Is it just me or does this game just get boring after a while?

Status
Not open for further replies.
vincentz said:
In a game where u can stack units (lets for example take civ4), you can have 100+ units which, because of stacking, wont take up the whole landscape, nor take forever to move. In a 1upt environment, there is limited space for units (and a general assumption that noone wants to move 100 units, 1 by 1), hence you dont build as many.

If you dont build as many units, then build time would have to be increased drastically (I cant remember how many units its normal to have in civ5) but lets say 20 (?).

If you instead of 100 units only build 20 (these are purely fictional) then to balance gamespeed/turns you would have to increase building time (in this example 5 fold).

Otherwise the cities would just stand idle.
Click to expand...

This is a clear example of a post from someone who has not played civ5 and doesn't understand how it plays. So to feel yourself busy during playing the game you need hundreds of units to move them around senselessly? Now that you are at it, do you want me pass you a shovel to dig some ground while u r playing to keep you more occupied?
 
vincentz said:
In a game where u can stack units (lets for example take civ4), you can have 100+ units which, because of stacking, wont take up the whole landscape, nor take forever to move. In a 1upt environment, there is limited space for units (and a general assumption that noone wants to move 100 units, 1 by 1), hence you dont build as many.

If you dont build as many units, then build time would have to be increased drastically (I cant remember how many units its normal to have in civ5) but lets say 20 (?).

If you instead of 100 units only build 20 (these are purely fictional) then to balance gamespeed/turns you would have to increase building time (in this example 5 fold).

Otherwise the cities would just stand idle.
Click to expand...
Great explanation! :goodjob:
 
Civking5 said:
This is a clear example of a post from someone who has not played civ5 and doesn't understand how it plays. So to feel yourself busy during playing the game you need hundreds of units to move them around senselessly? Now that you are at it, do you want me pass you a shovel to dig some ground while u r playing to keep you more occupied?
Click to expand...

??? What??? :confused:
What on earth are you talking about mate?
 
CivAddict2013 said:
Hey, CivAddict2013 here. I used to really like this game. You know, the idea of building your own civilization intrigued me. But the more I play it, the more that I realize it's just boring as heck.

To me what's boring about the game is simple, the AI. It seems like no matter what you do in this game, the AI is always ahead of you. It's boring to take tons of turns to build archers and Catapults, just to have them taken out in 3 turns by the AI.

It just seems like no matter what you do, you can't keep up with them. The AI in this game, seems to be able to have several cities, several new units and doesn't seem to have to deal with the unhappiness or debt that the player does.

And what's also boring, is even if you have far better units than the AI, it still takes forever to take their city. It's like come on, if I have better units than the AI, I should be wiping the floor with them.

For example, I attacked Washington. Washington at this point, has nothing but a couple of Warriors and archers. But it seems even my Catapults don't do that much damage to his archers, so they take forever to take out. Add the heal instantly crap and it takes forever to take out a weak civilization.

It just seems, that no matter what I do, I'm always behind the AI somehow. Either behind the AI in units, behind the AI in technology, behind the AI in happiness, it just seems impossible to keep up.

Anyways, I think I'm done with this game. It's just boring how hard it is to dominate the AI, even if your units are up to date. Whatever fun I used to have in this game or whatever used to addict me to this game, just isn't there anymore.
Click to expand...

Play multiplayer. Single Player only ever seems exciting and fun to play to those who are ignorant of most of the game mechanics. Once you learn that you can beat the AI with 5 range units the whole game then it becomes pointless to play against.
 
I'd rather be hitting end turn than moving 100s of troops around like in Civ4. Talk about tedious.
 
Catan_Settler said:
I'd rather be hitting end turn than moving 100s of troops around like in Civ4. Talk about tedious.
Click to expand...

Let me start by saying I'm not the happiest fanboy of stacks of doom. Hopefully I wont get flamed (again'ished). I'd much rather have some limitation like Call to Power 2.

But. I think you might have misunderstood stacks. They move like 1 unit, which is the whole idea about a stack. If you had to move 100 units 1 by 1 in a non 1upt environment, then I think that civ 4 would have been a disaster both gamewise and sales.

The attacking from a stack to f.ex. another stack or a city, can also be done without breaking the stack, but CAN be the tedious part (unless you see this part as the tactical battle, and wants to micromanage it).

One of the clear advantages about SoD is it gives a somewhat more historical accurate description of grand battles, and it also gives a more empire feeling.
The drawbacks of SoDs is, if you are unprepared, and your neighbourg knocks on your door with a 50+ unit stack, then its pretty much end of game.
Also, if you knock down the enemy's SoD, and you yourself have a 50+ unit SoD, then its pretty easy to steamroll the enemy.
Both of those drawbacks is why I dislike stacks so much.
 
You should watch some youtube vids of people playing civ.. It will be a "holy sh*@" moment for you when you see people playing the game properly.. You'll learn more in one 30 minute video than anywhere else.

For starters you won't see players always going for wonders.. You'll see them working farms and building granaries and units.. Buying settlers stealing workers.. Fulfilling CS quests... Fighting wars where they're hopelessly outnumbered only to decimate and then capture all the AI cities..

This game is a challenge to yourself.. So when you say the game is too hard... It's just too hard for your ability... Because you haven't learned the nuances.
 
dude, you dont need a whole armada of units to defend your city
3 Fortified warriors arround your city
1-2 archers stationed on your city
better if you have 1-2 horseman, to take out the wounded enemy units.
also found cities on Hills, it has bonus on defense. Make walls on your cities it creates additional bonus on City ranged attacks. And if you want to capture enemy cities?? just wait to finish Iron working first + construction+mathematics and upgrade all your units, sending your warriors and archers to enemy Cities is just a suicide. the strategy is "Never get your unit Get Killed". I always make halt Bismark, Nobunaga and Napoleon's attack. Talking about science, better is you make the Great Library first and make library first on all your cities.

