Are there any HardCore Civ fans who like CiV?

[ohioastronomy]

Again, these are not real arguments but merely observations or feelings. Of course, if you don't find any fun in the game then there is not much to do. Except maybe distance yourself from the game for a while and see if you can approach it later without prejudice and with a fresh desire to discover the game.

I don't have the impression that you'd accept anything I said as valid, but I'll try anyhow.

Take global happiness. Your cities all grow, and without micro you can end up slamming against a cap. If you add new cities - by winning a war, for example - your entire empire suffers. If you lose cities they are glad. Isn't that odd?

I prefer, very much, a system where I can let older cities do whatever they want to and have to establish new ones - both mechanically and as a game. Having newly conquered cities be tough to incorporate locally makes a ton of sense. Having production shut down in your capital as a result doesn't.

I find it artificial to have it be optimal to gather cash centrally and just buy generic things in generic cities. The global happiness cap is the same for all map sizes and speeds, which I think is simply inflexible and bad design. It's too easy to get around late game, too constricting in the early game; too loose in small maps, too severe in large ones.

That's a concrete example. Hope it helps.

 

[Smuggo]

Still don't get your point about empire building vs. trying to win the game. This hasn't really changed between Civ4 and Civ5.

I can see what you mean regarding the small things not really relevant to winning though. If you really enjoy micromanaging various little details (like in Paradox games for example) then Civ5 has less to offer than Civ4. For me this streamlining is an advantage. I also think that streamlining does not mean reduced complexity but simply reduced apparent complexity.

Once the core game is balanced, polished and improved, expansions will surely add back layers of complexity just like Civ4 expansions pack did.



Sorry but I have played all the previous Civs extensively and I never said that Civ5 isn't different. Civ5 has changed a lot (fortunately) but still has the Civ spirit IMHO and I can't understand how people can claim that it is not.

You certainly have to plan further ahead, and think early on what victory you want to have and really go for it, wheras in tolder games you could sort of meander on for a lot longer and then think "I'd better get my spaceship built now" near the end.

I actually think there can be more in-depth micromanagement in this game. To really boost your chances, it pays to manage your specialists and the tiles properly. I was getting persistent and annoying happiness issues, so rejigged my tiles and specialists to stop my cities growing and producing more unhappiness, which had the nice side effect of producing more culture and hammers.

It's definitely different, but I like it. I've played Civ since my dad bought the first game for me to play on the 386 he had, and this one has made some bold but nice changes. It's more focused than previous games, and requires a different type of strategy, but it still has all the hallmarks of a great Civ game, and if you want to play old-style Civ then [play Civ 4 a bit. They're both great games, but for different reasons, and I can see myself playing both for many years to come.

 

[Zogar]

Sorry but I have played all the previous Civs extensively and I never said that Civ5 isn't different. Civ5 has changed a lot (fortunately) but still has the Civ spirit IMHO and I can't understand how people can claim that it is not.

Maybe micromanaging sprawling empires is what people call the Civ spirit. In this case the spirit is not there anymore .

 

[humbe]

I've played all Civilization versions, and I've never preferred the next version straight away.

It's no fun playing chess if you don't know how the pieces move yet. Civ V wont be giving me strategic fun before I'm way more familiar with the game. There are some promising changes. I like that they removed tech trading that was just too powerful. I love the hexes and the zone of control.

Whether it is actually an improvement, and how big, I won't know before I'm way more familiar with the game.

 

[r_rolo1]

Maybe micromanaging sprawling empires is what people call the Civ spirit. In this case the spirit is not there anymore .

Micromanagement is well and alive in civ V . People now call it tactical manouvering

Seriously, civ V has more MM than civ IV, maybe even more than civ III. Just because you have no sliders it doesn't mean that you don't have MM

 

[Flavorable]

I've been playing since Civ 2, and overall I've probably put an entire month of my life into this series, in manhours.

I enjoyed Civ 2 the most out of any Civ game for the sense of wonder and granduer that no other Civ game came close to offering, I loved Civ 3 for its ambitious concept, and I mildly enjoyed Civ 4 for its refinement of concepts.

I prefer Civ V vanilla to Civ IV vanilla, but it needs alot of refinement before I love it as much as Civ III or even (gasp) Civ II.

