A cogent explanation on the shortfalls of Civ V

[Jediron]

Well, i played some more and the more i play, the more i start to dislike the combat system. Becasue the more i play, it becomes clear to me the tactical warfare have nothing to do with tactical warfare but more like a lotery/arcade game.

The only "good" about it is the manouvring, while at the same time mavrouvring is seriously handicaped. I notice there is hardly any skill for you, as player, to deploy; while it's all so limited.
You walking practicly blindfolded into enemy terrain, only to notice that you move 1 hex too far, while a enemy unit popped up, just out of sight the hex before. Fun ? Maybe for you but not for me.

You can say all you want, but i never experienced this feeling with older CIV's, where you atleast had the ability to strenghten that hex. SOD gave you that "tactical & strategical" advantage and it closer to reality than what combat in CIV gives us now.

You can bring a unit to battle with "visibility "1), but that's gonna take up a hex of space, space, which already is very limited. And still, does not solve the issue well.

Then the City-defences, i really dislike them more and more, the instant arty you get. It is giving the combat again a unbalanced feeling. Tried to attack a enemy city, in the middle of two other cities, more or less on a line with about 3 hexes apart of them. Now, the only way to attack that middle city is a small space of 1 x 2 hex, while if you step elsewhere, arty from that other city starts bombinng your troops too. Silly, i feel that like "amsterdam, 40 miles away from Utrecht, uses his "super-range catalapult" to give support fire. Something like that, and it just makes no sence. It's like dealing with limitations, where there should not be a limitation to begin with.

So, besides the "tactical" advantage of mavrouving, as alot of people talk about, planning were to go (bush/hill) which is true; everything else around it make it less realistic and less tactical then you could imagine. To me, it's worse then ever.

Alot seems to dislike SOD, with most of the time the same argument "nothing to it, build a SOD and crush, my sod agains yours ...blabla".
Well, gues what. That's exactly what happened in the past, and even today. One Countru wage war against the other, and bring everything he thinks he needs (and have) to the table. Only, with 1 upt: Your army isn't at the front, but scattered around the landscape; while there is ample room. Due the silly rules, you can't even defend any part of the terrain with mixed forces, but nicely devided in piece-meal single type units. OW well, you get the idea.

 

[lschnarch]

Perhaps for the Pro Civ Vers, its important to note what I consider to be a bash on Civ V because someone really wants Civ 4.5, and what is not.

Something on the order of "I don't like Civ V because they removed the espionage and religion systems".

This is something that is built out of nostalgia, and may have no place in the new game.

I have to disagree.

In Civ4, a lot of game elements have been included which are just mising in Civ0.V.

I think, noone can really deny that human history is as well a history of religion and espionage, just to stick with these two.
Therefore, including such concepts in Civ4 was the right thing to be done.
Therefore, many regret that they have been kicked out of Civ0.V.

Yet, most of the people who liked the presence of these concepts in Civ4 will agree that the implementation was not the very best possible.
Yes, having 6 different religions in one city, thus raising its potential happiness and cultural output without negative consequences was a bad thing.

I furthermore agree that espionage was poorly implemented. It wasn't much fun nor was it really decisive for your success. It even added only that much to your pleasure.

But it still reflected things being important for the history of a civilization.

What we "Civ4.5"-fans want, is a BETTER implementation of religon, a BETTER implementation of espionage. It may work completely different (thus there is no fear of "change"), but the concept should be in a game about human history.

Why, the heel, didn't they just remove warfare from Civ0.V then, if it was that much broken in Civ4?
I mean, after all I constantly hear that it was no fun.

 

[Jediron]

Espionage was also way to expensive. They should have done the espionage like CIV2, with a unit; you builded and improved that. With the newer system is was more like a toy for the wealthy nations.

-Better espionage
-Better diplomacy
-Better warfare (sod or no sod, 1 upt sucks as it is right now, and i made post explaining why it never will work well.)
-Better user interface (the new one, aldo having some advanteges, is still a step back/ because they made a mess of it)
-Better economics (the new one is "streamlined" flat/boring/leaving not much to do for the player)

 

[lschnarch]

Espionage was also way to expensive. They should have done the espionage like CIV2, with a unit; you builded and improved that. With the newer system is was more like a toy for the wealthy nations.

