Unfortunately I never got incredibly into Civ 3 because I was deployed and once the game got into full swing the graphics card on my laptop couldn't handle it. civ 1 was the best to keep going back to because it was also small enough that I could sneak it even on the crappiest of computers.
As a old player of CIV series for 15 years, I have to say CIV5 is the best
- Thread starter IrishGold
- Start date
Unfortunately I never got incredibly into Civ 3 because I was deployed and once the game got into full swing the graphics card on my laptop couldn't handle it. civ 1 was the best to keep going back to because it was also small enough that I could sneak it even on the crappiest of computers.
Once they fix the AI and balance a few things I'm sure the game will be great. I was an average Civ 4 player at best (Prince level, maybe Monarch on a very good day) but Emperor level on Civ 5 is fairly easy. The next level up unfortunately isn't harder though; it's just more "AI bonusier"
D) and the AI likes to go to war at the drop of a hat. I've not tried but I think I could defeat this level too if I wanted to just pump out units nonstop and exploit the AI's tendency to use archers as frontline troops.
The whole game needs radical rebalancing in just about every area - but even if Firaxis don't end up doing this, providing the modding tools are up to it I'm sure it will be taken care of by the modding community. It's just a shame that it's now deemed OK for the gaming community to pick up the slack because developers are content to release unfinished games.
D) and the AI likes to go to war at the drop of a hat. I've not tried but I think I could defeat this level too if I wanted to just pump out units nonstop and exploit the AI's tendency to use archers as frontline troops. The whole game needs radical rebalancing in just about every area - but even if Firaxis don't end up doing this, providing the modding tools are up to it I'm sure it will be taken care of by the modding community. It's just a shame that it's now deemed OK for the gaming community to pick up the slack because developers are content to release unfinished games.
Why can't this AI beat me silly when I have been playing CIV for over 20 years on harder and harder difficulties and this AI is brand new! The game is broken! WHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! FIX THE AI IT'S BROKEN BECAUSE IT CAN'T BEAT A 20 YEAR CIV VETRAN!!!!! WHAAAAAAAA!
(Just kidding)
Moderator Action: Please keep your posts conducive to good discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
(Just kidding)
Moderator Action: Please keep your posts conducive to good discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
The only reason its a minority opinion on boards is because most of the people who are loving it arent concerned with frequenting the forums theyre concerned with playing. If I wasn't sitting here in a classroom doing nothing (tech support in case there is an issue but there arent any) I'd be playing as well.
This is a misleading statement I've seen put forward a lot lately. I could accept it as true in the first day or so after release, but not now. People can actually scan/post on forums and play Civ 5 at the same time you know (especially as the turns in the Civ 5 endgame take ages - mandatory Civ 5 dig
).
I agree with the OP.
Seems like all of us who actually like Civ V a lot are getting drowned out here on the boards by all the people complaining about it, but there are still a lot of us here.
And every (of course unscientific) poll I've seen on the boards so far shows that more people like it than dont like it, soooo.....
Seems like all of us who actually like Civ V a lot are getting drowned out here on the boards by all the people complaining about it, but there are still a lot of us here.
And every (of course unscientific) poll I've seen on the boards so far shows that more people like it than dont like it, soooo.....
charon2112
King
plus, we're too busy playing to constantly post.
I loved Civ IV, but I have no doubts that Civ V has the potential to be the best Civ ever by a long shot.
I especially like how unlike Civ IV, where things like culture and health, and happiness were irrelevant for 90% of your cities 90% of the time, everything happiness, cultural, population size matter in Civ V all the time. So there are always trade offs to consider and decision to make, and very few no brainer choices.
The thing the prevents from giving Civ V the best ever title right now is the AI and the player exploits of City States. In Civ IV I found the AI to be challenging even at monarch, always at emperor and bloody near impossible at Immortal. I never won a diety game. Whatever the flaws of SOD, I spent many hours dreading a couple of my opponents ganging up and sending an SOD into my country and destroy many hours of hard work.
