A cogent explanation on the shortfalls of Civ V

[EmpireOfCats]

What would America's allies think of America if, instead of liberating cities during the European campaign, it started annexing them instead?

They'd probably have massive anti-American demonstrations, look down on the U.S. as uncultured barbarians, call them aggressive imperialists out to dominate the world, burn the U.S. flag, spit on the American soldiers stationed in their countries, firebomb McDonald's, compare U.S. presidents with Hitler ...

Oh, wait ...

On a more serious note, the annexing penalty is a bit simplistic -- just one building, and the unhappiness is gone? -- but the basic idea is sound. I can't remember the exact mechanism in Masters of Orion 2, but that slower pace of assimilation always felt absolutely perfect.

(Of course, the whole game felt perfect. If only they hadn't screwed up Moo3!)

 

[DrewBledsoe]

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.

1) I have never read of Japan or Germany having any intentions of wiping each other out, they are half a world apart to start with.

2) You have to know quite a lot of history to fully appreciate the Russian position after WWII. A lot of the lands that they annexed, had been Russian less than 80 yrs before (the Eastern Prussian and Polish lands), and had been fought over for centuries. The US annexed a number of Pacific islands, and basically gained control over Japan.

Not saying I agree with what happened in point 2) btw, before anyone accuses me of such.

 

[katipunero]

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.

Please, be my guest. I'd love to know how to get to robotics and steamroll the AI's with mech infantry at 500 A.D.

 

[eoc]

Spoiler :

2) Inconsistent mechanics

Buildings are now rendered useless by many of the games restrictions. Given maintenance costs, the length of building times, and the necessity to maintain constant construction of gold producing and happiness producing structures, a lot of buildings are now useless. To use stables as an example, the time and cost required to get them operational is not worth the trade-off of building extra units without them, especially since this iteration of the franchise allows for fewer units and allows units to carry over xp when upgrading.

Wonders are weaker in this Civ than in any other. While it’s true that every civ game has had its fair share of useless wonders, this one seems to have even weaker ones. Coupled with longer building times, this change makes even less sense.

There are too many units, especially in modern times. You can’t build them all, or even a good fraction of them, when unit maintenance costs and build times are higher, and when the stacking mechanic has been removed.

Conquest has been rendered impossible or extremely slow lacking a genocidal bent. I will pay special attention to this one, as I find it to be one of the most game breaking and poorly conceived mechanics in the entire game. Just like in Civ III, where the costs of overexpansion were too high as a result of the corruption mechanic, there is a strong incentive to raze entire empires because you cannot afford to keep those cities. Annexing the city makes little sense as the cost of a courthouse in terms of maintenance and the happiness hit until that building actually erects is prohibitively expensive. Turning cities into puppets is just as expensive since the AI seems to like massing buildings, which eventually empty your offers in maintenance costs. Even without these mechanisms, massive conquests are too costly, as the happiness hit, even without the occupied city effect, is too restrictive for anything but slow and incremental conquests.

3) Poor A.I.

The AI lacks any challenge in terms of combat tactics.

The behavior of the AI during diplomatic negotiations is mercurial and blind. The player is often treated to bouts of anger for inexplicitly no reason. Concomitantly, the AI also seems to be unphased when the player commits some blatantly hostile acts, such as trading strategic resources to an enemy civilization. In addition, I cannot count the number of times that another civilization has griped about my forces massing on their border when I am trying to attack a mutual enemy that we are both currently engaged in war with on the other side of my ally’s empire or when I only have one unit near their borders, which is exploring. Sometimes I get this and I have nothing near them.

Changing the difficulty does NOT improve the AI. It only gives them greater advantages in terms of production, etc., which you lack. This does nothing to improve the actual mechanics.

Totally agree! You have said what I can't speak out.

 

[hclass]

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?

I uncover my map! That it is!
Nothing much I can do except hunting for as many goody huts as possible and keep watching the slider figure... make sure the -ve figure isn't too high.

I don't claim the above blankly, I have just load my BTS save game to quote you the figures. My settings is Noble, Terra, Huge map (2 gigantic landmasses seperated by ocean, one totally unoccupied by any Civ, of course I see that only much later than turn 100)

At turn 102, it was year BC 2480 in BTS (go! go! check this out!... See figure is easy to be verified, right?):

1. I have 2 cities, 1 worker, 3 scouts and 4 warriors (I am playing Genghis Khan)
2. My first city was building Stonehenge (wonder), 2nd city was building a settler.
3. The game has started with 2 techs and I was researching my no. 10th tech at turn 102. That mean I have covered 7 techs in 102 turns. I can't recall exactly how many of the 7 techs are given by goody huts, but I can be sure it is no more than 2 of them. So, that means in 102 turns I have researched at least 5 tech by my own. (I did pull the slider to max my science)
4. Read my previous reply to you, I don't really like Civ4, and the above 1. to 3. is one of the reason.

