A cogent explanation on the shortfalls of Civ V

[Jediron]

To me, the whole "slingshot" strategy does not make sence, it only make a unbalanced game even more unbalancing. But if that's the way YOU like it, so be it. Not my cup up tea. Just like i did not play the ICS strategy in CIV III (or IV) , as it ruins the gameplay. Only tried it once or twice, with suc6. Aldo i prefered the "normal builder" approach, with OCP and controlled expansion. To buid a solid, huge empire.

 

[Roxlimn]

Jediron:

Civ V is not more unbalanced in this way. You can't get Tanks very easily in Civ V because the rate of tech gain isn't that fast in the early goings. In Civ III and IV, you could get ridiculous rates fairly easily. Mech Inf at 500 AD, no problem.

So being able to head straight down a path does not generate the tech advantage - having inherent tech advantage generates the tech advantage.

Being able to head straight down a path means more strategic choices.

 

[LoneGamer]

For many Civ veterans, this is boring. We are accustomed to more strategic depth.

I find it hard to play the game now. I start a new one and after a few turns I get the feeling "I've done this before".

With Civ4 every new game I played, I wondered who I was going to be best buddies with and who I was going to crush. What religion I would get and who would I go to war with over that. Or who would I force to join my religion. Diplomats, spies, etc.

There were just so many variables and ways to go about the game which I find lost in Civ5. I won't go into specifics cause it's been done 1,000,000 times but just wanted to say I agree with the OP and I am sad about the game.

I've been doing some modding to help change some things I don't like but without the source out and the lack of things we can do it's just another thing to add to the list. I'm not angry I bought the game and I will buy all the expansions that come with it, I just want that feeling again. I still have some hope but this patch everyone is so excited about I feel will crush that little bit of hope I have left.

For now it's shelf material, perhaps in a few months I'll dust it off and have at it again. At least I can get rid of steam for the time being.

This post is not a negative review of the game, just my feelings of it compared to what civ4 brought me. Cheers.

 

[masterminded]

Roxlimn,

I have been very patient. Not everyone has professional or academic experience in the arts of argumentation. Your responses have often mischaracterized my posts, attributed motivations to me that are contrary to my stated ones, ignored my qualifiers, been completely unresponsive, etc. And you continue to do all of this, despite my constant appeals, restating of my claims for clarity, and corrections. I'm not sure why--if it's out of malice, refusal to actually improve your argumentation, or obtuseness. Regardless, it's a waste of my time to continue discussing the subject with you. A good portion of my posts consists of correcting sloppy arguments and restating my claims. It's not worth the effort for me to continue in this fashion. However, I would like to highlight two things in particular, the first because you are doing this to other posters on this thread and the second because it has just become apparent to me and it is probably the most abusive thing you have committed.

1) Comparing two unlike things

Other posters have noted that the map is still relatively empty in Civ V until late game. Your response is to play Civ III and check the map at 0 AD. A direct comparison between the games would consider the state of colonization in both games during the same point.

You do this again when others mention the low difficulty of Civ V. Your response is that the AI improves under ideal circumstances, such as the modern age. If you're going to compare combat and AI between two games, this comparison has to be made as a whole. You cannot isolate one period to strengthen your case. This means comparing the combat in each period to the corresponding period in other civ games.

You continue with this abusive line: the player should severely handicap himself in order to raise the challenge. This is risible. Like scenarios need to be compared with one another. A medium sized world of continents on deity in previous Civs should be compared to the same in Civ V, not an unlikely scenario. If the AI cannot perform adequately in like scenarios then it is inferior. This effectively eliminates the vast majority of viable scenarios from play.

There are plenty of other examples where you continue to do this in your most recent response, even after I corrected you. I will mention one: combining the effects of the barracks and armory in Civ V when discussing the costs and benefits of the barracks over different Civ games. Comparing one building means exactly that. Adding the benefits of another building skews the analysis.

2) Refusing to submit your arguments to the same standard

I extended myself by writing a detailed argument to support an analysis of the meta game. You have responded to this at times by making equally broad arguments about the game but not supporting them. This leaves me more vulnerable, as there are more arguments to pick apart. This should be evident, as I've already modified some of my arguments as acknowledged in prior posts.