-Better espionage
-Better diplomacy
-Better warfare (sod or no sod, 1 upt sucks as it is right now, and i made post explaining why it never will work well.)
-Better user interface (the new one, aldo having some advanteges, is still a step back/ because they made a mess of it)
-Better economics (the new one is "streamlined" flat/boring/leaving not much to do for the player)

I furthermore agree that espionage was poorly implemented.

As I said...

 

[Roxlimn]

Good question. Aldo it does raises another question to me, maybe you like to answer;

What is the fun of "playing" the game-mechanics, restricting yourself with all kind of rules, rules that the dev.mode made possible in the first place as if that's the way you should play the game ?

Really, that is what bothering me. For me it's just a silly to say, for example a F1 racing simulator:
"hey men, you know what. Try to drive on three wheels, as we feel that's better then driving on four".

Anyway. Never mind you answer, i made up my mind. Waited long enough for a CIV with a AI, that atleast give you a feeling it is intelligent. Instead, we get a new, polished version which, as always; is dumber then the "developed previous version"; previous version, which, aldo developed; still have dumb AI's.

You know what, i think i pick up Chess again

Nothing wrong with that. Chess is a fantastic game. Bit unbalanced, but there are rule modifications to the ancient game that have more or less made it more enjoyable.

For what it's worth, I don't "restrict" myself with these rules. I just figure "Hey, it would be cool to have cities that use all the tiles in their 36 hex range!" So I go play a game and do that. I find it fun. madscientist also plays a role-playing thread series where he arbitrarily restricts himself with all manner of rules, sometimes on-the-fly. It's fun to play and fun to read.

It's true that it's a restriction, but it's also true that this is how I have always enjoyed the Civ games. Civ games, as a rule, are bad replicators of history in terms of immersion because you can tech insanely fast (among many other things). They have always been somewhat unbalanced, so there's usually some way to win extra fast with some kind of insane strategy. Been true since Civ 1.

I want to play with the whole game that the developers sold me. If I keep winning every game with Horsemen, I never get to explore the Industrial and Medieval Era warfare models. So I don't win with Horsemen, delay to the era I want while keeping reasonably up (without killing the AI!) and then do my war. It'd be nice if we could just set it up at the era we prefer, but it's not too much trouble.

Well, i played some more and the more i play, the more i start to dislike the combat system. Becasue the more i play, it becomes clear to me the tactical warfare have nothing to do with tactical warfare but more like a lotery/arcade game.

The only "good" about it is the manouvring, while at the same time mavrouvring is seriously handicaped. I notice there is hardly any skill for you, as player, to deploy; while it's all so limited.
You walking practicly blindfolded into enemy terrain, only to notice that you move 1 hex too far, while a enemy unit popped up, just out of sight the hex before. Fun ? Maybe for you but not for me.

You can say all you want, but i never experienced this feeling with older CIV's, where you atleast had the ability to strenghten that hex. SOD gave you that "tactical & strategical" advantage and it closer to reality than what combat in CIV gives us now.

You can bring a unit to battle with "visibility "1), but that's gonna take up a hex of space, space, which already is very limited. And still, does not solve the issue well.

Then the City-defences, i really dislike them more and more, the instant arty you get. It is giving the combat again a unbalanced feeling. Tried to attack a enemy city, in the middle of two other cities, more or less on a line with about 3 hexes apart of them. Now, the only way to attack that middle city is a small space of 1 x 2 hex, while if you step elsewhere, arty from that other city starts bombinng your troops too. Silly, i feel that like "amsterdam, 40 miles away from Utrecht, uses his "super-range catalapult" to give support fire. Something like that, and it just makes no sense. It's like dealing with limitations, where there should not be a limitation to begin with.

That's generally how artillery defenses feel like in these hex-based games. While it's true that the scale makes everything look a little silly, this has also always been true in Civ games as well. Consider that in the BCs, we are regularly waging wars that take centuries to prosecute. That's a hell of a long siege.

