A cogent explanation on the shortfalls of Civ V

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by masterminded, Oct 5, 2010.

  1. masterminded

    masterminded Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    92
    I understand your perspective and respect your opinions, but at the same time, just asserting that I'm wrong and making vague and unsupported suggestions, as you admit to doing, doesn't really advance the conversation much. Nonetheless, I hope that you get a good night sleep and come back here refreshed, where perhaps we can engage one another again.
     
  2. Craftsman

    Craftsman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    51
    Location:
    Research Laboratory.
    Civ5 is only about the tedious juggling of units in a big sliding puzzle. Bad: this very design was chosen as Civ5's foundation. Worse: for the first time, I have read, on these Civ5 threads, posts saying that Civ5 "cured" people from their "one more turn" syndrome.

    Now, this kind of "cure" is unheard of for any other Civ version. And this must not go unnoticed, whether you're a fan of Civ5 or not.
     
  3. sketch162000

    sketch162000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    221
    FWIW I agree with your honesty here...You simply like Civ V and we do not. At the end of the day, that's just how it is and I fear that no amount of patches, DLCs or expansions is ever going to fix that. Someone referenced a philosophical divide between players. I'm too lazy to look up the quote, but I agree, and IMO Civ V's major failing is that it exacerbates this divide by pandering to certain play styles.

    BTW are you female, masterminded? Also, for some reason I imagine you with a proper British accent when I read your posts...probably because they are so well written :goodjob:
     
  4. masterminded

    masterminded Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    92
    I am neither female nor am I British. Is there anything in my posts that is indicative of gender?
     
  5. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Isn't that how human plays? Washington declared on me in the very early game because

    1) I settled in the wrong spot
    2) I told him off with the harsher option 2 (by mistake)
    3) I dow on a CS to steal a free worker to save some production

    I've never seen AI dow so early before in any Civ. It's a good step forward where not even the first 100 turns is safe if you piss off an AI civ, as it should be. There's certianly a discussion to be had here about how to make the AI work in terms of an alliance toward a shared goal (ie: stopping runaway)-- but those things need to be a once or twice in a game occurrence not something where a human player can flip and flip between allies and game the system. Some interactions and diplomatic interactions can be built around that. But I think the core of the AI, which is as you described it, indifferent to everyone (humans included, is sound). This is how AI should behave most of the time.


    In another game, Japan and Germany started near each other and both called me up for secret treaties against the other. That's the kind of think I like. Very organic and it leads to interesting choices. As opposed to Civ4 where the human player is just looking for their first vassal. Well, don't get started on vassal states.


    The malleable AI of Civ4 is a real crutch and IMHO people think its the standard AI. They obviously haven't experienced the Civ3 AI.
     
  6. sketch162000

    sketch162000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    221
    Nah, you just kept referring to the hypothetical player as "she," which I struck me as a little particular...

     
  7. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Buying off CS is expensive and a drain on the treasury. Unless you get super lucky and get easy quests and liberate them for max fame.

    And if 2-3 AI has United Front social policy, good luck. I've had friendly CS deteriorate at 2+ CS point per turn.

    But that's part of the fun. Depending on the Civs you draw, CS near you and how the game develops, there's way more interactions and different scenarios that play out. Some game you'll find it easy to keep a bunch, others its not easy. Totally depends on the game.
     
  8. sketch162000

    sketch162000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    221
    No, he is saying that the AI is indifferent AT BEST. At worst, the AIs hate you for no reason, from what I understand.
     
  9. masterminded

    masterminded Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    92
    It's a habit due to my academic background, where cycling between he and she is encouraged when referring to an unspecified third person.
     
  10. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    Excuse me? I stopped reading here. If that was the case, if that really was their intention; they have no right to call it Civ 5 to begin with. But they did, didn't they ?

    Now look back. Civ IV played and feels alot like CIV III, only with ton's of usefull improvements. CIV III like CIV II and CIV II like CIV 1. There's a pattern here. And despite "user opions" , progess was there; the game became better and better but still gave you the same "familiar" feeling; THis is a Civ game. Not only that, the game mechanics were more or less balanced. There were always some issue's to find, but afaik, never so much as i have witnessed with CIV 5.

    I am perfectly willing to adapt and learn a new playstyle, only after playing a while to notice there are so many things badly balanced, so many tiny mistakes, there is not much to love in CIV 5. Fun playing it ? Yeah sure, don't wage WAR (war is dump), Don't do Diplo (diplo is stupid) , Don't do Culture Vic, way too easy. Etc.etc. The best setup is "sandbox" is believe. 1 player, you.
     
  11. Azurewind

    Azurewind Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3
    Just had to chime in and be another person to say how well Masterminded articulated my misgivings with Civ V.

    Very well-reasoned and cogent, even in the face of some rebuttals that bordered on ad-hominem in nature and content.
     
  12. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    I second all this.
     