You need to do the same if you are going to respond to my analysis by making broad assertions about the meta game. Stating that a broad and disputed claim is "self-evident" or instructing me to search other threads to support your argument that Civ V is more complex or has better AI is not a valid response. Multiple posts across multiple threads tend to vary in quality and are generally contradictory. Referring me to them allows you to remain vague and avoid risking an argument and all of the accompanying potential counterarguments. I have have no motivation to continue in this vain, wobbling along with a handicap.

 

[masterminded]

Or not.

I don't agree with your first point. Certainly when I build my Monument in my first City I don't have superior buildings in place by the time I finish. That's an extreme example, but I only find the techs coming thick and fast by the time I'm coasting to a win - and Civ IV was no different there.

Point 2 is sort of valid. But it's worth building (some of) them in 1 City, maybe 2 or 3 if you have a spread out Empire. But is that a bad thing? You assume that it is - because it's not like Civ IV!!!

Just don't agree with point 3. I find enough to do in turns 1-100. OK maybe Civ IV had more to tweak, if you're that way inclined, but I don't see it as a problem. Again you're looking at it from a "Civ IV was perfect, and this isn't the same" point of view.

So although you couched your points in more reasonable sounding language, really they're just the same old, same old. And as Madonna warbled, "I've heard it all before".

This is a good example of mischaracterization. At no point did Stalker actually make these arguments. Instead, he proffered these as examples in order to distinguish between two different types of arguments: those that betray a sentimental detachment for Civ IV and those that criticize Civ V apart from such sentimentalization. They are merely hypothetical.

I don't understand your rank hostility to critics. Are you choosing to be so obtuse that you refuse to believe that they can be motivated by anything but an infatuation with Civ IV?

 

[masterminded]

I really think you're missing out. I have been following the arguments for and against and I have become convinced that the Civ 5 haters almost always have massive flaws in their logic. I don't see most of the problems others see. Why? Because I am not nostalgic for Civ 4 like nearly all the haters, and because I've been adapting to the game and the way it's now set up which so far is an improvement over Civ 4. I also don't try to hold onto old strategies and exploits that so many feel were righteous parts of Civ 4. See "nostalgia" above.

I'd also like to give a shout out to Roxlimn, who has by-and-large done a good job of explaining many of my views. I tried to create an opposing voice in this thread earlier, but found I didn't have the time to point out many people's (including the OPs) flawed logic, but Roxlimn has filled in pretty well.

Lastly, this thread is a tad of a muchness. If you don't like the game, then fine. If you do, then fine. The reason I felt compelled to contribute is because I see so much "hate" for this game and in nearly all examples, that "hate" is based on logical fallacies combined with rose-tinted glasses. I saw this when Civ 3 was new and again when Civ 4 was new. I have no doubt that after some patches, some balance tweaks, and a few expansions, Civ 5 will greatly exceed Civ 4.

P.S. I'm primarily a builder.

Moderator Action: Using the term haters is considered trolling on these forums, please refrain form doing this in the future

When you first posted here you made assertions without warrants or evidence to support them, but you also indicated that you were tired. My response was to encourage you to get some rest and return after you had an opportunity to crystallize your ideas. I was polite and civil. My hope was to nurture constructive dialogue.

Your response is to call critics haters and claim that nearly all of them are motivated by some saccharine attachment to Civ IV. Why did you repay kindness with the discourtesy of assuming that I and others have some underhanded motive? Civil debate means that you take your opponent at their word regarding their motives and evaluate the arguments on their merits.

This is the last time I will comment on the issue of Civ IV. Emphatically, I don't care that Civ V is different from Civ IV.

I don't care that it doesn't have religion, corporations, or espionage. I do care that these systems were removed and not replaced with other dynamic subsystems, even if they are completely unrelated. The result is less depth because there are fewer facets to the game.

I don't care that it doesn't have a civics system. I do care that the social policy system is inflexible and poorly implemented.

I don't care that diplomacy is handled differently. I do care that the new system features mercurial and highly irrational AIs and lacks a viable means of tracking AI attitudes toward the player.

I don't care that the SOD is gone and that hexes have replaced squares. I do care that the AI does not manage these new elements well.

I don't care that happiness has been globalized, maintenance has been reworked, or health has been removed. I do care that the new system is rather heavy-handed in its implementation.

I do not assume your motives contrary to what you tell me. I have not claimed that proponents of Civ V really only like it because they are simple-minded or that they have an irrational infatuation with the game. I take you at your word and believe that you like the game for the reasons that you have stated. Please provide the same courtesy to others.