Getting scouting information on your enemy locations is key. I'm surprised that it took you this long to discover this. This is the reason why Camel Archers are better than Longbowmen, and arguably superior to Artillery, if their Ranged Strength were actually similar. The mechanics of Camel Archers make them uniquely fantastic, and arguably dominant for their era of warfare.

This also tells you the power of Manifest Destiny. I just played Washington. He's great at war because he can tell where his enemy's troops are without having to sac his Warriors, Scouts, or Workers (yes, I use Workers to scout) for scouting. Of course, being in Golden Age as Persia is just flat out better, but +1 sight is a powerful advantage.

In the age of Artillery +1 sight means that ol' George can actually deploy his Artillery and NOT need attendant units to scout for them - they can see as far as they can fire.

As far as your Artillery situation goes, I get the feeling that it's the aesthetics you're not liking, and the unfamiliarity of this style of hex-warfare gaming. It's remarkably similar to the Panzer General mechanics once it gets to the Modern-ish eras, which is still preferable to earlier Civ games where advanced warfare past Industrial was just broken beyond repair.

Not impossible to attack and break a defense just as you described, though I'm pretty sure you already know how to do it. I actually like taking apart defenses of that nature. Much better than having the AI walk their Archers into your Legions to get slaughtered.

 

[Jediron]

Getting scouting information on your enemy locations is key. I'm surprised that it took you this long to discover this. This is the reason why Camel Archers are better than Longbowmen, and arguably superior to Artillery, if their Ranged Strength were actually similar. The mechanics of Camel Archers make them uniquely fantastic, and arguably dominant for their era of warfare.

It have nothing to do with scouting, and if so; you A) need te bring your army a scout, which takes up a precious HEX, if you have the space. And then keep going in and out to "scout" only to see if there are enemy units in the rear could be treath. Scouts, which are also easy meat, and another unit to build "from the precious building time.

Thing is, on this scale; Tactical warfare sucks. Despite the "terrain/movement" advantages.
Thing is, with SOD you can correct those "unlucky movement" by strenghtening that units position.
I explain and give a example of the SOD advantages and doing so, a negative for the 1 upt combat system.

PG, was good for it's time. PG is stoneage now. Would not enjoy it anymore playing it. Precisly due to the issues, you yourself describe. SOD wasn't perfect either, you shall not hear me say that; but it felt more "in place" , more strategical and less tactical. As it should, on a strategical level.

You speak of Like and dislike. For me, that's irrelevant. That's a total different discussion.
Thing is, fighting in CIV5 is more unrealistic then ever before. That's is my idea of it.

People say for example, look at the units as "combined arms" ; aldo you only see Horses with horse attributes. Oke fine. Then it's a "specialed army" , right ? Well,leaders deploy their armies on a strategical level; not the tactical level as they try to do now.

And if they where 100% the unittype they represent, it doens't fit the landscap either; IT's a strategical map, remember ?

So that brings us back to the core: Making war on a tactical scale with a Strategic map is a bad idea. Fun? Maybe. It only have nothing to do with "realism" , as some people speak of. Far from it. Less "realism" then ever before.

And the signs are all there to be noticed; troops that always cary boats with them, Giant Robots, City states fromt he start, etc.etc.etc.

 

[Leif Roar]

PG, was good for it's time. PG is stoneage now. Would not enjoy it anymore playing it.

One thing about Panzer General, though, that means it's actually a very poor choice to compate the combat in Civ V against, is that Panzer General was scenario based: you'd have a given map with a given enemy force in a given starting position that you had to defeat. Since these scenarios were hand-made, they could be customised to always be interesting and challenging.

 

[Jediron]

Exactly ;-)

 

[Roxlimn]

Jediron:

Dude, seriously, the AI's warfare strategy isn't that good. Giving up one forward tile for a scout unit isn't a big deal. And it costs what? 2 turns to make?

You don't even need to have an actual Scout unit. You can use a Horseman with Sentry promotion. All of Washington's units have this promo. If you have problems with visibility, I recommend playing Washington.