JudgeDeath, this is my advice to you, a very sincere one. If you find someone is making up false story about how bad Civ5 is (in this case the blank 1 to 100 turns), wage them with facts and figures, nobody will then be able to condemn you in anyway without hurting himself/herself instead, because they can't provide (by facts and figures) a much more busy or interesting world in the same span of time in BTS either.

Your way, by recalling through your poor memory about Civ3 and Civ4 and make no solid facts is vulnerable... a light wind is all it take to blow you to the other side of the ocean...

Btw, I would like to add this
I just read the Sulla thread and the whole anti-Civ5 group is complaining the ICS role.

I am an alien, for I like ICS (with the condition cities tiles don't overlaps one another)
I hate Civ3 for the 1 shield cities and I like the fact that my gigantic empire in Civ4 Bts (half by conquest and half built by my own) can end up a beautiful world where all cities can be equipped with as many buildings as I like and I can maintain the empire without any unhealthy, lack of gold problem...

 

[JudgeDeath]

It seems that you mistake me (and I was playing Civ IV just before V was released, so I don't have hazy memories at all.). I'm saying that I do at least as much on Civ V for the first 100 turns. Actually I think I do more.

Science Beakers don't spill over it makes sense to tweak your science output - this is generally posited as a bad thing by the Civ IV lovers, but then these same people complain about the lack of things to tweak, quite illogical. I certainly prefer the way Barbarians are in this. Before they just seemed a random pain. There are more of them now, and it's reasonably easy to predict their existence. The addition of City States adds another layer of actions, and makes exploring even more important.

Regarding ICS, I'm not convinced that it's either necessary, or the only strategy. I haven't been doing it and I haven't had any problems.

V isn't perfect, far from it. Certainly the AI needs some significant improvements, and the UI too, plus I agree that Diplomacy is flawed. Many of the other complaints are really just people objecting to the things that are done differently to IV, even when in some cases (I feel) they are a positive step.

 

[Venereus]

Science Beakers don't spill over it makes sense to tweak your science output - this is generally posited as a bad thing by the Civ IV lovers, but then these same people complain about the lack of things to tweak, quite illogical.

There's fun tweaking and annoying tweaking, quite logical. Micromanaging citizens is a PITA, wich is why sliders+overflow were so cool, simpler mechanic, same effects, a lot less work.

 

[masterminded]

It seems that you mistake me (and I was playing Civ IV just before V was released, so I don't have hazy memories at all.). I'm saying that I do at least as much on Civ V for the first 100 turns. Actually I think I do more.

Science Beakers don't spill over it makes sense to tweak your science output - this is generally posited as a bad thing by the Civ IV lovers, but then these same people complain about the lack of things to tweak, quite illogical. I certainly prefer the way Barbarians are in this. Before they just seemed a random pain. There are more of them now, and it's reasonably easy to predict their existence. The addition of City States adds another layer of actions, and makes exploring even more important.

Regarding ICS, I'm not convinced that it's either necessary, or the only strategy. I haven't been doing it and I haven't had any problems.

V isn't perfect, far from it. Certainly the AI needs some significant improvements, and the UI too, plus I agree that Diplomacy is flawed. Many of the other complaints are really just people objecting to the things that are done differently to IV, even when in some cases (I feel) they are a positive step.

Some of the complaints are from some people who want a game like Civ IV. Many of the complaints are from people that think the game's elements come together to provide a linear experience. This is the point of nearly every one of my posts and a central topic of the thread. Many other people have made exactly the same point here and elsewhere, yet nearly every time I see you comment this point is ignored.

Many of us do not want Civ IV. I don't care that religion, civics, espionage, etc. are gone. What I wanted is a sequel that replaces the various sub-systems of Civ IV with other sub-systems, even such is completely unrelated. Instead, there are fewer things to manage then in previous Civ games.

But most of all, I wanted a game that allows for interesting decisions, which are not possible given the linear strategies to victory.

You may disagree this analysis, but please stop claiming that most people just want Civ IV. It's simplistic, dismissive to the concerns of others, inaccurate, and it its disrespectful to those who tell you otherwise.