As a very hardcore Civ fan and vet, I'm not dissapointed with Civ V, as I predicted that it would have a rough launch. So far, its going better than the launch for Civ IV.

 

[Rince]

I don't have the impression that you'd accept anything I said as valid, but I'll try anyhow.

Same here

Take global happiness. Your cities all grow, and without micro you can end up slamming against a cap. If you add new cities - by winning a war, for example - your entire empire suffers. If you lose cities they are glad. Isn't that odd?

No, not really. Why should events in one city (conquering, expansion) not affect other cities as well? Cities are not completely isolated entities.
Besides, Civ4 had war weariness which was also some kind of global happiness. Streamlining in Civ5 has integrated war weariness into global happiness and added a cap to expansion which was more relying on maintenance in Civ4.

I wouldn't say that the Civ5 way of implementing it is inherently better than how it was done in Civ4. But it certainly is not too big a change to make the game less enjoyable.

 

[Flavorable]

I think the only issue with the new method of happiness during wartime is that your people will seem to get angrier if you're winning. I think that the happiness from your native population that you're winning a war should somewhat offset the angry citizens of an occupied city.

 

[SuperJay]

Yes, clearly the answer to the thread title is 'no', because to the 'sky is falling' crowd anyone who likes civ5 is not a hardcore civ fan by definition.

That's an awful lot to infer from one tongue-in-cheek remark, isn't it? Of course there are hardcore fans that love Civ5, why wouldn't there be? Hardcore doesn't denote homogeny, where did you get that idea?

And no, I'm not one of those hardcore fans that love Civ5, but if you're trying to pigeonhole me as a "hater" or "flamer" or "whiner," you're wasting your time. Have fun and good luck in your future games.

 

[jfuesting]

I've played all Civilization versions, and I've never preferred the next version straight away.

This pretty much sums it up. With the exception of visuals, I pretty much was annoyed with each new version. Been playing since Civ I. People really forget that Civ IV was a mess on release. It was lambasted with great vigor here and on Apolyton. The amount of rage over 3D graphics and animated leaderheads was particularly loud.

I really like CiV so far, at least as much as I liked IV at release. Not that it's without problems. The balance issues I'm not terribly worried about. Once again, IV was a mess on release in this way also, and they were eventually addressed through patches (official and unofficial), expansions, and mods.

The only thing that continuously irritates me about CiV is the interface regressions. Mostly because "improved UI" was a big talking point almost from the first announcement.

I'm fairly certain that CiV will eventually polish into a fantastic game, and people will quickly forget all this vitriol. Well, unless there is a Civ VI, in which case it all begins anew.

 

[Disgustipated]

I don't recall 4 being a mess on release. It had a lot of gaps in the units and tech I didn't like. These were later filled in with expansions etc. At first I thought it was a little boring because Civ4 seemed too focused on peaceful building and not war (Warlords corrected this). But I still played a lot of civ4 when it came out. It was fun without a doubt.

I think I'll continue playing civ4 for now. I may buy civ5 and expansions when it comes out bundled with all content at once. It will be cheaper this way (hopefully). I don't have the patience to beta test this game. I'd rather play a finished game.

 

[Neofelis Nebulo]

Qualifying disclaimer:
I have been playing Civilizations since I was around twelve or thirteen with CivII. I had days worth of gameplay and months worth of fun. Then, with CivIII in my eyes on par with CivIV in terms of being the best of the series I literally had months worth of gameplay, same with CivIV. I am a great fan of the series and more importantly for this discussion a great strategy fan!

Now on the topic:
I like CivV. There is little more to say on that begalf as I haven't made up my opinion of the game and probabl won't be doing until CivVI comes out.
But I can certainly tell that CivV has the potential, although mostly not yet achieved, to become the greatest civilization of the whole series.
What I love:
-The Hex-Tile system: Plainly looks better. Period.
-The One military unit per Tile system: For military units this is great as it really forces you to place your units strategically, not like those darned SoDs. The whole military side of the game is greatrly indephtened with this feature.