P.S. Ranged unit are weak against Mounted and Melee, never use Ranged vs. Ranged unless you unit is in the higher class.
 
I don't even focus on units until I have my economy booming.

By then, I can buy units every turn if I get into a war.
 
Peaceful Civ said:
I don't even focus on units until I have my economy booming.

By then, I can buy units every turn if I get into a war.
Click to expand...

yeah, creating too much units in early game, makes you a poor and weak Civ on Renaissance+ Eras, few strong unts is enough
 
CivAddict2013 said:
Like I said though, it's impossible for me to build the buildings I need to keep up with science and happiness, while still producing the newest units quickly. The thing about the AI, gets science and happiness cheats, therefore, the AI does not need to build things like libraries and the Chichen Itza.

Logically, one city can only build one thing at a time. So I can't be building military and building science buildings at the same time. And I think the AI also has a production bonus. My cities have a high population, lots of mines and yet, it's still taking me 13 turns to make a catapult. The AI doesn't have to deal with this and can seemlessly spam new units.

Then once you've FINALLY produced your new units, the AI already has newer units, because of it's production bonus.

If I were to produce the same amount of units as the AI, I would be in debt. I've seen threads where people have complained about the AI having -1000gpt and not having units disband.

Mind you, this is the EARLY game pre-500 AD. This isn't even later in the game.

And how does the AI have these "super warriors"? I swear it does. The AI can have Warriors that take down catapults. Yet for some reason, my warriors can't take down an archer in one turn.
Click to expand...

Dude, you keep complaining, but you never mention what difficulty level you're playing on. Everyone's asking. Like that other thread you started where you said you had fifteen units and yet struggled against an AI with four, more primitive units. That is almost literally impossible. The AI generally can only win through superior numbers and/or technology.

I also notice that what you said in the other thread contradicts what you're saying here (AI beating you despite having fewer units vs. AI defeating you with more units).

This situation you described here seems more realistic and describes an AI on the higher difficulties. In which case, what's the problem with going down to a lower difficulty level? I myself don't play above Prince. I know my limitations.

Regarding your repeated assertions that the AIs units are more powerful than they should be - I don't think Warriors really can kill a Archer at full health in one turn. Two turns, usually. As for Warriors defeating Catapults, all artillery units are weaker in melee combat. Not sure if a Warrior could kill a Catapult in one turn though.
 
The only unit you need for defense is composites

A wall of five to six composite bowmen can fend off even the largest carpet of doom the AI can muster. Throw in a spearman and maybe a couple horses and you can turn around and start taking his cities.
 
rschissler said:
Great explanation! :goodjob:
Click to expand...

Um, no, actually it was a rather bizarre diatribe on a subject that had utterly nothing to do with anything in this thread, posted by someone obviously unfamiliar with actually playing CiV.
 
Does it get boring?

Are you in an emotional state where you are left without anything in particular to do, and are you not interested in your surroundings. Do you feel a pervasive lack of interest in and difficulty concentrating on your current playing activity?

Try something new, join a game of the month, submit to the hall of fame or start multiplayer.

Every activity gets boring if you do not introduce some varity. This is also true for your sports workout routine :)

Civ 5 got hundreds of time more of my playing time than any other game. (literally!)

No, it does not get boring!
 
rschissler said:
I understand what you are talking about, with the long building times for anything. You probably spend a lot of time clicking the next turn button, very boring. This is one side effect of the 1UPT feature.

Have you tried Civ IV? It sounds like you might like it a lot better.
Click to expand...

Polisurgist said:
What does this have to do with 1UPT?
Click to expand...

Smokeybear said:
Um, no, actually it was a rather bizarre diatribe on a subject that had utterly nothing to do with anything in this thread, posted by someone obviously unfamiliar with actually playing CiV.
Click to expand...

I just answered the question. Cant see why I have to get responses like this :sad:

I admit its been a long time since I played civ5, and tbh, whenever I venture into the Civ5 forum and see these kind of ....... comments, I feel no urge to open up civ5.
I mean, this kind of hostility have to have roots somewhere...

I thought it was common knowledge that because of less stuff to build, the build costs had been increased and the production modifiers as well as improvements had been reduced, to balance out gamespeeds.

Whether people like it or not, is up to their own personal preferenses, which I dont want to get into.

edit : However, I remember some of the numberwizards in civ4 proved that some buildings would be a waste to build in the majority of the cities, coz the return wouldnt be profitable (or atleast not untill way into the future era)
I could imagine some would be the same in civ5 like f.ex. the Factory, which gives +4 :c5production: +10% and cost 360 :c5production: and have upkeep of 3 :c5gold:
 
I think your problem is indeed a suboptimal strategy for your difficulty level.
I had the same experience when I switched from emperor to immortal - the game became incredibly hard and the AI was always ahead of me, making most games a pain.

My solution? I switched back to emperor.
I guess now that I have learned a lot of new tricks, I could go back to immortal - but honestly, I rather enjoy my non-abusive games on the easier level.
Maybe you will have a similiar experience. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

foreverlost
Need help to advance to beating the AI Civs
Replies
4
Views
539
foreverlost
foreverlost
M
AI toys with a city in order to get XP
Replies
10
Views
493
martindo
M
M
defense treaty
Replies
3
Views
243
martindo
M
Tiramisu
[BNW] Bug? AI receiving thousand gold pert turn
Replies
3
Views
384
Tiramisu
Tiramisu
D
[BNW] Byblos? Babylon?
Replies
0
Views
328
Draynul
D
Top Bottom