Thing is, on this scale; Tactical warfare sucks. Despite the "terrain/movement" advantages.
Thing is, with SOD you can correct those "unlucky movement" by strenghtening that units position.
I explain and give a example of the SOD advantages and doing so, a negative for the 1 upt combat system.

PG, was good for it's time. PG is stoneage now. Would not enjoy it anymore playing it. Precisly due to the issues, you yourself describe. SOD wasn't perfect either, you shall not hear me say that; but it felt more "in place" , more strategical and less tactical. As it should, on a strategical level.

You speak of Like and dislike. For me, that's irrelevant. That's a total different discussion.
Thing is, fighting in CIV5 is more unrealistic then ever before. That's is my idea of it.

You make it sound like fighting in Civ was realistic at some point. Spearmen beating Tanks? No, not likely. Fighting in Civ has always been unrealistic, and I find it strange how one might characterize one totally unrealistic system as being more unrealistic than another totally unrealistic system.

Consider: prior to Civ IV, assigning a Spearman to attack a defended City was usually a very, very bad idea. How this makes sense in any realistic fashion is beyond me.

So the way I see it, you just don't like hex-based combat. Seems to be the long and short of it.


Leif Roar:

Seems to me that when the AI stymied Jediron with Artillery using crossfire, it assembled a pretty interesting scenario just on its own.

You have to give the AI a chance to make the scenario. If you keep killing them with Horsemen, they're never going to get to Artillery! I've already had a couple interesting wars with Industrial Era AI using similar Industrial Era units.

Also had some fun busting Industrial Era units with Modern units, but that was a complete bust. That said, the way the Modern units interact to take apart an Industrial Era defense was pretty interesting.

You'll never get to these games if you keep wanting to win the game with whatever the latest skewed strategy is featuring, and you won't enjoy it anyway if you have something fundamental against hex-based combat.

 

[hclass]

Maybe I can help here: If it is worth building because after X units built, you see a positive effect, than it's worth building only in a city(s) where you plan to build X number of units.

Because of this, it may be wise to build a barracks in only 1 or 2 cities because in those cities you'll see a benefit, and it may not hurt to have those cities be your unit factories.

That is interesting!
1. May I know how you choose a city to be unit factory? I mean what are the factors that make you decide a city is better to be a unit factory?
2. In Civ5, after a city is being chosen to be for a specific function (say for unit production, for grabbing wonder, for producing gold etc), it is really don't require other buildings that are irrelevant to their specific function? e.g. Do you still need to build buildin for hapiness boosting if a city has already been determined to be a unit factory?
3. For a big empire say about 50 cities, is the Civ5 game mechanism encourage (or indirectly require) one to always choose a specific function for every city?
If your answer is YES, then what are most of your cities do? I know you will have to have few unit factories, few may be for gold and so on, then what are the remaining cities do?

Unless the number of X is VERY low, you'd never want to build in every city. You just don't need that many troops, for example.

Are you sure you understand what is the N/M in my formula?
Isn't it suppose to be X is very "high" rather than "low" that makes you don't want to build that building?

Universities work the same with their bonus to jungle workers, for example. In one city they may be not worth the cost. In another they may be a no-brainer.

That I can understand, there must be at least some juggle tiles in the city radious to wrok on. But this is not good example for the matter being discussed because we are talking about whether a building is not worth building due timing problem which is a universal factor which has nothing to do wtih other circumstantial factors.

BTW,
I am damn disappointed that no one in this thread can clarify my the other 2 questions. They are so simple, it is just a matter of true or false...
I mean why can't you all discuss base on facts and figures, particularly when someone claims a single feature or specific mechanism is bad in Civ5? You all just need to put in a little more effort, look at the game in hand and quotes the figures, why it is so hard?
Bear in mind that they are so many still not yet buy Civ5 (that includes me) and are watching this thread to find out is Civ5 really that BAD (or it is indeed quite GOOD). Why can't you all that has the game played tell us with facts and figures. I couldn't care less with the kind of claims like:

"Ah! overall Civ5 is boring, I don't know the actual reason why, it is just boring" or state that

"the relation of why X, Y, Z mechanism in the game do not correlate well with A, B and C" thus the game is BAD, all without the support of some example with facts and figures. Remember, no matter how good your power of explanation is, how strong your language is to describe the situation, you need to support them with facts and figures. That shall provide us (all the potential buyer of Civ5) an easy way to find out if a claim of Civ5 is bad or good is true... we just need to verify those figures, are there really there in the game.