What needs refinement:
-Civil units should not be limited as one per tile. I hate dispersing my great people along my empire just because I can't locate them in their respective cities.
-AI needs tweaking
-Interface is a bit bright, too shiny. In a game with the "just one more round" mentality, this greatly impedes its own feeling. One simply can't play hours and hours without ones eyes starting to hurt from all that light. Counterproductive!
-Bombardment system is great. I hated the CivIV system, I loved the CivIII mechanic. Now mainly the ranges need some tweaking.

Things that need to get implemented:
-Political Engineering like in CivIV. The Policy System is nice, but simply can't do the same. The latter should be a bonus which to use to augment ones policies even more or compensate a little for ones choices shortcomings. The one would be political engineering, the other a cultural engineering. One changeable at will, one at best adaptable in long terms. Could lead to great situation to play with like a civilization having a cultural history of freedom and rationality beeing confronted with a fascist government rule. So much things one could implement.
-Unhappiness when in war and local results, not just empirewide implications. Other than that, the new Golden Age system is nice that way.
-More content, in terms of Civilizations, Technologies, Units and Leaders, this game is disappointing. What Civilization game didn't have Carthage as playable nation? CivI at most, don't know as I didn't play that one, but please, the current content is just BS. I know we got a dedicated Modding-Community which could forge some as we've already seen with the "Queen of the Iceny"-Mod., but just letting us do your work is lame. And it would be outright insulting to want to make us pay for the missing content in future AddOns/DLCs. Mark my words.
-Transportation units for the seas. I don't know why the Embarkment system is in there and who got this "brilliant" idea, but where are my Trieres, my Galleons, Steamships, Landingships and so forth. Seriously, wth!

I'll refrain from posting my own recommandations on how to make a better mechanic in terms of unit management and warfare/bombardment mechanics as that is not the topic this is about.

 

[Blackadar]

Been playing Civs much longer than most since I started playing Civ I within a week of release back in 1991.

Short answer to the OP's question: Yes.

 

[lietkynes]

I'm just curious if there are any hardcore civ fanatics who actually thinks civ V is a fantastic game.
All the ciV fanboys I have seen are new members from october 2010 with 1-10 posts, and could basically be 1 person making multiple profiles.
Again, I understand that any average content customer wouldn't seek CFC, nor type fanatical fanposts. They would simply be playing Civ V.

So the question is (and I'm not out to crucify anyone) are there anyone here that considers themselves for Hardcore fans of the Civilization series (modders, regular gamers, long time CFC members etc) that finds Civ V a great game?
And if you could kindly write why. (dont have to be whole pages, keywords can do)

Cheers

Civ5 has some great ideas and some serious flaws, like Civ4 when it was released.
In time it will become an awesome game, now it's a good game but not great.

 

[SlothMD]

I'm just curious if there are any hardcore civ fanatics who actually thinks civ V is a fantastic game.
All the ciV fanboys I have seen are new members from october 2010 with 1-10 posts, and could basically be 1 person making multiple profiles.
Again, I understand that any average content customer wouldn't seek CFC, nor type fanatical fanposts. They would simply be playing Civ V.

So the question is (and I'm not out to crucify anyone) are there anyone here that considers themselves for Hardcore fans of the Civilization series (modders, regular gamers, long time CFC members etc) that finds Civ V a great game?
And if you could kindly write why. (dont have to be whole pages, keywords can do)

Cheers

I've been playing since Civ I, and while there are certainly some flaws in V that should be addressed, on the whole I think it's slightly better out of the box than IV was, and the underlying data model seems to be better constructed, though I'll reserve final judgment on that.

 

[Cosian]

I've been playing CIV since 1991 and I am one of the few that actually thinks that the gamedesign is the best of all the CIVs so far. ......

From the polls that have been conducted and the many posts here and other threads it is clear that in fact the vast majority of people like the game... more accurately, you are part of the many and not the few.

I liked all the CIV's and each one got plenty of play. They each have their strengths and weaknesses to be sure. Further, everyone has their own opinion relative to the best and most important features of any of the games in the franchise. You either like the game or you don't .... and clearly the masses seem to feel they are getting their money's worth.

