my 2-cents opinion on Civ5 + 1 question

In there latest weeks I was so tired due to my job, that I wished something to relax and, so I have started plaing again Civ5, despite of the very disappointing first impact that I had at the moment of its official first release.

I must admit that I have had some fun with it, even if - as it is already known - it is an excessively simplified version of Civ 4 with the introduction of some news but with a damn heavy graphic.
Still, the main feeling, that I also have about other previous Civ games, is that I'm not really able to enjoy any era of the game. It is not a matter of settings (fast or slow game) but the fact that units and buildings are too slow to be constructed if compared to scientific research, which is too fast.
I would like to have the time to colonize a land with my cities and enjoy a true bronze age, where I have the time to build the buildings of that era AND an army, and to repeat this process in each age. Instead, as it often happens, the game forces you to be a warmonger or a peacemaker and there isn't much sense in investing in an army if new units are available so soon: no time to create a bunch of archers that crossbowmen are almost ready! And so on. Also, the eruption of a war, even if I'm the winner, may cause me to loose the game because the cities would be unable to build buildings, being busy with units production. Yes, it is realistic too that a war may wear out both parts, but it is damn boring in a game that leads you so easily to year 2050!

I would like each progress achieved to impact in a much more significant way on the game, so big that - when gunpowder is discovered - the age of Samurai and knights is really going to its end.

This is, imho, the biggest flaw in this game, together with an oversimplification of game concepts, sometimes a bit confusing too.
So, the question is: does Gods & Kings really improves the game so much as I have heard? And does improves at least a part of the arguments that are important to me? Hope that Firaxis will release a bundle pack with all game modules and expansions: that would be nice.

If I had to give my opinion, I think you haven't player it that much
When I first started to play Civ V (and for a long time) that also happened to me (although I never found that boring or anything)
And now I think I am a better player and I feel the game flows good from Era to Era and I never view me anywhere near year 2050, maybe because I like to play in a more quite faster and efficient way

AND, on the other side of the thread, I haven't bought GnK but everybody is playing it and I have heard a lot how good it is and how much it has improved Civ V
I could use some examples to argument the "Flow" of the Eras I named:
There are more ranged units now (More like a Range unit type path, from beginning to end)
The upgrade path has been reworked and you can enjoy and take profit from every unit of every Era and every technology since you don't ignore them as much as you said in your post (Which I also do a lot on Vanilla I have to admit)

So yeah, don't take my word as definitive but this is my point of view.. From someone that didn't buy GnK because he wanted to wait for review

Thank you for your feedback: I appreciate your personal point of view.
What you say is true, but for for me is just half of the coin since - as I've stated - the game is set to force you to choose among the building of military units or buildings. Yes, this is also part of the fun but still I have the feeling that the flow of time is not realistic.
I have completed the game with all the tribes that I like more. I would really like to have an option to set the speed of scientific progress with another one about the speed of building within cities. That would be awesome, imho!
And here let me specify too that I don't ignore units from each era: they just become obsolete too quickly! Of course you can help this with game settings: slower is the overall game speed, more the units will last on the map and will have a more strategic role because you have more turns and so they may perform more actions, but you will also take much more time to prepare them... instead, I would like to have overall more turns to play, a slower scientific research and cheaper building and units.

PS: it is very rare for me to end in 2050 as well, I have just mentioned it as the "ultimate time limit" for players to end the game, because in the latest game I have been attacked by one of the mayor forces in the game and the war has been very entertaining to play but also very consuming for both tribes! I won but my civilization was so in late that I have found myself at 1850 still using medieval weapons. A lost game!

Gods and Kings improved the game A LOT. The new tech tree makes it a bit harder to rush through the game, new units make the gap from upgrading somewhat smaller.

I would recommend to play on Marathon speed once more. Units are outdated much slower with this setting, allowing you to actually build up an army and act with it in the same era. It is definately better than on normal speed.

GAGA Extrem said:

Gods and Kings improved the game A LOT. The new tech tree makes it a bit harder to rush through the game, new units make the gap from upgrading somewhat smaller.

I would recommend to play on Marathon speed once more. Units are outdated much slower with this setting, allowing you to actually build up an army and act with it in the same era. It is definately better than on normal speed.

Click to expand...

I wished they bring back governments again. Perhaps in the next expansion pack?