Right now I have no fear of the AI in Civ V. So my challenge to Firaxis is to make afraid.
I especially like how unlike Civ IV, where things like culture and health, and happiness were irrelevant for 90% of your cities 90% of the time, everything happiness, cultural, population size matter in Civ V all the time. So there are always trade offs to consider and decision to make, and very few no brainer choices.
The thing the prevents from giving Civ V the best ever title right now is the AI and the player exploits of City States. In Civ IV I found the AI to be challenging even at monarch, always at emperor and bloody near impossible at Immortal. I never won a diety game. Whatever the flaws of SOD, I spent many hours dreading a couple of my opponents ganging up and sending an SOD into my country and destroy many hours of hard work.
Right now I have no fear of the AI in Civ V. So my challenge to Firaxis is to make afraid.
fliddermang
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 19
It could be the best, it depends on the patching and added content.
Beef Hammer
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 255
this, i couldn't agree more with
For me, the one-unit-per-tile change has completely revitalized the series. I also absolutely love that the more powerful units are now numerically limited by the strategic resource - no more cranking out 100 swordsmen off one tile of iron. I like many of the other changes, and love a few of them, but those first two combined have added a tactical element to this strategy game that I never really realized was missing until now.
I'm not going to sit here saying one version is the best of all until some of the bugs are worked out, but right now, as someone who's followed the series from the very beginning, I'll just say that it's hard for me to go back to e.g. Civ4 because the Stack of Doom thing seems almost silly now.
I'm not going to sit here saying one version is the best of all until some of the bugs are worked out, but right now, as someone who's followed the series from the very beginning, I'll just say that it's hard for me to go back to e.g. Civ4 because the Stack of Doom thing seems almost silly now.
I don't know about the OP, but I've been playing Sid Meier games since F15 Strike Eagle in 1985. So by the time the Civ 1 game out I had play 10 of his games. I went back and found HellCat Ace...
charon2112
King
this is one of the best things to happen to Civ in a long time.
charon2112
King
F15 Strike Eagle was awesome!
Superluminal
Warlord
I would like to see spies in Civ V, other than that I think all major changes like 1UPT and limiting military units by the amount of strategic resources, social policies and everything else is genius. UI is gorgeous, artwork is superb, everything is top-notch. I'll enjoying Civ V a lot, Halo Reach is gathering a bit of dust lately. Firaxis are gods among men, ALL HAIL!
PickledDictator
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2008
- Messages
- 117
I am really feeling mixed about Civ V. I am one of these long time civers who started from the very first one and kept moving forward. Its hard to go backwards in time and play the older versions with all the new ones which have been released.
There will always be differences in opinion between players, we simply can't agree what should or should not be in a game or whether or not its going to appeal in the same way to all players. For example, graphics, I hear some say they are great, all the little animations etc, and I hear others say they are to pastel and bland. In some ways, I think both sides are correct.
Other comments I hear is the game is more balanced with resources in Civ V vs Civ IV, which is true, but in some ways, this removes the element of risk. Now I KNOW I will have strategic resources to defend myself, thus I can trash the AI at my leisure..sort of anti climatic. If you played civ 1 or 2 resource allocation was the difference between equally skilled players. You can argue this ruins the game but in reality, it allows different strategies to evolve. Many different strategies did evolve from those early civ games, especially in MP, where real ego's were put to the test.
Civ V, so many are saying build trade posts, farms, upgrade cheap warriors into advanced army and befriend any and all maritime states and you pretty much win. A bit of a bore. If the game is so easy to win this way (and it is on any level but Deity for me and many others) where is the replay value???? If the AI has to CHEAT to be competitive where is the fun in that. In this way, Civ V is not alone. I have yet to really come across an AI in ANY Civ game which can match wits with a human. the ai currently in this game is garbage and can't wage war, and in reality, the 1upt hurts them, it doesn't help them.