 

[hclass]

Let's see - I have decide how to move my units to uncover the map

1. OK! 1 valid point

, make decisions about what to do with Barbarians uncovered

2. Not OK! You don't uncover a Barbarians every turn, right?
Point not valid!

decide which Policies to take, which techs to aim for

3. Not OK! You don't do the above 100 times right? (i.e. that should be one time decision making)
Point not valid!

what my Workers should develop
what tiles each City should be producing

4. Not Ok! I believe you have few workers and cities in 1 to 100 turns and your workers never complete his task every single turn, right?
Point not valid!

what the Cities should be building

5. Not OK! Since you can't have many cities within first 100 turns and you can only build few buidlings or units during that period. So that could not be a busy task!
Point not valid!

Of course not all of these require decisions on every turn, but I don't see that as a problem.

No! All of them are not required on every turn except for the first activity you have mentioned. So there is a problem.

I wasn't an excessive tweaker in Civ IV.

Sure. Because even in Civ4, for most of what you have mentioned, you too won't be doing them in each of the first 100 turns.

I have trusted you and assume you were not simply pressing the same button again and again, but I am disappointed for you still don't want to tell the truth about want you are doing in the first 100 turns?

 

[Jediron]

Roxlimn
Civ V is not more unbalanced in this way. You can't get Tanks very easily in Civ V because the rate of tech gain isn't that fast in the early goings. In Civ III and IV, you could get ridiculous rates fairly easily. Mech Inf at 500 AD, no problem.

I haqve no problem with mech inf at 500 AD, as the AI is anywhere near that in tech also. It also have to do with the "game speed" you are playing, isn't it ?

So being able to head straight down a path does not generate the tech advantage - having inherent tech advantage generates the tech advantage.

What are trying to tell here ? That the AI slingshots too ? That you can't get a decive TECH advantage, as a player vs the AI with a slingshot ?
Plz answer, short, yes or no.

Being able to head straight down a path means more strategic choices.

Ah, now i get it. You call that "strategy"

Originally Posted by JudgeDeath
what my Workers should develop

let me guess: tradingpost, tradingpost, tradingpost, tradingpost, tradingpost, tradingpost, road, tradingpost, tradingpost, tradingpost and if you can't build the trading post, the other stuff....



Btw; i am playing
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9778732&postcount=211

 

[JudgeDeath]

LOL hclass. I may not uncover Barbarians every turn, but it is quite often, and if you don't change which tiles you are working on a regular basis you are missing a trick. Of course I ignored the first war, which involves lots of decisions.

But let me turn this on its head. What would you do in Civ 4 that was so different?

 

[Thormodr]

LOL hclass. I may not uncover Barbarians every turn, but it is quite often, and if you don't change which tiles you are working on a regular basis you are missing a trick. Of course I ignored the first war, which involves lots of decisions.

But let me turn this on its head. What would you do in Civ 4 that was so different?

Well, for one thing, Barbs are an actual threat in cIV. I recall many times playing with Raging Barbs and being on the edge of losing cities or even being wiped out by them.

Barbs are a joke in ciV.

 

[Misterboy]

I do feel a bit out of place, commenting on a game of which I haven't actually played the final release, which is not something I've ever done before. But it's a CIV game, and I like many others, have been anticipating it for so long. I really don't look at Civ Iv with any tinted spectacles; I did quite extensive modding for it but have frankly played it to death.

There just seem too many design decisions in Civ V that frankly abhor me. The CIV series to me, was all about recreating a pseudo-alternative history of mankind. It was about immersion. I remember posting to a friend here while playing Civ IV, that I was "soaking up the heady atmosphere of Medieval Aachen". I wasn't thinking "right I must decide now (have decided 1000 years ago) which path I'm going to take to victory. I was just reacting to the gameworld which I/The AIs had created.

I think a lot comes down to different personalities. Some of us just played for the thrill of the ride, maybe developing new strategies over time, but they were secondary to the game environment. Actually developing real friends and allies was a good feeling--"Who's this come knocking? Ah my old pal Bismark" or "Oh it's Catherine, well let's at least try to be civil".

Others want it to be really nothing more than a game, with only one goal--to win. There are many games that I own and play, just for that reason. Civ was never ever one of them. I can't even estimate the amount of games of CIV IV I've played to at least the medieval era, it may even be getting towards a thousand or so. I've probably actually finished less than 3% of those, yet I almost always had fun along the way.

