add hammers and/or food to pastures/fish/wheat
- courthouses should cost less hammers and/or upkeep. Currently it's almost always a no-brainer to raze and resettle, which takes away from strategic depth;
- a problem due to a combination of these 2 factors: there are not enough happiness resource types and AIs / city states are too willing to trade, which means that it's not too hard to obtain every single type of happiness resource in the game by the midgame. Which takes away from a dynamic of the happiness mechanism because there is effectively a hard cap on an empire's happiness, which is not that hard to reach, and which the player can't do that much to lift (at least compared to civ4, where sourcing new luxury/health resources in the midgame was much harder and generally required either a concerted diplomatic effort or a war)
 
Top Bottom