I know many don't like micromanaging (god forbid some of us actually have to think) but its micromanagement and pushing the envelope to its limits that makes or breaks players and allows them to play on higher levels. This is not to say that having 100 engineers in Civ 2 at the end game wasn't obnoxious or tedious, so how do we find that happy medium.
Civ IV was not perfect, in fact espionage was bothersome, but I liked religion, I just didn't like how it was coded. They could have changed the coding to incorporate it in a way so it wasn't quite as harsh in diplomacy as it came across.
The reality about this game is its different than Civ IV, thus you have to learn to work within the new elements of the game. Will it be the most successful game of the series, only time will tell. However, the game as it stands is flawed with a brutal ai who cannot wage war.
If and when these and other issues which are well detailed on these and other forums are worked out, we may have a great game on our hands. Until then, we have a mediocre product whose novelty may wear thin once the excitement wears off.
There will always be differences in opinion between players, we simply can't agree what should or should not be in a game or whether or not its going to appeal in the same way to all players. For example, graphics, I hear some say they are great, all the little animations etc, and I hear others say they are to pastel and bland. In some ways, I think both sides are correct.
Other comments I hear is the game is more balanced with resources in Civ V vs Civ IV, which is true, but in some ways, this removes the element of risk. Now I KNOW I will have strategic resources to defend myself, thus I can trash the AI at my leisure..sort of anti climatic. If you played civ 1 or 2 resource allocation was the difference between equally skilled players. You can argue this ruins the game but in reality, it allows different strategies to evolve. Many different strategies did evolve from those early civ games, especially in MP, where real ego's were put to the test.
Civ V, so many are saying build trade posts, farms, upgrade cheap warriors into advanced army and befriend any and all maritime states and you pretty much win. A bit of a bore. If the game is so easy to win this way (and it is on any level but Deity for me and many others) where is the replay value???? If the AI has to CHEAT to be competitive where is the fun in that. In this way, Civ V is not alone. I have yet to really come across an AI in ANY Civ game which can match wits with a human. the ai currently in this game is garbage and can't wage war, and in reality, the 1upt hurts them, it doesn't help them.
I know many don't like micromanaging (god forbid some of us actually have to think) but its micromanagement and pushing the envelope to its limits that makes or breaks players and allows them to play on higher levels. This is not to say that having 100 engineers in Civ 2 at the end game wasn't obnoxious or tedious, so how do we find that happy medium.
Civ IV was not perfect, in fact espionage was bothersome, but I liked religion, I just didn't like how it was coded. They could have changed the coding to incorporate it in a way so it wasn't quite as harsh in diplomacy as it came across.
The reality about this game is its different than Civ IV, thus you have to learn to work within the new elements of the game. Will it be the most successful game of the series, only time will tell. However, the game as it stands is flawed with a brutal ai who cannot wage war.
If and when these and other issues which are well detailed on these and other forums are worked out, we may have a great game on our hands. Until then, we have a mediocre product whose novelty may wear thin once the excitement wears off.
In civ 4 I generally quit playing some time after railroads come to the scene, and I hated capturing cities, because I would have to 'deal' with them. (horray for colonies)
Civ4 was a great game, and I love the features it had, but as for combat it was boring, and tedious. Make a big stack of death, send it out, hope your luck prevails mostly, rinse, repeat. Then you get railroads, and the whole nations army can converge on one spot instantly. There was no strategy there. Just out-build the enemy. I like the new combat system much more. No more of my veteran soldiers getting killed because they got unlucky on a 95% chance attack. The new combat system is actually fun.
I'm Greek, and thus play as Alexander. I love his city-state bonus. With the Social bonuses for city-states they contribute 1/3rd my research, 2/3rds of my culture, and give me free great leaders. When a foreign nation attacks one of my precious babies I send the dogs of war. At first I was in civ 4 mode, and had all my cities pumping out troops, but it didn't take long for me to realize that quantity did not provide much of an advantage. (kinda like Rome vs Hannibal. strategy beats numbers).