 

[GenericPlayer]

I agree with pretty much everything the OP said (just saw this thread). After giving Prince and higher a try, I found that the inflation mechanic on unit upkeep was becoming a real drag. Its not like I was fielding a huge army (5 cities and 6 units) - but after a while the upkeep was ballooning. I am used to having the most fun in the late game, only now it is more like an accounting chore. I was able to win, but in every victory instance I felt like the game was showing me to the door.

What the OP said about diplo victory is so true. I was poised once to achieve it and when the time came to make the payoffs...well I began to feel dirty.

 

[masterminded]

I agree with pretty much everything the OP said (just saw this thread). After giving Prince and higher a try, I found that the inflation mechanic on unit upkeep was becoming a real drag. Its not like I was fielding a huge army (5 cities and 6 units) - but after a while the upkeep was ballooning. I am used to having the most fun in the late game, only now it is more like an accounting chore. I was able to win, but in every victory instance I felt like the game was showing me to the door.

What the OP said about diplo victory is so true. I was poised once to achieve it and when the time came to make the payoffs...well I began to feel dirty.

I think you've highlighted the effect of the metagame: the experience is more so one of punishment for deviating from the optimized pathways to victory, rather than one that rewards the player for choosing one of several branching strategies.

 

[Roxlimn]

masterminded:

I object to your calling a longwinded rant an "analysis," especially where you are depending on "Facts" which are provably untrue. Small Civs are not favored in Civ V. It is completely possible to win Culture with large Civs instead of small ones, and you can switch between all the vic conditions quite easily.

In fact, there are posts on this very forum complaining about the exact opposite thing! That Civ V's victory conditions are too easily accessible from any position - that it plays too much the same regardless of what you're pursuing!

 

[masterminded]

masterminded:

I object to your calling a longwinded rant an "analysis," especially where you are depending on "Facts" which are provably untrue. Small Civs are not favored in Civ V. It is completely possible to win Culture with large Civs instead of small ones, and you can switch between all the vic conditions quite easily.

In fact, there are posts on this very forum complaining about the exact opposite thing! That Civ V's victory conditions are too easily accessible from any position - that it plays too much the same regardless of what you're pursuing!

I don't really have anything to say to you, Roxlimn. Every time I respond to your objections you seem to ignore the distinctions, clarifications, etc. and just double-down on your analysis. This type of dialogue is like two ships passing in the night. It's not constructive. Besides, I tire of having every point I make restated by you as a strawman or my motivations questioned in nearly every response of yours. It's certainly not civil of you to do so and this most recent post only highlights that behavior even more. It's nothing more than flamebait.

 

[Roxlimn]

How would this be flamebait?

You outlined your positions and stated your reasons. I attacked those reasons directly and cogently, using easily verifiable facts within the game itself, and by reading obvious threads in the Strategy and Tips forums.

Where are these distinctions and clarifications?

You note that happiness is too heavy-handed. I don't understand what you mean by that, since happiness is graded in two tiers, and is primarily limited by tech and money, which are the two indirect limiters of Civ growth. Since we have both direct and indirect factors, which affect the primary limiter, then primary limiter is then not as hard a cap as you mistakenly perceived it to be (since you can easily acquire more through various means). Happiness is only bounded by how much of it you can afford.

The dialogue only like two ships passing in that you insist on putting forth your mistaken assumptions in the face of obvious and confirmable facts. You have changed your mind on some of these issues, but this is not enough, since you are mistaken on every point in your OP. Every one.

This is not a personal attack, as I clarified on multiple occasions. I am not insulting you. I'm just telling you, for your own sake, that you are wrong on these counts.

 

[masterminded]

How would this be flamebait?

You outlined your positions and stated your reasons. I attacked those reasons directly and cogently, using easily verifiable facts within the game itself, and by reading obvious threads in the Strategy and Tips forums.

Where are these distinctions and clarifications?

You note that happiness is too heavy-handed. I don't understand what you mean by that, since happiness is graded in two tiers, and is primarily limited by tech and money, which are the two indirect limiters of Civ growth. Since we have both direct and indirect factors, which affect the primary limiter, then primary limiter is then not as hard a cap as you mistakenly perceived it to be (since you can easily acquire more through various means). Happiness is only bounded by how much of it you can afford.

The dialogue only like two ships passing in that you insist on putting forth your mistaken assumptions in the face of obvious and confirmable facts. You have changed your mind on some of these issues, but this is not enough, since you are mistaken on every point in your OP. Every one.

This is not a personal attack, as I clarified on multiple occasions. I am not insulting you. I'm just telling you, for your own sake, that you are wrong on these counts.

