Game worse since BNW ?

In advance I apologize for my bad language.

When G&K came out i really felt like the CiV was great epic game. I really enjoyed conquering strategies or peacefully building economy. I was very excited about the BNW expansion, have read all about it. When it came it took some time for me to play few games. Then i started new and it wasnt fun, i quit after hundred turns. Then i quit another right after beginning. I just.. couldnt get any fun from it. I want to tell you what i think is the cause, and see if any of you has similar feelings.

First is the size of empire. I loved the 1UPT since vanilla and thats the reason why i cant go back to civ 4, but i knew that the scale is bad. When 1 unit takes the same 1 hex that a city, it means its an army not a squad, and the fighting mechanics is about squads. But before BNW the more cites = the better, which now is not more truth. I played many games making tall empire with 3 or 4 cities and it doesnt feel right, with the bad unit scale i cant feel any epicness.

Then comes the early warfare nerf. Seriously? The early warfare is only for civ masters which can manipulate happiness and gold, and in meantime make and lead army big enough to win. I dont have ANY fun from playing rome or china, cause when i take anothers player empire i cant use it, my cities are not growing, my gold is on minus and this state can hold for many turns till i go for enough trade routes and circuses. Pitty. How can i feel the Huns with such like that. I want to have many little cities, low science is sure cost but why the hell my mighty brothers in capital are so sad that i conquered so half the known world?

Third thing is trade. I really like caravans, excludind fact they are sometimes really pain in the butt to defend and go straightly into opponents arms, but it just feels like more realism. But now we have
1. city connections - trade
2. civilization to civilization (like luxuries and such) - trade
3. caravans - trade too
and each of this things have diffrent mechanics. Game design is my hobby and this is so irritating, lacking any harmony or meaning. Blah.

And they are things then wasnt upgraded or fixed, that i really wanted to.

The AI. It was too hateful in G&K, now its unreasonable and peacefull. I really prefered to have to defend my empire. Right now i played completely peaceful science victory as Korea, and first time my rich and nearly-not-defended cities was attacked was in medieval times. Far too late. It was emperor difficulty, it felt like settler.

The multiplayer. Enough said.

The spying. Its still so stupid and lacking any fun. You either use spy to steal techs or defend yours. You can also make diplomats and take city states, but still this doesnt feel like real spying. Spying should be something like game informing you that in opponents city is valuable art work. That opponent is in half way to build wonder. I really dont have idea for making it better, but right now its just minigame that not fits civilization series imho.

So, thats my problems. I would appreciate if someones gonna comment it, i want to know if someones feel that way too. Yesterday I played without BNW and hell, it was more fun.

This is rant and belongs to the rant thread

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=401228&highlight=rant

Solution = Untick BNW when you play

Podtxt said:

Game worse since BNW ?

Click to expand...

In short - no.

Is BNW bad: May be bad in some places but is still a fun game.
Has it made the game worse: NO

I agree with everyone except the OP.

I think the OP set himself up with too high expectations.

I generally find Trade Routes to be a bit tedious. I wish there was a way to set them to auto, like with Workers.

I think the WC is a nuisance, even when I am in control. The second civ always seems to be after my hide. So I spend more effort trying to fend off their dumb proposals rather than supporting my own proposals.

I generally agree that their is less early war, but not none. And early war can be accommodated if you try. I generally prefer not to be at dire risk during my vulnerable start-up period. So I'm ok with it.

Multiplayer, I don't care and neither does Firaxis.

I consider BNW to be either a small improvement or a lateral move over G&K.

I agree. Civ5 is currently better with just GNK. I like some of the new stuff, but the fact that it's just go 5 or so cities tall is just boring. I don't want ICS per se, but just natural expansion would be nice. As it is now any city beyond the fifth or so adds nothing in science, few in gold and early on when underdevelopped even drags everything down for a while.

BNW is just completely boring and passive as it stands now.

Podtxt said:

The spying. Its still so stupid and lacking any fun. You either use spy to steal techs or defend yours. You can also make diplomats and take city states, but still this doesnt feel like real spying. Spying should be something like game informing you that in opponents city is valuable art work. That opponent is in half way to build wonder. I really dont have idea for making it better, but right now its just minigame that not fits civilization series imho.