Oh well, reading the explanation you gave after my post, I leave you here the GnKs Tech Tree:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=464857
Here you can the that IronWorking takes a little bit more, so that rush is now not that useful
You also can see that Philosophy and Education take a lot more work to research
And if you check with Vanilla, the research prices have been, IMO, notably increased.
So, you should download the demo, and check how you like it

0rion79 said:

In there latest weeks I was so tired due to my job, that I wished something to relax and, so I have started plaing again Civ5, despite of the very disappointing first impact that I had at the moment of its official first release.

I must admit that I have had some fun with it, even if - as it is already known - it is an excessively simplified version of Civ 4 with the introduction of some news but with a damn heavy graphic.
Still, the main feeling, that I also have about other previous Civ games, is that I'm not really able to enjoy any era of the game. It is not a matter of settings (fast or slow game) but the fact that units and buildings are too slow to be constructed if compared to scientific research, which is too fast.
I would like to have the time to colonize a land with my cities and enjoy a true bronze age, where I have the time to build the buildings of that era AND an army, and to repeat this process in each age. Instead, as it often happens, the game forces you to be a warmonger or a peacemaker and there isn't much sense in investing in an army if new units are available so soon: no time to create a bunch of archers that crossbowmen are almost ready! And so on. Also, the eruption of a war, even if I'm the winner, may cause me to loose the game because the cities would be unable to build buildings, being busy with units production. Yes, it is realistic too that a war may wear out both parts, but it is damn boring in a game that leads you so easily to year 2050!

I would like each progress achieved to impact in a much more significant way on the game, so big that - when gunpowder is discovered - the age of Samurai and knights is really going to its end.

This is, imho, the biggest flaw in this game, together with an oversimplification of game concepts, sometimes a bit confusing too.
So, the question is: does Gods & Kings really improves the game so much as I have heard? And does improves at least a part of the arguments that are important to me? Hope that Firaxis will release a bundle pack with all game modules and expansions: that would be nice.

Click to expand...

Research is slower by several turns a tech than in vanilla, if that's likely to resolve your issue. I suspect the slowed production times are partly a response to older Civ games having the reverse issue - everything produced so quickly that for large parts of the game you could have nothing to do except churn out units, particularly in Civ IV where you could duplicate every building in every city without penalty due to the absence of building maintenance. That made gameplay much more repetitive, and every new city just a chore of cycling through the same build order (and specialisation not much more than "should I build a market before a library, or vice versa?"), rather than forcing you to make choices about what to produce in each city.

I often find that I can play wars pretty well with only a limited number of units - again this is something that was more of an issue in older civ games, where since bigger stacks would always win your unit production always had to keep pace with your enemies'. Civ V lets you develop an army and focus on other things while it's seeing off the attackers - particularly since you don't need to invest in more than one garrison unit and your cities can partially defend themselves. Also, militaristic city-states now provide more reliably useful units and spawn them within your territory, so they're a more viable option for producing your army while your cities focus on other things. You can also focus on gold production so that you can buy units instead of having to produce them. So this may be a limitation in your playstyle as the game offers several ways to get around this issue, even in vanilla.

The issue of units becoming obsolete quickly is, for ground units, actually slightly worse, since there are now several intervening units between key techs - bowmen to composite bows, and three tiers of tanks and two of infantry each separated by a small number of techs (although longer research times and the rebalanced tech tree give some of these a moderate shelf life). The revised 100 HP combat system and rebalanced unit stats (a musketman is now stronger than a longsword, for instance) do result in much clearer divisions in unit strength by era - medieval armies won't compete against those dominated by rifles, for instance.

PhilBowles said:

Research is slower by several turns a tech than in vanilla, if that's likely to resolve your issue.

Click to expand...

In G&K? It looks so!

PhilBowles said:

I suspect the slowed production times are partly a response to older Civ games having the reverse issue - everything produced so quickly that for large parts of the game you could have nothing to do except churn out units,

Click to expand...

I don't remember that... for sure, it would be a good reason to research a solution in the middle! Also, imho, computers are now powerful enough to think about something more elaborate than a "1 thing per time", based on an obvious mathematic model that allows you to have a direct control over your world! It was fine for the older games which are an evolution of the old DOS model but now, If Civ VI will ever be created, I really would like to have something new and more complex.

I often find that I can play wars pretty well with only a limited number of units - again this is something that was more of an issue in older civ games, where since bigger stacks would always win your unit production always had to keep pace with your enemies'. ...

Click to expand...