No one will disagree that the AI needs beefing up and the diplomacy could use some clean up. But overall I love the design decisions and feel quite confident in predicting that it will soon be the most loved and most played game in the series. The underlying infrastructure is second to none ... I mean 100 mods 2 weeks after release! This ensures the games longevity and also ensures you'll be able to configure the game to play pretty much how you like to play.

I love it all ... City States are great. Sure the mechanics are a bit rough around the edges, but they provide a base for some very cool stuff in the future.

1 UTP rocks!

Not having to load units on transports was a great design decision. BTW, there is already a mod if you like to micro this.

The road and route concept is super. No more ridiculous spider web of roads. You actually have to think about how you will build an optimal road network that doesn't crush you in maintenance costs.

And for those that suggest that micro is dead, I actually find myself doing more micro in CIV 5 and enjoying it more. Since I can't afford stacks of units all over, what military you build and where you place them seems to be more important. I micro cities more and like it because I don't have 30 cities with 20 POP to fuss with.

Am I hardcore gamer? It's not worth boring you with a wall of text on credentials because it doesn't matter. At the end of the day each will choose whether they want to play it or not. So do we really need yet another thread designed to see if the pulse of the community is consistent with your own?

CIV 5 .... Its good and will mature to be the best in the series.

 

[timtofly]

I am not a hardcore civfanatic, so I really do not have any right posting this anyway, but here is my 2cents:

The hardcore 4fanatics seem to think it is a step backwards. Those who have played 1-5 agree that a change was needed and that the game has potential.

I would like to add that the number of post is probably a better "guess" at who is a hardcore fanatic rather than the join date. Or at least a ratio of the two.

Yes I like 5 so far because it is fun, do opinions count? Oh wait, people will either play the game or not due to how they perceive they do or do not like it based on how good or not the game is for them.

 

[danieldaniel]

I started with CIV3 and enjoyed it but not nearly as much as I enjoyed civ4, I played that game until my eyes hurted. For over five years I’ve been a constant visitor to this forum, although I don’t post often.

CIV5 has some issues, but overall I think it’s a good game that needs some polishing. I’m confident we will see most of the biggest issues solved within the next few months and meanwhile I enjoy playing CIV5 despite the feeling of playing a beta version.

CIV5’s biggest improvement over CIV4 is 1PT, combat is so much better without SOD, but there is much more. I’m happy they got rid of some CIV4 features like espionage for example, which I found very annoying. I like how city boundaries expand in CIV5, no more BFC, now you can see your cities expanding along the coast or down a valley, maps feel much more natural now. I like the limited resources. I love artillery bombardment. I like the new city states although they need some balancing. The social policy system is OK although I miss the old civics a bit, I think a mix between both systems would have been better. Overall I’m having a lot of fun with CIV5 and expect it to last many years, I’m sorry some civfans aren’t enjoying it as much as I do, I guess it’s impossible to please everyone at the same time.

 

[Pantastic]

That's an awful lot to infer from one tongue-in-cheek remark, isn't it? Of course there are hardcore fans that love Civ5, why wouldn't there be? Hardcore doesn't denote homogeny, where did you get that idea?

I'm inferring it from the conversation you were commenting on. When I saw this thread, I expected a bunch of 'oh you started with X version, 'oh look at your join date', 'oh you didn't play variant X', 'oh you didn't play GOTM', all ending with 'so you're not hardcore', and it turned up. I'm agreeing with your comment on the silliness of 'ohh look at your join date', and pointing out the absurdity of a thread that follows the pattern 'hey, do any hardcore fans like the new version? Ohh, you like the new version, you're not hardcore'.

And no, I'm not one of those hardcore fans that love Civ5, but if you're trying to pigeonhole me as a "hater" or "flamer" or "whiner," you're wasting your time. Have fun and good luck in your future games.

Clearly, if I express the same sentiment you do, that 'ohh your join date is too late, you're not hardcore' is silly, I'm trying to pigeonhole you as a hater, flamer, or whiner.

 

[SlothMD]

I'm agreeing with your comment on the silliness of 'ohh look at your join date', and pointing out the absurdity of a thread that follows the pattern 'hey, do any hardcore fans like the new version? Ohh, you like the new version, you're not hardcore'.

Ah, the good old "Nae True Scotsman" fallacy.