 

[Jediron]

Spearmen beating Tanks?

As if that happened al the time. No sir, CIV 5 lacks atmospfere, Lacks a good, balanced economic model, lacks a good techtree, where you can slingshot yourself into space, without ever teching basic techs, lacks good diplomacy Ai's and on top of that it lacks a descent, well earned final video after you achieved victory.

And i even did not name battle-ai /combat system in the above.

The game is CRAP. But is nice to see someone still enjoys it. Happy gaming ;-)

ps: And you still don't get it. It is not about the winning, but the journey to get there. And the journey is crap, no matter HOW you play it.
There is NO challenge, so there is no joy. For every Victory type, there is a easy "streamlined" road to Victory. Often more roads then one.

So the way I see it, you just don't like hex-based combat. Seems to be the long and short of it.

Does sound a little silly, knowing i enjoyed playing CIV 1,2 and 3, won't you agree ?
If you say i don't like the combat done the way they have done it in CIV 5, would be better described.

 

[Roxlimn]

Jediron:

I think you just have particular flavors in mind, and Civ V happens not to fit what you like, which doesn't mean that it's "crap," as you call it.

For instance, the option to sling deep into the tech tree means that it is now a possible choice to ignore basic technologies and capabilities for a long time. This choice did not exist in previous Civs, where going through the tech tree was often very linear in some ways.

Civ V's economic model is surprisingly good, IMO. I mean, I haven't seen anyone able to tech to Riflemen in 0 AD just yet, and that was perfectly possible in earlier Civs, including III and IV. That tells me that the pacing seems to be right. Purchasing is now stronger, and that makes me happy. Used to be that you never purchase anything unless you were rushed. Now it's viable to make a Civ based on wealth. That's a good thing.

Diplomacy in Civ V is more opaque than Civ IV's, but the AI seems remarkably responsive. Did you know that you can demand AIs not to settle near your lands and that they will comply if given sufficient reasons? That you can poll the AIs for how they think about other Civs and then make Secret Pacts? No? Yes? If so, then how could this be construed as bad? It looks at least as good as Civ IV diplomacy AI - though it's not as easy, since you can't mind-read the AI.

 

[Jediron]

Don't try to convince me, cause i don't agree with you and will never agree with you. Read post of othersw, ICS how easy it is or other good articles. Read how many beleive the AI is extremely poor with warfare.

I am done with this game, or maybe, gonna try a good MOD for it and if that brings it alive.
It's a DEAD horse to me now. Period.

But: to anwer your "good things" about CIv 5

For instance, the option to sling deep into the tech tree means that it is now a possible choice to ignore basic technologies and capabilities for a long time. This choice did not exist in previous Civs, where going through the tech tree was often very linear in some ways.

And that, you find a good thing
I think it's crap. Short and straight answer.

Civ V's economic model is surprisingly good, IMO. I mean, I haven't seen anyone able to tech to Riflemen in 0 AD just yet, and that was perfectly possible in earlier Civs, including III and IV. That tells me that the pacing seems to be right. Purchasing is now stronger, and that makes me happy. Used to be that you never purchase anything unless you were rushed. Now it's viable to make a Civ based on wealth. That's a good thing.

Do you ever read articles of others, people that goes into lenghts about the economic/tech/rpoduction model
Anyway, you are wrong. It is crap, plain and simple.

Diplomacy in Civ V is more opaque than Civ IV's, but the AI seems remarkably responsive. Did you know that you can demand AIs not to settle near your lands and that they will comply if given sufficient reasons?

And what would this "sufficient" reason would be ? Me, having a strong militairy to scare him off ? Yeah, right. That is really gonna change his mind, on immortal/deity level.

The ai so so responsive, when i meet him, he never wants to co-op. Only to back the next turn and ask for just that. Lame.