I haven't just taken a few random folks' opinion on Civ V (believe me, I really want to like it), I've tried to find all the positives possible, but there are just too many people who's opinions I trust telling me to stay away.

You may be surprised to hear that we are very similar. It's the environment and immersion that I love most about Civ games. Sounds like our perspectives are the same. What got to me in Civ 4 was the immersion started to break because there was too much game that didn't work. I'd rather have less stuff that was messy. I cried when I started to understand how religion messed up the game for me. It was my absolute favourite feature, and it turned into my least favourite.

For me, Civ 5 still has that sense of immersion. And I had many games where a smile hits my face when my buddy arrives to talk things over. Most recently it was Japan. He's declaring war on city states, and Civs like mad. But he's my buddy. He comes along and sounds so very refined and amiable. So it's all there. Catherine has been very neutral until I started pushing her buttons. Eventually went hostile on me. I'm playing on King, and Washington, Alexander, Hiawatha and Japan (Oda?) are all either friendly or amiable. Napolean was neutral until I invaded him (I rolled Bismark so decided I'd persue a domination in this game).

Of course, it's all changing. Japan cancelled it's "treaties" with me because I've massively ramped up my aggression. What would you do if you saw a player starting to rampage across the globe?

Don't dismiss Civ 5 because a lot of vocal people have decided they hate it ~2 weeks after its release. Remember Civ 4's release?

 

[Misterboy]

When you first posted here you made assertions without warrants or evidence to support them, but you also indicated that you were tired. My response was to encourage you to get some rest and return after you had an opportunity to crystallize your ideas. I was polite and civil. My hope was to nurture constructive dialogue.

Your response is to call critics haters and claim that nearly all of them are motivated by some saccharine attachment to Civ IV. Why did you repay kindness with the discourtesy of assuming that I and others have some underhanded motive? Civil debate means that you take your opponent at their word regarding their motives and evaluate the arguments on their merits.

This is the last time I will comment on the issue of Civ IV. Emphatically, I don't care that Civ V is different from Civ IV.

I don't care that it doesn't have religion, corporations, or espionage. I do care that these systems were removed and not replaced with other dynamic subsystems, even if they are completely unrelated. The result is less depth because there are fewer facets to the game.

I don't care that it doesn't have a civics system. I do care that the social policy system is inflexible and poorly implemented.

I don't care that diplomacy is handled differently. I do care that the new system features mercurial and highly irrational AIs and lacks a viable means of tracking AI attitudes toward the player.

I don't care that the SOD is gone and that hexes have replaced squares. I do care that the AI does not manage these new elements well.

I don't care that happiness has been globalized, maintenance has been reworked, or health has been removed. I do care that the new system is rather heavy-handed in its implementation.

I do not assume your motives contrary to what you tell me. I have not claimed that proponents of Civ V really only like it because they are simple-minded or that they have an irrational infatuation with the game. I take you at your word and believe that you like the game for the reasons that you have stated. Please provide the same courtesy to others.

You need to take a deep breath I'm not calling all critics "haters", and I wasn't aware that term was so loaded. I won't be using it again. I'm not calling you one either. I admire your tenacious support of your opinion. But you have to admit, there are a LOT of people who are overly down on the game. They have an axe to grind. Several of them are posting in this thread.

Underhanded motive? I think you're paranoid. I asserted no such thing. Do you come after everyone that expresses their opinion in a genuine effort to make someone's life better? You're being mean.

I get the strong impression that you're taking your exasperation of this topic out on me. It's true you've been typing a lot to defend your position against a lot of people who have had little to offer you but triteness. I'm not one of those people. I even went out of my way to apologize for contributing without a solid backup of my reasons. I have my reasons, but lacked the time and energy to elucidate them especially since others have done so well in other threads.

I have admired your eloquence and demeanor and wanted to express my respect for you. I continued checking this thread because it was enjoyable. But when I came back in, in the spirit of sharing, to offer what (in my opinion) was a non-confrontational counterpoint to someone who hasn't even played the game, I get jumped on. Be careful showing your true colors Masterminded.

Like you, I'm done with the conversation. There's not much point in me spending my time and energy on this at all. I just couldn't let this attack on me go unchecked.

Have a nice day.

