The new patch has made a bad game even worse

I've been playing Civ since Civ1 and all I can say is that CiV was the first where I could win in levels above Prince. In my last game I even won as Immortal and haven't tried Deity yet.
What I want to say is that in times before last patch, the game was easier than before (at least to me) and this wasn't good since I'm not the kind of guy who plays hundreds of hours and reading forums for new strategies all day long.
And if a guy like me, who likes Civ games but hasn't spent 1/100 of the time that hard core players have spent, is winning in Immortal level, then something was wrong.

So, although I know I'll have to get back to much lower levels, there's no problem for me, since the game will be more interesting for a bigger audience.

Rohili said:

Ack sorry! I mixed up this thread with another thread. Was referring to another person, not you.

Click to expand...

Very well. I forgive you.

Baldur's Gate

Click to expand...

WHOA

Haven't seen that mentioned in quite some time. That game utterly defeated me.

Sonereal said:

Or maybe make a NO TECH BROKERING option for RAs? That way you can't give another civilization a tech through an RA that you got through an RA. This would do a lot to cut down on tech proliferation.

Click to expand...

Whaaaat? What does brokering have to do with RA's?

Don't RA's give you a random tech from among those you are able to research (from the great tech repository in the sky) [and hopefully, not one you are already 98% done self-researching], not some tech that your partner has to possess? In which case brokering is irrelevant, right?

Or do I not understand the RA?

dV

Don't RA's give you a random tech from among those you are able to research (from the great tech repository in the sky) [and hopefully, not one you are already 98% done self-researching], not some tech that your partner has to possess? In which case brokering is irrelevant, right?

Or do I not understand the RA?

Click to expand...

You understand RA's (though it very rarely gives you techs that you've done any research on, which can be exploited by researching 1 turn each on the techs you don't want to drive towards the tech you do want).
The other poster doesn't.

Ahriman said:

You understand RA's (though it very rarely gives you techs that you've done any research on, which can be exploited by researching 1 turn each on the techs you don't want to drive towards the tech you do want).
The other poster doesn't.

Click to expand...

Given how flawed RAs are currently, a no tech brokering option would be far superior.

Or better yet, turning them off. They're clearly broken. Especially since its possible to play on a huge map and end up getting 5-9 free techs every 90 turns on marathon. With mid-game techs costing me about 30 or so turns of research, that means I'm going through 12 techs or so everywhere 90 turns in a game with only 74 techs.

Given how flawed RAs are currently, a no tech brokering option would be far superior.

Or better yet, turning them off.

Click to expand...

I agree that RAs are poorly designed and don't work well as currently implemented, but there is nothing in them analogous to the no tech-brokering option in Civ4 (which is not the same as the no-tech-trading option).
No tech brokering means you can't trade away a tech you didn't research yourself; there is nothing in tech brokering which cares about who researched what. If I am in the modern era and sign a research agreement with Incans in the Medieval era, the research agreement will give me a modern tech and will give them a medieval tech when it matures.

I don't agree that any kind of tech sharing should be gone though.
From a historic perspective, the vast majority of technologies have spilled over across natures and empires; tech diffusion is far more the rule than separate individual innovation.
From a gameplay perspective, this is a way of rewarding peaceful cooperation; if you retain good ties with neighbors by being a small-non-threatening empire, then you can get faster research through cooperation; if you're a bullying warmonger who goes out conquering, then nations should not want to trade with you, and while you'll have a larger population and do more research yourself, you won't necessarily advance at a faster pace overall.

Considering the initial manual for Civ V explained that RAs cost 150 gold, and give each civ a 15% boost to science for 30 turns, I am guessing the current iteration was added to the development process very very very late.

& both of them suck!

I personally removed them from the game, via XML change. But i don't like doing to many things like that because it usually stuffs up things up for the AI. I'd like the Civ5 team to add in an option to disable the terrible/abusable research agreements. They pretty much fixed the massive amount of great scientists per game popping free techs so hopefully research agreements are next, the amount of free tech popping in civ5 especially in marathon games is STUPID!