I like it and I agree, even if this system now is a bit too complicated. Also, I would research a compromise. EG: Castle allows to stack 2 more units, 2 foot unit can occupy the same square in combo (eg. pikemen and crossbowmen) while larger units as elephants can't and so on...

The issue of units becoming obsolete quickly is, for ground units, actually slightly worse, since there are now several intervening units between key techs - bowmen to composite bows, and three tiers of tanks and two of infantry each separated by a small number of techs (although longer research times and the rebalanced tech tree give some of these a moderate shelf life).

Click to expand...

Yes, I have to agree. But it depends, really... it is fine for an army to have older and newer units working together but my point is that, if you can discover new techs too easily and you are too busy at building units, you'll never find a good moment to invest in an army unles you are forced by an opponent who has declared war to you, or from barbarians.

The revised 100 HP combat system and rebalanced unit stats (a musketman is now stronger than a longsword, for instance) do result in much clearer divisions in unit strength by era - medieval armies won't compete against those dominated by rifles, for instance.

Click to expand...

Of course! I remember how, in CivIV, newer units were stronger - but not that much - of the ones from the previous era and kill the new ones even too easily. Of course I like it but I have like the overall feeling that CivV is like an experiment: some good ideas and evolution but also limited, as to test the introduction of the above mentioned news....

Ah, do you know if is there any bundle pack of Civ V + Gods & kings all together?

I enjoy the very beginning part of the game. As the game drag on, it seem to be a little less epic when most of your military units go obsolete in a very few turns. They should have added more techs in the tech tree, with each only giving one or few things as an reward for completing them, not so many.

Der Golem said:

I enjoy the very beginning part of the game. As the game drag on, it seem to be a little less epic when most of your military units go obsolete in a very few turns. They should have added more techs in the tech tree, with each only giving one or few things as an reward for completing them, not so many.

Click to expand...

Very true! It is not only a matter of "more or few" techs, but it is about what they give you. I would have appreciated more substantial bonuses, as in Civ IV... comparing the games is not totally fair, but I think it can't be avoided.

Der Golem said:

I enjoy the very beginning part of the game. As the game drag on, it seem to be a little less epic when most of your military units go obsolete in a very few turns. They should have added more techs in the tech tree, with each only giving one or few things as an reward for completing them, not so many.

Click to expand...

Erm.... Not sure what this point is about units becoming obselete too quickly...you do know you can pay to upgrade them right? Just build a couple of units every now and then, and upgrade your existing army. You'll have a cross era world crusher before you know it. The CiV combat mechanic makes it much easier to not lose units in an even war, so the end result is just a really well promoted army. Pas de probleme.

i disagree CIV5 is simplified or cut down compared to CIV4bts . I find it more varied .

I find the timings pretty much spot on , almost perfect , i'm impressed to be honest how the game flows. Maybe your concentrating on one part too much and neglecting an other?

After G&K i find this game as good as CIV4BTS , different (thankfully as i wanted a new game i can still play Civ4bts when i want) but just as good.

Crafty Bison said:

Erm.... Not sure what this point is about units becoming obselete too quickly...you do know you can pay to upgrade them right? Just build a couple of units every now and then, and upgrade your existing army. You'll have a cross era world crusher before you know it. The CiV combat mechanic makes it much easier to not lose units in an even war, so the end result is just a really well promoted army. Pas de probleme.

Click to expand...

I don't agree, sorry.

Less important, since it seems a bug that maybe it has been fixed in G&Ks, if you promote an archer into a gunpowder unit, it will keep its "ranged bonuses" even if it can't fight as a ranged unit anymore. (and why an hell a rifleman can't go ranged? Does a gun has a lesser range than a Xbow?)

But the main reason is that moneys don't grow upon trees and that there is never a good moment to build an army, except when you want to go to war or you are invaded.
When I play, I never have a moment of stability where I feel that my cities have enough buildings and I can invest in defense, orienting my cities in building military units!
Units are expensive to mantain: keeping units that you don't use is a waste of moneys, producing units that grow obsolete too soon is something unproductive. That's why I start building an army in peacetime only once I have discovered the top units in the tech tree, unless I'm forced too!

Of course, the perception of the game is very subjective: we are not talking about an absolute mathematical value but a matter of feelings too. For sure, the situation is not drastic but I have explained my feeling already.

0rion79 said:

I don't agree, sorry.

Less important, since it seems a bug that maybe it has been fixed in G&Ks, if you promote an archer into a gunpowder unit, it will keep its "ranged bonuses" even if it can't fight as a ranged unit anymore. (and why an hell a rifleman can't go ranged? Does a gun has a lesser range than a Xbow?)