 

[masterminded]

You need to take a deep breath I'm not calling all critics "haters", and I wasn't aware that term was so loaded. I won't be using it again. I'm not calling you one either. I admire your tenacious support of your opinion. But you have to admit, there are a LOT of people who are overly down on the game. They have an axe to grind. Several of them are posting in this thread.

Underhanded motive? I think you're paranoid. I asserted no such thing. Do you come after everyone that expresses their opinion in a genuine effort to make someone's life better? You're being mean.

I get the strong impression that you're taking your exasperation of this topic out on me. It's true you've been typing a lot to defend your position against a lot of people who have had little to offer you but triteness. I'm not one of those people. I even went out of my way to apologize for contributing without a solid backup of my reasons. I have my reasons, but lacked the time and energy to elucidate them especially since others have done so well in other threads.

I have admired your eloquence and demeanor and wanted to express my respect for you. I continued checking this thread because it was enjoyable. But when I came back in, in the spirit of sharing, to offer what (in my opinion) was a non-confrontational counterpoint to someone who hasn't even played the game, I get jumped on. Be careful showing your true colors Masterminded.

Like you, I'm done with the conversation. There's not much point in me spending my time and energy on this at all. I just couldn't let this attack on me go unchecked.

Have a nice day.

Checking the last few pages of this thread does not uncover many people with an "axe to grind." I don't think that this is a fair. You are doing again exactly what I just accused you of doing. I could very well state that those enjoying the game have an axe to grind when they post responses to the critics. But that wouldn't be fair.

I'm neither mean nor paranoid. You claim that most of the critics here are motivated by an attachment to Civ IV and that they won't evaluate Civ V on its merits apart from said attachment. This is:

1) An unfair generalization. You have no way of knowing that most people feel this way.

2) Assigning motives to people that they state they do not have. It's uncivil.

3) Dismissive of their argument. When you claim that they are motived by a sentimental attachment, it allows proponents to ignore their arguments as irrational.

You are perfectly aware of these effects. As you have acknowledged, you have been following Roxlimn's posts and I have made many of the aforementioned points several time in my posts directed at him. You are aware that those are bad arguments that show a lack civility. At this point, I have no patience for them. So please, spare me your indignation and your admonitions regarding my "true colors."

 

[Roxlimn]

masterminded:

1. I did not ask the poster in question to compare a map of Civ III at 0 AD to a map of Civ V at 1800 AD. The implication, which I believe we both understood, was to compare at the same time frame. He simply asked why I chose 0 AD as a benchmark.

2. I am not arguing FOR a position that says that the Civ V AI is good. I believe I was very clear in stating this. I do not argue for a position that says that Civ V is difficult. I am not making a claim that we should be comparing modern AI in Civ V and modern AI in Civ whatever else, and then generalize based on an isolated comparison.

3.

There are plenty of other examples where you continue to do this in your most recent response, even after I corrected you. I will mention one: combining the effects of the barracks and armory in Civ V when discussing the costs and benefits of the barracks over different Civ games. Comparing one building means exactly that. Adding the benefits of another building skews the analysis.

I'm quite sure I already addressed your misunderstanding of my point there. Please review my previous commentary on this.

4.

I extended myself by writing a detailed argument to support an analysis of the meta game. You have responded to this at times by making equally broad arguments about the game but not supporting them. This leaves me more vulnerable, as there are more arguments to pick apart. This should be evident, as I've already modified some of my arguments as acknowledged in prior posts.

Your argument is longwinded, not detailed. I have explained to you in useful details how a large Civ might win Culture faster than a smaller one, and in two ways. I have explained why happiness is not an isolated limiter of growth, and how Civ V favors large Civs, not small ones.

Your argumentation fails not because you have more details, but because you have wrong details. That is the long and short of it.

 

[katipunero]

Jediron:

Civ V is not more unbalanced in this way. You can't get Tanks very easily in Civ V because the rate of tech gain isn't that fast in the early goings. In Civ III and IV, you could get ridiculous rates fairly easily. Mech Inf at 500 AD, no problem.

So being able to head straight down a path does not generate the tech advantage - having inherent tech advantage generates the tech advantage.

Being able to head straight down a path means more strategic choices.

Mech Inf at 500 AD, no problem.

Prove it.

 

[Misterboy]

Checking the last few pages of this thread does not uncover many people with an "axe to grind." I don't think that this is a fair. You are doing again exactly what I just accused you of doing. I could very well state that those enjoying the game have an axe to grind when they post responses to the critics. But that wouldn't be fair.