I have now played three games on emperor after the patch and I am not impressed. As the AI is building more cities now they tend to have much less military. I find it much easier to kill them off now after the patch. Yes, it is harder to take cities, but I simply destroy their forces first and then I sit and wait until my artillery units have taken down the city defenses enough to take the cities with the infantry units. I just had to figure out that I need a little more military than before the patch. I still see the AI sending their artillery units on suicide mission. If I approach two cities at the same time you will see their artillery units moving between the two cities doing nothing at all. The AI is still not able to handle combat. I have noticed nothing better except their concentrated fire when defending.
The gameplay aside combat is more boring now. I cannot assign any great people until markets. However I do not bother with Great Merchants, so I need even less micromanaging. By giving the AI the most efficient human strategy -> ICS and limiting the gameplay of the human player this patch just shows how helpless Firaxis is to turn this game around. Making cities harder to conquer and horse units weaker was definitely a step into the right direction in combat, but anything else makes the game less interesting for me. Just my two cents.

JohnnyW said:

I started on Civ3, so I cannot discuss the earlier gamestyles. Two games (3 & 4) with expansions + many years has taught me that, at least recently, Civilization is more than just a wargame series.

I disagree. I found Civ to be a complex game before this iteration. There are features in place that could be great in Civ5 if implemented properly, but the pathetic AI and poor implementation of the new features make this game pretty simplistic in terms of strategy.

Click to expand...

Would you say that Civ3 was more complexx than Civ5?

From what you wrote you gave the impression that you like being a playground bully, picking on weaker opponents (or in this case AI that cannot even handle simple tasks).

Click to expand...

I'm not picking on weaker opponents, but on ALL opponents I can/want. (sometimes it's just too tedious to do a continental invasion)

I take more pleasure in defeating a difficult opponent where my victory isn't 100% assured when I load up the game.

Click to expand...

The challenge does absolutely not enter into line of count when I play a game. Of course, I can occasionnally be happy to have passed a rough moment with success, but that's all. Maybe you do, I don't. I play games for coolness and fun. That's all. Be it challenge, but that's not a rule, as you seem to have.

I never said war is not an important feature, in fact if there were no war Civ would be completely unrealistic and Civ5 would be even more boring than it is now. It's a very core element to the game, I am not disputing that.

The difference comes in that war has not been the one true and key element to the game, unlike how it feels in this version. If I want to play a game 100% focused on combat I load up a different game for that purpose. Civilization used to be about building an empire using any number of diplomatic approaches; war being an available option, but only one of several.

Click to expand...

You can still win by diplomacy or space. Civ5 can be seen as not particularly more focused on war than its predecessors. As I said, There was not that much to do in past Civs beside war. What could you possibly do in Civ1? Move war units and workers. Civ has always been a little dumb. But that does not make it a bad game, on contrary. I like very much how the game is nothing at start and how it simulates real countries at the end. It is just blowing. Unfortunately i did not find this blow feeling in Civ3, 4 or 5. They should rethink a little the concept, because it fades down when we already played at envy to any one of its opus.

So, if you like stomping easy AIs in a predetermined ass-kickery, that's your preference. That's not what Civilization should be about and there are plenty of other games that would give the same feeling that are far more appropriate fro such a venture IMO.

Click to expand...

No, I do not like "stomping easy AIs in a predetermined ass-kickery", it is bigger than that. Before kicking the other AIs, I played. And i liked. It's just that it was not a big deal. So I continued, was intrigued. Kicking the AI is only one of the aspects of Civ. It just pleases to me to destroy, because those empires are precious. I like to provide destruction into my enemies' land. That's a good feeling. As to "stomping easy AIs in a predetermined ass-kickery", I can't care less. That's not the point. It's the point for you because you focalize on challenge. Challenge is the less noble part of video games. It's just rough, unpleasant, frustrating, and so on. There so much more essence to suck from video games.

As to the games you like to play, definitely it is not Civ. Try, as I already said, Victoria or Total War series.

Naokaukodem said:

The challenge does absolutely not enter into line of count when I play a game. Of course, I can occasionnally be happy to have passed a rough moment with success, but that's all. Maybe you do, I don't. I play games for coolness and fun. That's all. Be it challenge, but that's not a rule, as you seem to have.

Click to expand...

I think this clearly classifies you under the category of "casual" when it comes to gamers. I don't believe that the Civilization series' true nature is that of a casual game.