Click to expand...

Except you can go into cities you have spies in to see everything you want to know about that city, including what they are building, including wonders, and you do get notifications if a wonder if being built in a city you have a spy in.


I agree with some of your other points though. Although I think BNW is a great expansion, early warfare and expansion has been restricted far too much.

At least the AI is smart enough to go tall now

I can't imagine myself going back to GnK so yes, BNW has made the game much better. Bear in mind that it took a few patches to get GnK to where it was. I still remember the good old days of Austria just roflstomping every CS in the game. The fall patch promises to make BNW even better so personally i can't wait

I believe the game is much much better with BNW, even though it has cramped m y playing style. It's still immense fun, and a challenge.

Cheers.

BNW is a major improvement on the whole. However, I agree that it's not epic. In BNW, there is no historical Rome, Alexander, Persia, ancient China, etc. Sprawling classical empires have been seriously nerfed.

Dogmouth said:

In BNW, there is no historical Rome, Alexander, Persia, ancient China, etc. Sprawling classical empires have been seriously nerfed.

Click to expand...

What happens if you have a huge map with like 4 or 5 civs?

Historically, they existed at a time where there wasn't a lot of civilization - only a bunch of tribes and city states - so no one to compete with.

Yes, in my case. Though different reasons. Let the Fall come.

Dogmouth said:

BNW is a major improvement on the whole. However, I agree that it's not epic. In BNW, there is no historical Rome, Alexander, Persia, ancient China, etc. Sprawling classical empires have been seriously nerfed.

Click to expand...

For the player I guess. I still see usually one civ who got the luck of the draw and goes Liberty making 5 cities before turn 80. Too bad the got stumped by neighbour Assyria.

Overall I like it more, but somewhat agreed that going wide is too tough. Apparently you can play wide well so I guess I'm just not very good at it.

Also, AI aggression seems to vary a lot from game to game, but I think that's a good thing for variety.

It sounds like the OP really enjoyed warmongering, which BNW did its best to beat into the ground with a bloody stick.

I can understand, to a degree, the OP's QQ. Still, as a warmonger myself, I still think the balance needed to be tipped toward peaceful play.

Podtxt said:

The spying. Its still so stupid and lacking any fun. You either use spy to steal techs or defend yours. You can also make diplomats and take city states, but still this doesnt feel like real spying. Spying should be something like game informing you that in opponents city is valuable art work. That opponent is in half way to build wonder.

Click to expand...

you do know that after assigning a spy or diplomat, you have access to view the inner workings of that city at any time, right?

I share some the OP's sentiment. I too love Gods & Kings. Especially after the fall patch it made the game really challenging, and I mean big time.

In BNW, and while I love the tourism concept, the world congress and the new trade mechanics I feel that the game is too easy on Emperor. So, I totally get what the OP says about Emperor feeling like Settler. There's really no tension what so ever. You know that you will win every battle and only lose if you're too clumsy or possibly drunk.

I'm not going to be hasty reaching conclusions, if BNW is better or worse than G&K. I'm going to play an Immortal game and them decide.

But, with the play-style I was used to in G&K I would say that, overall, I still prefer G&K and will probably keep feeling that way until I feel more challenge. I mean, I played Shoshone on Emperor and won diplo without a single Civ declaring war on me for 7/8 of the game. And Shaka was my neighbor.

But, I have high hopes that in the next big patch (possibly fall patch if the tradition continues), the devs will "unlock" the AI and make it more challenging. I suspect they nerf the AI when they release an expansion, for newcomers to feel good winning their games, and only make the game more difficult later on for hardcore Civ gamers. That's my impression.

And for the record, I played every Civ game. I'm a Civ fanatic yes. My favorite Civ game is Civ4:BTS. I like to play a mix of turtle and occasional strike (kind of passive aggressive style maybe) and I feel that something doesn't feel right with BNW at the moment. I think it's because it's too easy and there are not nearly enough early wars.

But I'll play Immortal before reaching any definite conclusion.