It's flamebait when out of nowhere you call my claims longwinded rants. And it was out of nowhere. Our conversation had been long done. When you make an insulting claim without any prompt from me, it looks like you are trying to goad me into being antagonistic.

On the number of issues you addressed, all I can say is that I've addressed them. You are treating them as according to my original claims, which I have modified and qualified extensively. I'm not going to reiterate them.

If you are just here to pick a fight, please don't post on this thread. I'm not telling you; I'm asking. If you can't be civil, there is no point to continuing this conversation.

 

[Sock Bramson]

Roxilmn and masterminded are dumb... I win! (hooray!)

Now, to actually add to your current debate by playing the devil's advocate:
1.) [for masterminded] In CiV, you can still choose multiple branching pathways to victory. (i.e. culture helps with more than just a cultural victory because it gives you policies which improve your empire's overall effectiveness). Likewise, there were still "optimal" ways to play CIV. Games will always have optimal strategies; some, like Civ, will have several "best" ways to go about things.

2.) [for Roxlimn] CiV does require more initial planning to win certain victory conditions (mainly cultural); fortunately (/unfortunately, depending on your personality), warring it up is always a viable option. Also, good grammar helps arguments.

Now, unite as one against me! Grow stronger through your cooperation. (although it won't help; I'll just cheat via worldbuilder [muhaha!])

 

[masterminded]

Roxilmn and masterminded are dumb... I win! (hooray!)

Now, to actually add to your current debate by playing the devil's advocate:
1.) [for masterminded] In CiV, you can still choose multiple branching pathways to victory. (i.e. culture helps with more than just a cultural victory because it gives you policies which improve your empire's overall effectiveness). Likewise, there were still "optimal" ways to play CIV. Games will always have optimal strategies; some, like Civ, will have several "best" ways to go about things.

2.) [for Roxlimn] CiV does require more initial planning to win certain victory conditions (mainly cultural); fortunately (/unfortunately, depending on your personality), warring it up is always a viable option. Also, good grammar helps arguments.

Now, unite as one against me! Grow stronger through your cooperation. (although it won't help; I'll just cheat via worldbuilder [muhaha!])

+1 Cookie for effort

 

[Roxlimn]

masterminded:

Not here to pick a fight. I'm just here to make sure none of the misinformation gets spread around. Not sure how calling your claims long-winded rants is insulting. They are kind of longwinded and they do sound rant-ish. I can't very well call them concise praises of the game, now, can I?

Sock Bramson:

Cultural Vic in Civ V requires more initial planning than what, exactly? War? Conquer half the world, build cultural buildings in all of your cities, sell them all before the final policy-buy phase - win. How much initial planning does that take?

In fact, winning Culture in Civ V requires less planning than in Civ IV.

 

[masterminded]

masterminded:

Not here to pick a fight. I'm just here to make sure none of the misinformation gets spread around. Not sure how calling your claims long-winded rants is insulting. They are kind of longwinded and they do sound rant-ish. I can't very well call them concise praises of the game, now, can I?

Sock Bramson:

Cultural Vic in Civ V requires more initial planning than what, exactly? War? Conquer half the world, build cultural buildings in all of your cities, sell them all before the final policy-buy phase - win. How much initial planning does that take?

In fact, winning Culture in Civ V requires less planning than in Civ IV.

Then don't act like it. I gave you the last word in our exchange that ended a week ago. Out of nowhere you post again and called my analysis a long-winded rant. This antagonism wasn't warranted. Given this context, it couldn't be anything but an insult. Don't be so disingenuous by denying it. Just stop posting here if you don't have anything constructive to add.

 

[Sock Bramson]

Of course it takes less planning than CIV, but it still takes more planning than the other victory conditions in V. There are a few key wonders that make it MUCH easier to obtain, i.e. there are specific tech tracks you should probably go for as soon as possible. I tend to make it harder on myself by always annexing cities and never selling 'em off (gotta have some principles ), so when I do go for a culture win, I have to decide to do so from turn 1. (or at least turn 50 or so, whenever I'm able to get mo' purple than with just monuments)

edit: Cookie happily accepted. Anyone have a glass of milk?

 

[Roxlimn]

masterminded:

Now you're insulting me by calling me a liar to my face. Your "analysis" is literally long-winded, and being negative, it is a rant. These are factual statements, not insults. Your input can't be anything other than an insult. You can't be that way and then demand me to be otherwise.

Sock Bramson:

Depends on the circumstance. Sometimes, you don't have enough City States to win Diplomatic. In that case, you have to wage intercontinental wars of liberation, and that isn't always as easy as it sounds.