Futhermore, i always disliked the money-hassle when trading stuff. I am not a pawnshop owner", so all that hassle with cash for and GPT, i could not care less.
But even that, they have dumbed down; they hardly ever come with a decent offer.
Give generic cash for certain types of offer, while, aftter hassling some, they are willinh to pay a tenfold for. Pleaaseeee, is that the idea of fun ?
It's crap. There's no joy in trading, it's just a boring numbers game. A open market, with more bidders and a hammer to seal the deal; now, that would be interresting.
But this ? Crap! (and that goes for all civs, mind you),

 

[lschnarch]

Just roflmao.

For instance, the option to sling deep into the tech tree means that it is now a possible choice to ignore basic technologies and capabilities for a long time. This choice did not exist in previous Civs, where going through the tech tree was often very linear in some ways.

Civ V's economic model is surprisingly good, IMO. I mean, I haven't seen anyone able to tech to Riflemen in 0 AD just yet, and that was perfectly possible in earlier Civs, including III and IV. That tells me that the pacing seems to be right.

Did you know that you can demand AIs not to settle near your lands and that they will comply if given sufficient reasons? That you can poll the AIs for how they think about other Civs and then make Secret Pacts? No? Yes? If so, then how could this be construed as bad? It looks at least as good as Civ IV diplomacy AI - though it's not as easy, since you can't mind-read the AI.

Well, that's actually a good find.

But there are even more things to find, I guess.

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

I've been able to win handily at King and it's not been slow or boring.

tl;dr
Dear Sir, occasionally visiting the Strategy forum, picking up some news and then coming back to the main forum and explaining the game ... sometimes just fails.

 

[Roxlimn]

lschnarch:

You're acting like putting my posts together is some kind of relevation. I don't get what's so funny.

I don't consider Emperor a low level of play, which makes sense because I play at King. What's funny about that?

You could not move past certain bottlenecks in Civ IV without having all prerequisite techs. What's funny about that?

The soonest I've been able to find that players tech to Riflemen is after 0 AD, whereas in Civ IV you could tech to Rifles and actually have Riflemen before that. Ergo, pacing seems to be better in Civ V, comparatively speaking.

As for the "find," I didn't realize that so many players were complaining about the diplomacy game without even knowing the basic actions you could do in Civ V. I mean, how does that even make sense?

 

[Jediron]

lschnarch:
He made that comment to me, thinking i was speaking of CIV IV (or V?), while i spoke of Emperor level from CIV III, that's one below Deity in CIV III, the highest. Dunno for sure, but i think Mu Emperor CIV III is atleast as hign as his King level ;-)

Anyway, he asumed he was talking to a lesser player.

Ow yes, and what just strikes me is this:

On one hand Roxlimn condemns the "Panzer vs Spearman" battles, which could occur in CIV III.
OTOH he is presenting slingshot "tactics" in CIV 5 as a good thing, aldo that results in what ?
Rifleman vs Spearman ?

See, there is no arguing possible agents such logic

 

[Roxlimn]

Jediron:

1. I did not assume anything! I do not think a player is a lesser player if prefers to play on lower difficulty settings.

2. Didn't Civ III have the "Sid" level?

3. When I say "spearman vs. tank" I was referring to a meme I assumed everyone knew, which was that a tank would occasionally lose to a Spearman in Civ III. Happened to me. Hardly realistic. I assumed you knew this meme.

 

[Jediron]

Ah yes. Riflemen beating spears ALL the time (in CIv V -with slingshot) is afocurce MUCH better

And a tank can be knocked out by spears, they just digg a hole in front of the tanks path...covered it with spears and made it camouflaged....tank drives over hole, .... and "splonk", tank in hole...

Vanilla Civ III does not have SID, i can tell, it is still here, on my desktop. You mean Conquest, i think.

 

[timtofly]

That is interesting!

Have you played the Demo?

 

[Roxlimn]

Yeah...

yeah...

I just don't know what to say about that. To me, it makes sense that Riflemen should soundly trounce Spearmen. It doesn't make sense that Spearmen should defeat Tanks. I mean, we can make all kinds of pretty and outrageous stories about it, but it's still pretty out there.