  13. Lord Parkin

    Lord Parkin aka emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,374
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Nope, only in blitz matches. Definitely not in the larger, longer scale games that Pitboss and PBEM permitted in Civ4. If you behave like the AI does in multiplayer, you'll quickly lose friends and alienate people. Humans can be devious and cunning, yes, but they also know that there's a time and place for diplomacy. The Civ5 AI doesn't understand that at present.

    The problem is, there is no limit. I've seen an AI become hostile immediately after meeting me (on turn 8 in one case), and I've also seen an AI declare war on me with no warning on turn 20 (never going hostile, just mass-rushing its half dozen free units on Immortal/Deity). That's a problem.

    You completely misinterpret my argument. I'm not at all saying the human should be able to "flip flop" between AI allies. I'm saying they should have the ability to cultivate long-lasting friendships over time throughout the game. At present that's impossible with the current AI. "Flip flopping" is definitely something I am not in favour of, and was not at all what I was getting at.

    The problem is that it behaves like this ALL the time, and is so fickle that it'll change its mind and turn on you in an instant - whether it be due to settling close to you, scouting your territory and noticing any troops, or hating you for one single war declaration (no matter on who) even though it has been warmongering for the entire game. I'm not saying that every AI should be predictable nor easy to befriend, but at least SOME of the AI have got to have the potential for forging lasting friendships with humans (and each other), or else the game becomes a boring and unfun warfest every time.

    Indeed. If only the effects of these pacts were a bit better documented, and the game gave you the information you needed to make decisions when the AI came to you with requests for these pacts (to avoid "notepad syndrome").

    I never play with Vassal States on in Civ4, so for me at least this is never the case.

    I played Civ3 for four years from its release to the release of Civ4. I can say without a doubt that I MUCH preferred the Civ4 AI. A lot of the leaders still hated you and plotted against you, but there were always at least one or two that you could actually forge alliances with and trust. Now THAT was fun diplomacy.
     
  14. Leif Roar

    Leif Roar Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    It's also worth pointing out that if the AI can't forge a lasting friendship or cooperation with the human player, then it can't stab him in the back with a timely betrayal either.

    A surprise attack by someone you thought was your friend is a lot more interesting than being attacked by someone you know will attack you the moment it perceives it to be in their interest.
     
  15. Misterboy

    Misterboy Modern Major General

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    Yeah, I have to apologize. I shouldn't be attempting to point out why I disagree with you while not actually taking the time and energy to flesh out my points.

    I will just add in conclusion that I do agree with much of your opinions. I just feel that there is a flavor of "I used to be able to, and enjoyed being able to, do X" without a full recognition that this version of Civ is intended to be different and other strategies are now viable. Seems to me that there are new, "I can do, and enjoy doing, X".

    In any case, I really have not advance the conversation much, so I'll digress.

    I do have a couple of direct questions for you though:

    1. Are you spending time and energy in these posts primarily because you are really frustrated, or do you genuinely hope that it will help the developers/modders "fix" the game?

    2. Will you be playing Civ 5 anymore, or will you go back to BtS, or will you be dropping Civ for the time being?
     
  16. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    It lacks the complexity of Civ 1? Truly? Have you played Civ I?

    Civ I is a very, very, very simple game. There were no cultural victories. There were no city states or vassals. The concept of specialists was only a very general one. I don't think it's possible to win an argument saying that Civ V is simpler than Civ I, and if you are willing to make that argument, please do.

    In fact, many of the complexities we've taken for granted were only introduced in Civ III, and Civ III still had no strong concept of particular specialists (and had no religion, either).

    I think what you're trying to say is that Civ V is not as complex as Civ IV, and that has a dedicated thread of its own. Needless to say, I don't agree that Civ V is less complex than Civ IV. It only has less fiddly bits that don't have strategic significance.

    I'll point you to the AI of Civ III and Civ IV. In both those games, the maps were also mostly empty for most of the game, and I know this because I have lots of experience playing at Noble in Civ IV. Expansion in Civ IV was curtailed by economics, and if you didn't know how to counterbalance the downsides, you were stuck at a small size for quite a while as well.

    It is not hard to get sufficient happiness to expand very, very, very quickly indeed. In fact, you can pretty much negate the no-tile penalty of 1 additional unhappiness per city (the city tile itself gets 1) through the Meritocracy Policy, which is self-explanatory if you just mouse over the tooltip. Get Construction for Colosseums (Aqueducts in previous Civs?) and you can pretty much spread and grow your cities at the same time.

    All the trade-offs you mentioned are in Civ V. You can very, very easily trade growth for productivity if you want to. Just switch tiles, switch improvements, and hire more Engineers. Easily doable in the Industrial Era.

    Want to forgo research for funds? Don't build libraries. Later on, don't build Universities. Hire Merchants instead of Scientists. There's always a way.