I'm neither mean nor paranoid. You claim that most of the critics here are motivated by an attachment to Civ IV and that they won't evaluate Civ V on its merits apart from said attachment. This is:

1) An unfair generalization. You have no way of knowing that most people feel this way.

2) Assigning motives to people that they state they do not have. It's uncivil.

3) Dismissive of their argument. When you claim that they are motived by a sentimental attachment, it allows proponents to ignore their arguments as irrational.

You are perfectly aware of these effects. As you have acknowledged, you have been following Roxlimn's posts and I have made many of the aforementioned points several time in my posts directed at him. You are aware that those are bad arguments that show a lack civility. At this point, I have no patience for them. So please, spare me your indignation and your admonitions regarding my "true colors."

This is just silly.

Please, go back and read the post I was responding to. Then, read my response. Then, read your response. Then read my response to you. You take everything I say, twist it around, apply it to "everyone" as though I'm a psychopathic generalizer. It's interesting seeing you argue with yourself.

In response to your number 1: I know what people think, when they express their thoughts in a forum post. That's the point of it.

In response to your number 2: I interpret people's language. Despite your valiant OP, many others respond with poorly drawn out arguments that fail in many ways. Have you read any of the other threads that don't have "cogent" in the title? Yes, that's right; my words were never pointed at you in any way shape or form. The original poster was referencing an incoherent mass of opinion on which he was judging his decision. I was equally referring to the same entity. Refer to my earlier posts in this forum to discover the respect I used to have for you. You are being hypocritical. I'd love to see you try to go through life without assigning motives to people. It's what we do. We do it by reading what they write, amongst others. But again, this wasn't directed at you anyway. *sigh*

In response to your number 3: It's not necessarily a sentimental attachment. It may be based primarily on comfort. Dunno. I can't read minds. But I can use my two points above to infer meaning and intent. And I do dismiss opinions if they're irrational. I judge how rational they are using a concept called logic. And I'm not simply "dismissive". I might offer another interpretation, which is what we call "debate".

I don't know what else to say other than to reread my posts. And I would once again suggest that you chill out a bit. I'm baffled by your intense desire to blow things up into something they are not. And you really don't need to take my comments personally. Context is everything. These comments are rather personal of course, but you started that train rolling.

I am now sincerely sorry that (here comes the numbered list!)

1. I tried to interject a counterpoint in this thread because I saw what I interpreted to be a flaw in logic.

2. That I suggested to someone that they give the game a shot, for valid reasons.

3. That I ever uttered the word "hater". I just was ignorant to its inflammatory nature. Go back and substitute the phrase, "people who are going out of their way to express negative opinions".

4. That I even responded to your attack on me, and that I ever apologized to you, which seems to have given you a feeling of entitlement.

I'm sure you'll repost to get the last word in. That's how these things go. I'm also sure you're a pretty nice guy/gal in real life. I know I am. Why don't we try being friends. I won't intrude in your thread again, even if it's for the most very bestest intentions [EDIT: I lied. I responded to a couple of direct posts and completely forgot about my earlier statement here].

I will simply point out that there is a lot of animosity in this thread. You might want to consider why that is.

All the best.

 

[Roxlimn]

katipunero:

That's a strange request. I did feel as if the high teching rates in IV were common knowledge. I'll try to see if I can dig up some of Unconquered Sun's old reps.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

You may be surprised to hear that we are very similar. It's the environment and immersion that I love most about Civ games. Sounds like our perspectives are the same. What got to me in Civ 4 was the immersion started to break because there was too much game that didn't work. I'd rather have less stuff that was messy. I cried when I started to understand how religion messed up the game for me. It was my absolute favourite feature, and it turned into my least favourite.

For me, Civ 5 still has that sense of immersion. And I had many games where a smile hits my face when my buddy arrives to talk things over. Most recently it was Japan. He's declaring war on city states, and Civs like mad. But he's my buddy. He comes along and sounds so very refined and amiable. So it's all there. Catherine has been very neutral until I started pushing her buttons. Eventually went hostile on me. I'm playing on King, and Washington, Alexander, Hiawatha and Japan (Oda?) are all either friendly or amiable. Napolean was neutral until I invaded him (I rolled Bismark so decided I'd persue a domination in this game).