Kicking the AI is only one of the aspects of Civ. It just pleases to me to destroy, because those empires are precious. I like to provide destruction into my enemies' land. That's a good feeling.

Click to expand...

Challenge is the less noble part of video games. It's just rough, unpleasant, frustrating, and so on. There so much more essence to suck from video games.

Click to expand...

Putting aside the curious English, I believe that Civilization is meant to be a challenging game. Like I said in previous posts there are plenty of non-challenging games out there for you to play that would better suit your desires. Civilization is a game that should require forethought, strategy, and adaptability.

Civilization is not meant to be a game where you spend time spamming "next turn" without thought until your indestructible army demolishes every opponent without a braincell firing in your head. Victory should be the reward of careful planning, intelligent management, and brilliant tactics; not the inevitable end-result for a broken system and incompetant AI.

I will never agree with you that mindlessly playing this game to destroy easy opponents is "fun." That is my definition of "boring."

JohnnyW said:

I think this clearly classifies you under the category of "casual" when it comes to gamers.

Click to expand...

I may be. If this had any sense. (after all I play since Super Mario Bros -Space invaders, even- that I completed in many ways many times.

I don't believe that the Civilization series' true nature is that of a casual game.

Click to expand...

If the term existed in the past, Civ would have for sure been labelled "casual".

Putting aside the curious English

Click to expand...

Hopefully you didn't insult me. Thanks.

I believe that Civilization is meant to be a challenging game.

Click to expand...

I see Civ as an experimental game, without any precise gameplay and no hope to have any one day. I see it more like GTA or SimEarth.

Civilization is not meant to be a game where you spend time spamming "next turn" without thought until your indestructible army demolishes every opponent without a braincell firing in your head. Victory should be the reward of careful planning, intelligent management, and brilliant tactics; not the inevitable end-result for a broken system and incompetant AI.

Click to expand...

That, this is the hardcore fanatics that hijacked the appeal of Civ to their own preoccupations. They took the game seriously, they wanted it to be serious. That was not the case of Civ2. That was not even the case of Civ3. That's the case with Civ4 and Civ5 last patch. Serious gaming for serious gamers. This amazes me everyday.

Don't get me wrong, I also wanted things to be more serious somedays. But I saw those things as issues that could be improved. The resolving of those issues would be a cool thing and maybe also a dream. but it was never in the direction of a religion like it seems to have become.

I will never agree with you that mindlessly playing this game to destroy easy opponents is "fun." That is my definition of "boring."

Click to expand...

Who said my opponents are easy? It's not because i do not play for challenge that I don't like sometimes that they resist to me a little, just for the sake of it and make the whole thing realistic in a sense that i put credit on it and don't just quit by lack of interest from the others (in this case: the AIs! )

Sorry guys, but eric_ has already +won (sorry, had to do it) the thread by picking up on one of my off-topic references. However, since everyone else wants to stay on topic for some strange reason, I suppose I'll play devil's advocate.

Now, maybe I need to stop being lazy and sift through all these walls of text, but it seems to me that there's a bit of contention about whether Civ games are supposed to be serious challenges or experimental playgrounds. I don't really see the two as mutually exclusive in the Civ series. You can play around on settler absolutely trouncing everyone and basically doing whatever you want, or you can crank it up to deity and try you damnedest to keep the computer from doing so to you. Of course, you can always bump the difficulty down a few notches (now, here's the kicker) and experiment whilst you done be gettin' challenged.

Besides the difficulty level, there is an ever-growing number of factors (different maps, scenarios, mods, leaders, game setting, etc.) that give Civ games incredible variety and re-playability. And yes, I find this to be the case with Civ5. (increasingly so with every new patch/user-made goodie that comes out)

Now, back off topic, re: my aforementioned fling with Fallout 1 and 2. Should I try to find Fallout Tactics as well? I haven't ever played it... I should probably try to find Fallout Tactics.

what exactly is tech brockering and how is it different from tech trading?

JohnnyW said:

I think this clearly classifies you under the category of "casual" when it comes to gamers. I don't believe that the Civilization series' true nature is that of a casual game.





Putting aside the curious English, I believe that Civilization is meant to be a challenging game. Like I said in previous posts there are plenty of non-challenging games out there for you to play that would better suit your desires. Civilization is a game that should require forethought, strategy, and adaptability.