    It's not true that it takes too much paying attention "at the margins" to effect good happiness management. Micromanaging small amounts of happiness and staying small without the attendant benefits is a mark of a player who's unfamiliar with Civ V systems. With Civ V, you make broad strokes and get what you want in aces. Fiddling with small numbers at the margins of happiness gets you into -10 very quickly. There's no helping that. You have to plan ahead and gain happiness by the tens if you want to capture cities and keep them.

    You can't be more mistaken!

    Barracks should be built in 3 turns by the mid-game by any city capable of producing units sufficient to the task. Armory in 6 by Classical Era. Barracks + Armory gives you units that have two promotions out the game, and due to how promos work, these are at least as significant as the Green vs. Veteran status in Alpha Centauri. It makes a great deal of difference. Such a unit is worth at least 50% more than a unit that has no promotions. Arguably, it's worth twice as much.

    If you are constantly at war and never lose units, then sure, it's not worth building Barracks (or any other units for that matter), but if you lose units, then replacing that unit with another unit that approximates its experience is invaluable in keeping an up-to-date military.

    In fact, I not only build Barracks. I also build Armories and Military Academies. Getting a unit to Blitz one attack out the gate is fantastically good. Well worth the maintenance.

    I do not find Wonders having the same build times as in Civs III or IV. In many cases, they have lower build times. Nearly all the wonders have powerful and irreplaceable functions. There is no Wonder in Civ IV as powerful as Great Wall, which is arguably quite broken.

    I cannot respond to this usefully since I cannot understand its point. Missile and ranged units are arguably the most powerful units in Civ V, but they require support. That argues for at least two unit types in every army.

    You can fool the Civ IV AI to bounce its SoDs back and forth between two ultimately useless cities. You can lure it to attack at the worst possible location, and then decimate its SoD with nary a scratch to yours. Hell, you can freely manipulate it to protect you! You can use the Deity level AI to protect you from other AIs so you can win.

    Civ V's tactical combat systems are inherently more complex than Civ IV's one-tile SoD combat. I don't know how to explain something that is self-evident.

    Generally, the Civ V AI tells you not to settle near it, trade with its enemies, or attack/steal its City State allies. It tells you this quite baldly. Again, I don't know how your experience has been but in my view, the AI generally acts according to how it says it's going to act. In fact, it frequently has the courtesy to declare war on me before the turn it attacks my units.

    What argument did you want? Larger empires win culture faster. Is there some point that was unclear? Do you not know how to win culture with a large empire?

    Eh.

    I suppose it does seem to be contradicting. I would need to do a lot of systems explanation if you want all the nitty gitty of all this. It's not contradictory. It just seems that way. I suggest going to the strategy forums to get a handle on the game.

    I can answer small, specific questions.

    In this sense, Sullla is making the case that ICS is too easy, but then references late-game policies with which he is making his case. Yes, that is contradictory, and I said as much. However, REXing and expanding normally is NOT ICS. ICS is not large empire. It is a specific form of large empire.
     
  17. hclass

    hclass Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Hi Roxlimn,

    I try to be a stander-by for the war between you and OP.

    But the below is too much:

    That is an obvious lie!

    For both Civ3 and Civ4, I have never played other difficulty level except Noble, I always play huge map and never end a game (I win, of course) with less than 100 cities. My cities cover almost every inch of the huge map (except the oceans)

    Anyone who have actually played Civ3 shall know, the AI players never hesitate to squeeze in a city whenever there is gap... even when the gap happen to be surrounded by my territory, they still do it... an obvious suicide, but they are stupid enough to keep doing it.

    In Civ4, though situation become better, but still I don't have any problem in covering the whole map...

    Please bear in mind that this thread is quite popular in the forum and a lot of experience players are watching. You should state only facts of earlier Civ, not something you have imagined.

    Anyway, please continue with your debate, I do enjoy it.
     
  18. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    hclass:

    I'm glad you enjoy it, but when I say that the map isn't covered, I was referring to the AI. Civ IV and Civ III AIs at low levels are generally poor at covering the map. Of course, you can cover the map yourself, but you can also do this in Civ V!

    See: ICS in the strategies forum for how to do this. I think the most cities people got was about 70 or so, but that's because there's a bug that crashes the game when you have too many cities.
     
  19. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    I don't go into that list of Roxlim,only to say that he started oke but went down real fast.
    WHat Hclass mentions, is true. I played CIV III(vanilla) mostly, on Emperor lvl.
    And wherever there was agap, the AI (or me) where rushing Settlers to it to fill the gap.

    So i won't argue with Roxlim futher, while it's hard to discuss mechanics with someone, who clearly does not know where he is talking about. It's not the first time you make totally invalid arguments.

    Good day.

    ps: Roxlimn, you are still wrong. The ai sends settlers if it's a valuable spot, and surely he sends workers to "create a colony" for resources and luxery he wants to have.
     
  20. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Jediron:

    You will find it hard to argue that Emperor is a low level difficulty.
     

Share This Page