Of course, it's all changing. Japan cancelled it's "treaties" with me because I've massively ramped up my aggression. What would you do if you saw a player starting to rampage across the globe?

Don't dismiss Civ 5 because a lot of vocal people have decided they hate it ~2 weeks after its release. Remember Civ 4's release?

Thanks for the reply:- in my mental check column, you just added a few positive ticks to Civ V. I'll probably will still get it when a few patches are out..

The one think I didn't really like is what you said about Japan. They are acting basically as Allies, and when you "ramped up your aggression" (hard to know exactly what that was, taken) they suddenly decide they are for all intents and purposes against you? That really doesn't make sense, for most scenarios.

What this Civ V really seems to need, is a revamped diplomacy system. No, not like Civ IV's (which at points caused me to stop playing). Civ IV, while having a few good points, was too Anti-the-Human. They would make requests of you, that they were coded not to make of the other ais. They would make non-sensical demands, they would decide you were their "worst enemy" having met you one turn ago. You'd arrive at their distant shores in 1000 AD with a caravel, and they'd immediately start preparing for a war with you, even though it would take them another 500 yrs to discover Astronomy! They'd ask you to join wars, while offering nothing in return (well maybe a slight temporary diplo boost with them, while of course severely annoying the civ and friends of it that you just declared war on), and if you declined any of the nonsensical requests, they'd basically start sulking.

It was damned if you do, and damned if you don't...but enough of the Civ IV diplomacy.

Back to your Japan and Civ V. If I saw THEM doing what you were doing, I'd have to think a) are they bothering me directly and b) why take sides at this point. In really wouldn't be in my interest to start a massive war against them, my supposed allies.

What Civ V needs at its diplomacy core, is an honor system, first and foremost. Within this, it needs trading pact, and military alliances. None of the silly predetermined Civ IV "warmonger or peacemonger respect", but an organic system that works over time, taking into account the ais' supposed personalities. Civ A starts near Civ B, and starts limited trading. Over time, this becomes more intensive, and they remain at peace. This blossoms into a trade pact. Civ C is more warlike, and Civ A and B eventually decide upon a mutually protection pact, an alliance (not set in rock), but for a certain number of turns. If Civ A suddenly decides to forgoe its pacts with CiV B (without sufficient time having past) it takes a big hit to its honor rating...meaning that it's not to be trusted. It can regain this honor over time (by not breaking its pacts in short).

This of course would work for the player too. Start on a path of wanton destruction and backstabbing, and rightly you should end up with no allies.

But allies are an absolutely necessary part of any game that purports to be about Civilization. You cannot just make a CIV game, where every nation reacts in a blinkered "it's all about me and now" fashion, and their actions have no long term reprocussions. There's no immersion in that.

 

[Roxlimn]

DrewBledsoe:

I found the Japanese concern to be both understandable and historically immersive. I mean, whatever happened to Germany's allies when it started steamrolling Europe? Germany and Japan were nominally allies in WW2, but they each had long term intentions to wipe the other out at some point.

What would America's allies think of America if, instead of liberating cities during the European campaign, it started annexing them instead? Certainly, America had a dim view of the Soviet Union coming out of WW2, even though they were supposed to be allies at that point.

 

[Misterboy]

The one think I didn't really like is what you said about Japan. They are acting basically as Allies, and when you "ramped up your aggression" (hard to know exactly what that was, taken) they suddenly decide they are for all intents and purposes against you? That really doesn't make sense, for most scenarios.

I guess I should have explained a bit more. The treaties I was referring to were the "pacts" I'd made with him. First, he cancelled one of the "pacts of secrecy" we shared against someone... forget who. A few turns later he cancelled our "pact of cooperation". Basically, he's telling me that he's not too happy with what I'm doing. We are still on friendly terms, but he is no longer "positive" towards me. We still have many 30 turn deals in place... and I believe 1 pact of secrecy against Persia, who is his primary rival.

So, we were allies, but he's backing down from that, and sending signals. And he should. My army is three times as big as the next one, and it's infinitely larger than his own. And he is a more war prone personality.

With that said, the Diplo is not perfect and could use some tweaks. I just find most people don't like the lack of transparency. It makes it harder to "game" the AI. They claim the AI is broken, when I think it definitely is not.

Your suggestions on improving the AI are certainly interesting and well thought out though. I have high hopes they will improve it.