But the main reason is that moneys don't grow upon trees and that there is never a good moment to build an army, except when you want to go to war or you are invaded.
When I play, I never have a moment of stability where I feel that my cities have enough buildings and I can invest in defense, orienting my cities in building military units!

Of course, the perception of the game is very subjective: we are not talking about an absolute mathematical value but a matter of feelings too. For sure, the situation is not drastic but I have explained my feeling already.

Click to expand...

you need to change your playstyle as i would say upgrading an army is probably the most important part of the game. Maybe the first lot of upgrades could be a struggle if things are going against you but after that money for upgrades should never be a problem.

You should never lose many units (not strctly always possible but most times), your end army should be almost your starting army upgraded ( with extra built as you can fford or need them) and therefore very powerful with there upgrades. Really as you research a tech like rifleman or cannon you should be immediately upgrading your army and crushing someone if needed.

gingerbill said:

you need to change your playstyle

Click to expand...

Why? Is CivV a game with fixed rules? I think not and if does, it is the proof that it is not a good game. I want freedom, the chance to choose.
Sometimes, yes: I upgrade my units but I usually find moneys more useful for other purposes. Your answer is not a true answer: just the most efficient way that you have found to avoid the problem.

0rion79 said:

Why? Is CivV a game with fixed rules? I think not and if does, it is the proof that it is not a good game. I want freedom, the chance to choose.
Sometimes, yes: I upgrade my units but I usually find moneys more useful for other purposes. Your answer is not a true answer: just the most efficient way that you have found to avoid the problem.

Click to expand...

no because there is lots of ways to change your playstyle.Maybe saying change your playstyle was the wrong word to use , i mean tweak your playstyle. I assumed your problem was you couldnt afford the upgrade? If so a slight adjustement will give you your money.

You are choosing to be skint then moaning you have no money .You can choose which way to make that money and what else to cut back on.

You could do the upgrades you need at the start by selling one or two resources once , thats hardly too much trouble surely? Then later on you shoud have the money fairly easy .

In some cases, it is just that I don't want, because units have the wrong promotions, because I prefer to use moneys to buy tiles, workers and buildings in newly founded cities or because newly produced units will have more experience than the ones built only with a barrack.
It is not that I MUST upgrade my units: it is a chance, an option that is not free.

Do you want a new Civ? Here is an hint: let's make units that also consume a moderate ammount of food and reduce city population when they are recruited, unless they are mercenaries. And let's make them different from now, maybe with ammos and a replaceable equipment, as in Alpha Centauri. That would allow to re-train or re-requip units, with different costs too! I'm sure that nowadays PCs have enough power to handle much more complex games with many more variables and a much greater creativity!

There wouldn't be much strategy in a game that lets you build all buildings and lots of units. You have to make a choice between the two. If you focus on buildings then you will likely have a tall empire consisting of few cities. Because of this, the AIs will likely befriend you and you will see little use for units. Research Agreements will be abundant and your tall cities will be pushing out loads of science. There is little time in this scenario for unit building and/or actually using them. If you play wide then you will make more enemies and will need the units to defend yourself/push into foreign territory. There will be less time to build buildings. This is also assuming you are playing at a difficulty level that is challenging to you. If you play at Immortal, and sometimes even Emperor, you WILL need units or you will lose.

It sounds to me like you need to up the difficulty because the AI is not challenging you militarily.

Gamewizard said:

There wouldn't be much strategy in a game that lets you build all buildings and lots of units.

Click to expand...

You think that only because you are used to play a game that was based on the same concept over years
For the rest, I play to relax and mid levels are fine for me: for challenges which require efforts, real life is more than enough and is the only one worthy of.

Crafty Bison said:

Erm.... Not sure what this point is about units becoming obselete too quickly...you do know you can pay to upgrade them right? Just build a couple of units every now and then, and upgrade your existing army. You'll have a cross era world crusher before you know it. The CiV combat mechanic makes it much easier to not lose units in an even war, so the end result is just a really well promoted army. Pas de probleme.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that by obtaining new techs, you are only then allowed to obtain new units. What I am saying, homie, that in a few turns you will be able to upgrade or purchase them very easily with gold.

What I would like to see in the next installment (Civ6), is to have more techs between the moment you get musketmen all the way to the time where you can upgrade or purchase riflemen. Currently in Civ5 you only need one or two techs after musketmen.