The new combat system provides an instant win to civ5. My cavalry took the side positions. archers in front, Hoplites in the back to guard. I had to spy with my cavalry to get intelligence on the enemy position, and position my troops accordingly. II was constantly scoffing at my poor position in the southern desert. Fortunately my cities were carefully placed in strategic positions guarded by powerful citadels deep in the mountain ranges. Safe from surprise attacks.
So what did civ5 get rid of, and why. They ditched religion, wonders are less...wonderful. Cities are more flexible, as are their positions. Before these created make, or break strategies. If you don't get a religion early you are out a lot of money. If your city was placed just outside that iron resource it's going to bug you for the rest of them game (if only I put it one square to the right!!!). Early wonders were pretty crazy in civ 4 too, and I feel they got toned down quite a bit.
In civ 5 there are less features (many will return later), but it's no much more relaxed, and the removal of needless micromanagment means I can focus on the game more.
I really think It has turned into a "oh no this is not civ4" argument. People think civ5 should have a different title!?!? come on. Everything they did to the game was intelligent, and fixed many problems plaguing the civ series. The AI sucks because combat is so much more complicated. They will get it right eventually. The features are gone, because it would have taken them years to rebalance most of these features into vanilla. It's simply not possible. I'm betting they are working on most of the best features right now.
And civ5 sucks because it has bugs? Have you people ever purchased a PC game in the last decade!? That's what they freaking do! stupid as it may be....
Last word.. religion was unbalanced, and ruined politics. I never liked it.
Civ4 was a great game, and I love the features it had, but as for combat it was boring, and tedious. Make a big stack of death, send it out, hope your luck prevails mostly, rinse, repeat. Then you get railroads, and the whole nations army can converge on one spot instantly. There was no strategy there. Just out-build the enemy. I like the new combat system much more. No more of my veteran soldiers getting killed because they got unlucky on a 95% chance attack. The new combat system is actually fun.
I'm Greek, and thus play as Alexander. I love his city-state bonus. With the Social bonuses for city-states they contribute 1/3rd my research, 2/3rds of my culture, and give me free great leaders. When a foreign nation attacks one of my precious babies I send the dogs of war. At first I was in civ 4 mode, and had all my cities pumping out troops, but it didn't take long for me to realize that quantity did not provide much of an advantage. (kinda like Rome vs Hannibal. strategy beats numbers).
The new combat system provides an instant win to civ5. My cavalry took the side positions. archers in front, Hoplites in the back to guard. I had to spy with my cavalry to get intelligence on the enemy position, and position my troops accordingly. II was constantly scoffing at my poor position in the southern desert. Fortunately my cities were carefully placed in strategic positions guarded by powerful citadels deep in the mountain ranges. Safe from surprise attacks.
So what did civ5 get rid of, and why. They ditched religion, wonders are less...wonderful. Cities are more flexible, as are their positions. Before these created make, or break strategies. If you don't get a religion early you are out a lot of money. If your city was placed just outside that iron resource it's going to bug you for the rest of them game (if only I put it one square to the right!!!). Early wonders were pretty crazy in civ 4 too, and I feel they got toned down quite a bit.
In civ 5 there are less features (many will return later), but it's no much more relaxed, and the removal of needless micromanagment means I can focus on the game more.
I really think It has turned into a "oh no this is not civ4" argument. People think civ5 should have a different title!?!? come on. Everything they did to the game was intelligent, and fixed many problems plaguing the civ series. The AI sucks because combat is so much more complicated. They will get it right eventually. The features are gone, because it would have taken them years to rebalance most of these features into vanilla. It's simply not possible. I'm betting they are working on most of the best features right now.
And civ5 sucks because it has bugs? Have you people ever purchased a PC game in the last decade!? That's what they freaking do! stupid as it may be....
Last word.. religion was unbalanced, and ruined politics. I never liked it.
Similar threads