Civilization is not meant to be a game where you spend time spamming "next turn" without thought until your indestructible army demolishes every opponent without a braincell firing in your head. Victory should be the reward of careful planning, intelligent management, and brilliant tactics; not the inevitable end-result for a broken system and incompetant AI.

I will never agree with you that mindlessly playing this game to destroy easy opponents is "fun." That is my definition of "boring."

Click to expand...

I very much agree with all of your points. It seems that there is a generation growing up on FPS and mindless RTS are trying out Civ because there aren't a whole lot of quality strategy games. They are coming in conflict with those of us growing up playing the great strategy games of the 1990s, as well as the complex hex-based wargames (from Gary Grisby, John Tiller, et al).

Buccaneer said:

I very much agree with all of your points. It seems that there is a generation growing up on FPS and mindless RTS are trying out Civ because there aren't a whole lot of quality strategy games. They are coming in conflict with those of us growing up playing the great strategy games of the 1990s, as well as the complex hex-based wargames (from Gary Grisby, John Tiller, et al).

Click to expand...

Many years ago I played two very different types of games:

When I wanted a brainlessly wreck face I'd boot up CS 1.2 or Dynasty Warriors 3.

When I wanted a thoughtful game I'd play chess or Civilization 3.

LordTC said:

I think the problem isn't that the AI got harder its how the AI got harder. They made the happiness system even more annoying and frustrating in particular ways designed to nerf ICS, while simultaneously getting the AI to use ICS itself relying on a preprogrammed bonus. If a tactic is problematic enough when the human player uses it that you require nerfing it then DON'T HAVE THE AI DO IT. Civ is on some level supposed to be a symmetrical game, and the AI bonuses are supposed to make up for the fact that the AI doesn't play well. Using the AI bonuses to intentionally have the AI implement a tactic that you nerf the hell out of for humans is just breaking that symmetry in the worst possible way.

My big problem with Civ V right now is that on any level where the game is actually fun to play its also way too easy to stay fun long. I want to play against an opponent not a little smiley face on the top of my screen (Which is generally the biggest barrier to everything in this game, a barrier that the AI gets to freely ignore).

Click to expand...

I think he summed it up best.

kamex said:

On the higher levels, the game is just unplayable for several reasons:

Ancient combat is now useless, the combination of nerfing horsemen AND increased city defenses and attacks, AND increased city HP regeneration just makes early wars unprofitable. May as well sit at home and build.

This combined with the even more ******ed happy caps has just made conquest of the world impossible. The huge happy penalty for capturing a city, either puppet or raze, which destroys your happiness the next turn, and then weakens your military by 50%

Also, the patch has brought even more misery, in that the handicap AIs can still out tech you, thanks to minimal scientist slots, always has more gold, and can thus always easily beat you to a diplomatic victory and regularly steals your allies throughout the game - meaning city states are now another redundant concept in the game (at least this boosts Mongolia's power of getting rid of the things - oh no, wait you can't, as the unhappiness from even puppeting would ruin you.

So not only has happiness been destroyed already for the reasons mentioned above, now that liberty tree has been nerfed to the point of being useless, and FP nerfed too, big empires are now impossible (unless your an AI where you get +60 happiness on turn 1 for no reason) - there is no way a human can compete.

The diplomacy system puts the last few nails in the coffin. As the AI DOWs and denounces for no good reason, and when one AI denounces you they all do. The explanations only 'explain' what for AI has done, but not why.

In conclusion, I am glad to see the end of horse rushing and ICS, but not to the point where a human can't even compete on Emperor/above.

The game has became a complete joke - its time to boot up Civ IV.

Click to expand...

No offense, buddy, but stop whining.

I just won two Emperor games in a row on Huge maps with max players. It's totally doable.

spfun said:

& both of them suck!

I personally removed them from the game, via XML change. But i don't like doing to many things like that because it usually stuffs up things up for the AI. I'd like the Civ5 team to add in an option to disable the terrible/abusable research agreements. They pretty much fixed the massive amount of great scientists per game popping free techs so hopefully research agreements are next, the amount of free tech popping in civ5 especially in marathon games is STUPID!

Click to expand...

Good plan...how do I do that? Oh, and will it work on the Mac version?